New School Politics

With the exception of Richard Nixon’s “checkers” speech, I could say of no Vice President or Vice Presidential Candidate’s speech that is of historical note or great political significance.

For that reason, among others, it is very possible that Wednesday night we witnessed a speech that will be of political lore for time to come. Alternatively, Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech at the 2008 RNC could merely be a footnote to one of history’s electoral accidents. Certainly, though, truth will not lie somewhere in between.

Although the final verdict will largely depend on how Palin fares for the next two months–and, with success, the next four years–the convention speech was her first impression on a curious, eager electorate, and the Governor left them enormously impressed.

So lets deal with what we know. Wednesday night’s performance was as expertly executed as it could have possibly been. Not only were Sarah Palin and speechwriter Matthew Scully effective, but they were also so deft as to mute the convention’s mismanagement of time, lack of a transition from Rudy Giuliani’s (also superb, yet overshadowed) speech, and the (exaggerated) teleprompter malfunctions

.

Oh, if only I could have been on the receiving end

The speech touched on four themes, all successfully. First, Palin introduced herself and her family, sentimentalizing her roll as a working mother, with a son going to Iraq and another with down syndrome. Second, Palin spoke on her record as a direct reformer and nature as a Washington outsider to her core. Third, she chided and prodded Barack Obama in both coy and serious tones. And fourth, she opened and closed her speech by saluting John McCain for his honor and bravery, and speaking to his record of reform.

Perhaps no politician in modern history has been catapulted to such a prominent stage so suddenly. Understandably, a myriad of questions surround the westerner, and Wednesday, Palin replied in as sweeping and thorough a manner as possible. She answered them not just with substance, but with style and tone as well.

Governor Palin was beautiful and put-together. She was composed for a seasoned veteran of national politics, never mind a 44-year-old female mayor of a town of 9,000. She spoke clearly and articulately–slipping up perhaps only once. She spoke to the audience, yielding to their exuberance, rather than trying to speak over them. She berated Obama sarcastically and humorously, reducing him from an icon to a caricature. She demonstrated a record and vision of reform. She had gravitas. She showed graceful toughness, striking a happy medium that Hillary Clinton would kill for. And, perhaps most importantly, Sarah Palin connected with women, family men, and the great silent majority of Americans that often elude Democrats.

In one fowl swoop, she compounded the excitement of conservatives, attracted independents, claimed the mantle of reform, and reduced the other ticket to a punch line. Graceful, indeed.

Palin’s addition to the Republican ticket has lifted McCain. Her speech nearly made him an afterthought. In all his infinite oratorical mediocrity, McCain’s largest applause line the night after, reporters noted, was on mention of his new running mate. In less than 24 hours after Palin’s speech the campaign had raised $10 million in fundraising that could only be called Obama-esque.

In 2004, Barack Obama’s keynote address at the DNC introduced him to America and won him a throngs of loyal followers. Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech was like that on amphetamines. It was different in tone than vintage Obama, but it also played to her strengths and, to borrow a term, carried the “fierce urgency of now” like the Illinois Senator could not imagine. It combined the introductory nature of Obama’s speech with the red meat of traditionally great keynote addresses, and it packed pressure like few speeches in modern campaign history.

Palin’s speech Wednesday night was dripping with one liners. However, for it to be memorable, it must be remembered for a theme. Aside from being the Governor’s first impression on the country, it cast her as a tough Washington outsider on par with millions of everyday Americans and their families. Probably the simplest way to describe it is the way she described herself: a pitbull with lipstick. Not just for that quip, but for the tone of the address, I will remember it as the “hockeymom” speech.

Of course, John McCain needs more than just a hockeymom in the coming sprint to the finish line. In the next two months we will see what the mystery woman from Alaska is really made of. Her first test was passed with flying colors. Her biggest test, will be in St. Louis on October 7th when she faces down a fearsome master of Senate debate. After seeing her son off to Iraq, she will spend the better part of three weeks in policy boot camp and needs to come out a formidably versed wonk.

By all means she seems to have the smarts to do it, expectations–like that before the speech–will also be fairly low. But there will be a lot of chances for the Alaskan mother of five to slip up, and to truly become the Republican hero that she could actually be, it will require more than just clearing the bar.

My own inclination, by virtue Palin’s sweeping success in Alaska, impressive debut, and the awesome fanfare surrounding her, is that she will clear the bar with ease. My greatest hope is that she will be a different breed–a rational reformer who will humble the Republican party and reduce the size of government. My greatest fear is that she will be Bush in stilettos–she’ll keep trying to save the world, keep trying to save people from themselves, and clear the bar in populist fashion.

Regardless, we are witnessing history. For the time being, it appears that a rock star has been born. And its a girl.

UPDATE (October): I was wrong.

Popularity: 48% [?]

Breaking shortly ago, Sarah Palin’s 17-year-old daughter, Bristol Palin, is known to be five months pregnant. She intends to keep the baby and also marry the father (whose identity is not currently known).

The McCain campaign has noted that the Senator knew of this before he made his selection which confirms theories that in addition to lobbying for the women’s vote, the GOP is now aggressively pursuing the teenage-mom vote which experts believe could be an election-changing demographic in ‘08.

There is still no evidence that Trig Palin, Sarah Palin’s fifth child who was born with down syndrome just months ago is actually the daughter of Bristol Palin as some liberal blogs have alleged (although the Daily Kos gives a pretty good hack at it). This makes sense when you consider that for teenage mothers the chance of giving birth to a child with DS is about 0.1%, while that of a 45-year-old mother is 3.6%

Regardless, since the news inconveniently and coincidentally (hmm…) broke the same morning as the landfall of Hurricane Gustav near New Orleans, it appears that this juicy story may be drowned out by the news surge south.

Oh Gustav, why must you wreak so much havoc?!

UPDATE: As if this wasn’t enough for one day, the McCain campaign also announced that presumptive GOP nominee for “First Dude,” Todd “The Todd” Palin, was arrested on a DUI charge 21 years ago at the age of 22.

Popularity: 46% [?]

By early this morning conventional picks, including Pawlenty and Romney, have all admitted that they have not been tapped to run with John McCain on the GOP ticket.

In light of this news, word broke early this morning that an unidentified private plane arived in Ohio this morning from Anchorage, AK from which a woman and two teenagers were reported exiting.

Now CNBC and the Chicago Tribune are confirming that it was Palin according to their Republican source.

By all means this is a surprising and historic pick, that actually should please reform-minded conservatives. Palin is an outsider in every way imaginable. She took on the Stevens-Murkowski-Young-style Alaska political machine, defeated the incumbent GOP governor in the 2006 primary, took on all sorts of ethics reform, and has an approval rating around 80%. She has made some of the biggest budget cuts in her state’s history and has presided over a historic fiscal surplus (that must foremost be credited to the boom in oil prices).

She is also, of course, a woman. A 44-year-old mother of five, she is three years younger than Barack Obama and has four more children than Hillary Clinton. She is a self-proclaimed soccer mom, life-time NRA member, and pro-lifer. She has been friendly to gay rights in maverick-fashion while remaining against gay marriage.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, 24 years ago she won second place in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant and, if I do say so myself, remains quite attractive today.

So, in light of this historic moment, let me be the first to coin the term: V.P.I.L.F. (if not culturally deft, heres a hint)

Popularity: 39% [?]

Step Two: Insert foot.

In response to a survey during the primary asking, “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?” Senator Obama checked “Yes.” He elaborated:

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns…If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Clearly, John McCain’s reaction indicated that there was no effort from Barack Obama “pursuing an agreement” on public financing so to keep it in place.

The Senator has had little trouble finding spare change

But of course things have changed since February of this year–Obama discovered he hasn’t the age-old Democrat’s fundraising handicap. Nay, he’s actually got quite the knack for raising money. So much so that he expects a cash flow great enough to able him to spend more than the $84.1 million limit that public financing mandates.

Money talks. And apparently what it says is more trustworthy than what flimsy pols like Barack Obama say. David Brooks hit the nail on the head–as he often does–with his column entitled, “The Two Obamas.”

But as recent weeks have made clear, Barack Obama is the most split-personality politician in the country today. On the one hand, there is Dr. Barack, the high-minded, Niebuhr-quoting speechifier who spent this past winter thrilling the Scarlett Johansson set and feeling the fierce urgency of now. But then on the other side, there’s Fast Eddie Obama, the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes.

This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate the Machiavellian ambition inside.

Senator Obama has made a career out of commanding oratory and the image of a new and different and transcending and trustworthy politician. But everywhere we look, he has not fulfilled his own prophecy.

As Brooks notes, Senator Obama could “no more disown” the derisive Reverend Jeremiah Wright than his own grandmother–so he claimed. But when political circumstances changed, he dropped Wright like a sack of potatoes after their noted 20 year history.

Obama could have accepted Senator McCain’s proposal for 10 one-on-one town hall meetings–an unprompted, candid discussion with his opponent and the American people that screams born-again politics–but he has not, and will not take such a strategic risk.

The Senator could have cast legislative votes in the same non-partisan manner that he espouses on the stump, but his voting record indicates he is one of the least, if not the least, likely to step out of the party line.

The Senator could have taken tough stances on votes in the Illinois State Senate or taken the initiative to use his keen political skills to lead on certain vital legislative issues, but he has done neither.

The issue of campaign financing is only more evidence that Barack Obama is anything but the messianic public figure that him, his campaign, and his supporters (including many in the press) have made him out to be. While I wouldn’t usually waste my time blogging about a seeming textbook flip-flop, let’s remember who is making it. This is the man who was supposed to restore public confidence to the political system. This is the man who was supposed to change the way politics is done in Washington. But it is only style, not substance, that would indicate that.

ADDENDUM: The above news came the same week that John McCain himself flopped on the issue of federal offshore drilling moratoriums. And before I get criticized for only rebuking Obama, let it be know that I am not turning a blind eye to the GOP’s nominee.

The difference as I see it however is that Barack Obama choses to ride a far higher horse, which makes his reversal more noteworthy. Moreover, now that he has gone with the wind, at least John McCain has the right position on the issue of drilling. Regardless of how much he pandered to get to his stance, what this means is that if the Arizona Senator gets his way the government will reduce its restrictions on energy production in this country, and thats a good thing.

Popularity: 66% [?]

From the NYT, regarding his proposals on taxes and spending:

The problem is that the campaign has been far, far more detailed about its tax cuts, which would worsen the deficit, than its spending cuts, which would reduce it. Mr. McCain has proposed the elimination of the alternative minimum tax (at a cost of $60 billion a year), new child tax deductions ($65 billion), a corporate tax cut ($100 billion) and faster write-offs for corporate investments in new equipment ($50 billion to $75 billion).

On the spending side, the senator talks broadly about cracking down on pork barrel projects and holding agencies accountable for their budgets. These steps, Mr. Holtz-Eakin told me, could eventually bring $150 billion a year in savings. He added that given Mr. McCain’s history of fighting against wasteful spending, he deserved the benefit of the doubt.

It would be easier to give him that benefit, though, if he weren’t so vague. For decades presidential candidates have been promising to cut waste, fraud and abuse, and no one has yet made a noticeable dent in the federal budget.

As Mr. McCain’s plan currently stands, The Economist magazine concluded that it “will not come anywhere close to paying for the tax cuts.” Most telling, I spoke over the past week with several other economists who admire Mr. McCain and have advised him over the years. None would defend his current fiscal package (or be quoted).

Neadless to say, there is a hole at least $150 billion wide in McCain’s economic agenda. At least, however, McCain isn’t using the old “the tax cuts will pay for themself” defense–didn’t work so well in the past eight years.

For a myriad of reasons though, I have relative confidence that McCain will attempt to control spending proportionately to the Bush and would-be McCain tax cuts. However, it will take much more than crusading against pork barreling, which accounts for about $30 billion of the budget if my memory serves me.

What it will take is addressing much, much bigger programs including the great third rails–Social Security and Medicare, whose costs are rising at an alarming rate (already SS is the biggest government program in the history of mankind). On his website he at all specific about how he will address these issues or control spending other than eliminating earmarks and freezing non-military discretionary spending.

Much of McCain’s credibility centers around the idea that he speaks his mind and does what he believes regardless of the political convenience. In this case, he is not living up to that. We have seen McCain’s specifics on tax cuts, but that’s the easy stuff. What really matter’s is how–and if–he will cut spending, but it is also not a very popular topic.

If McCain really believes what he says about spending and the size of government, he will begin thinking hard about how he will squeeze the budget. After all, if you don’t propose any cuts in spending, you shouldn’t expect the deficit to narrow any time soon.

Popularity: 59% [?]

John McCain has all the national security credentials he needs. He was one of the few to stand up to the failed Iraq policy and to question the Bush administration; he can be partially credited with the succesful change in policy we see today. While McCain also has a good reputation on spending, his economic qualifications (not that Obama’s or Hillary’s are noteworthy) are lacking.
Mitt Romney, a man who I see as an ideal candidate for his Vice Presidential pick (I of course did support his bid for president), has the economic qualifications that McCain needs on the ticket with him. Of course,
McCain is already known to the American people as someone who is a hero, tough on spending, and right on Iraq. Romney over the course of the last 8 months is someone who has built tremendous name recognition and many are now aware of his accomplishments in business, as the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic chairman, and as Governor of the State of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney should be John McCain’s running mate in his November presidential bid.

There are several qualifications that McCain’s running mate will need to satisfy:

1. Executive
2. True Conservative
3. Bring in additional states
4. Have a strong base of support
5. Be media tested

1. McCain needs to pick an executive for his running mate. I would be hard pressed to find a person more experienced (perhaps General David Patreaus in Iraq, but it is rumored he is planning for a run after 2012) than Governor Romney. Romney was of course the lead consultant for Bain Capital, then the manager of their investment fund, the chairman of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics (where he turned a $500+ deficit into a $300 million surplus), and Governor of Massachusetts. As Jim Cramer said, “Romney is the best business man in North America.” That is quite a statement coming from Cramer and that kind of language speaks volumes about his expertise in dealing with the economy. No one could argue with what a job he did in Utah’s Olympics where he is still to this day hailed as a hero (to understand why, research the financial disasters that typically follow Olympics such as in Atlanta, Athens, etc…). An associate I know who is an active member of the US Olympic Committee, former Gold Medal champion, and Hillary Clinton supporter even admitted to me that Governor Romney was one of the most professional individuals she ever worked with. Coming from someone across the aisle, that is something that should also speak volumes about his leadership ability. While his time in Massachusetts was short, he did manage to energize the economy, pass education reform, balance the budget, and is the only Governor in the Union to have addressed healthcare. His healthcare plan is far from perfect, but two things should be noted. A-he was a Republican elected in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country. B-He was successful in legislating in the state. This is significant because one of the primary jobs of the VP is to act in the Senate as a representative for the administration in power (and of course break tied votes). Romney has proven that he is capable of running the country in the event that something happens to McCain, and also that he can perform all of the tasks required of a Vice President with tremendous skill.

2. John McCain needs to pick a true conservative to be his Vice Presidential candidate. There are some who claim that Romney was a flip-flopper, or that he lacked “social conservative” credentials, but in the last days of the campaign it became apparent that he was whole heartedly accepted by the conservative movement in the party. He is the only prominent Republican who can ensure that the powerful “wall street conservatives” do not stray to the left and fundraise for either Obama or Hillary. Romney has been a strong fiscal conservative all his career and despite what he said in his 1992 senatorial bid against Ted Kennedy (the strongest opponent Kennedy has yet faced), Romney did com down on the “right” side of life while he was Governor of Massachusetts. Aside from Newt Gingrich , I cannot think of a more prominent conservative; but again like many strong conservatives, Gingrich lacks the vital executive experience that Romney carriers. McCain and his Vice Presidential Search Committee will be hard pressed to find any prominent conservative as qualified as Mitt Romney.

3. Mitt Romney won by overwhelming margins in Wyoming, Utah, and many other strongly conservative states during the primary season. I have been to three western states since Christmas (Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho) and I noticed that almost every Republican I encountered in all three states were Romney supporters. Additionally, Mitt Romney worked very hard to strengthen his social conservative message in evangelical states during the primary season and it is doubtful that he will have much more convincing to do. He and Mike Huckabee were the two candidates fighting over the socially conservative voters, but Huckabee lacks the important ability to also court true fiscal conservatives at the same time. It should be important to note that Romney had the best record in attracting a broad range of self identified conservatives in the primary season, Romney is one of the only men who has the ability to repair the coalition that Ronald Reagan built. Governor Romney also was of course the Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the country. That in itself is a feat that the McCain campaign should examine closely, I doubt that there are too many other individuals who could perform as well in both conservative states and liberal ones as Mitt Romney. His 1992 senatorial bid against Ted Kennedy was also one of the most difficult fights Kennedy has ever faced in his long standing Senatorial career. While McCain can attract many independents in the next election, he will need someone like Romney to garner the support of the parties true conservatives. Unless Bloomberg had entered this race, there is not another executive in the country aside from Mitt Romney with the ability to get overwhelming support of the business vote. Romney can attract the conservative votes that McCain needs in November and for that reason alone he should be on McCain’s short list.

4. Mitt Romney already has a strong base of support. At the end of his presidential bid, Romney was hailed as a true conservative at CPAC2008 and there were literally tears in the room when he announced with withdrawal from the race. Romney did manage to correct his message at the end of the campaign to that of the “economic leader” and “business expert”, he was the one who could “bring change to Washington.” It is clear that Romney has the support of many conservatives in the party who are still hesitant of McCain. If McCain wants to sure up these votes, he should turn to Romney. Romney also has one of the best campaign teams ever assembled. It is no secret that he is most likely planning a ‘12 run (a source close to Romney has confirmed that to me in an email), and that is ready to go on a moments notice because of his continued political aspirations. Romney’s campaign team would be a tremendous asset to McCain (someone who is a notoriously bad campaigner). The key to Romney’s campaign team is also his finance staff led by Spencer Zwick , one of the most talented fundraisers in the GOP. Of course, the amount of money Romney raised pales in comparison to that of the Democratic candidates, but even without his own personal contributions his financing ability vastly outstripped all of his Republican rivals. The Bush administration is also pushing for an M&M ticket. While this fact may deter some who fear connections with Bush as a possible hinderance in the next election, it is important to remember that Karl Rove, perhaps the greatest campaign strategist alive is not only a strong proponent of the ticket, but is also a McCain advisor. If the ticket did not provide the best possible means for a Republican victory, I doubt Rove would be calling for it.

5. Like John McCain, Mitt Romney is media tested. He faced a brutal race with demeaning attack ads when he ran against Ted Kennedy’s political machine in 1992. He had to fight an uphill battle for his gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, and he won. He also faced much scrutiny against John McCain and the other Republican rivals during the primary season. Many claimed he was the best debater of the GOP nominees and with the exception of Barrack Obama, he certainly had the best TV presence of anyone on either side of the race. While there may be many other conservatives in the race who have good records, none of them have the spotless personal record that Romney has and very few people in the country have the media exposure that he possesses. Romney is cool in front of the camera, that is another trait the McCain campaign should look upon very favorably.

Mitt Romney satisfies all of the qualifications to be President of the United States, let alone a running mate. If it were not the personal dislike between McCain and Governor Romney, the ticket would be obvious and it would already be solidified. Yet, these are two adults who have spent the last twenty fives years of their lives negotiating (legislating for McCain, business for Romney) and who both know how to put past differences behind them. After spending years in the Hanoi Hilton, I believe that Senator McCain can forgive Romney for the policy attack ads he ran against him in the primary states. Whatever personal reasons McCain has for disliking Mitt Romney he needs to overcome them. For the future of the free world, these two men should be able to overcome their personal squabbles, if not-perhaps neither are fit to sit in the oval office.

Popularity: 34% [?]

With projected victory in OH, TX, RI, and VT tonight John McCain is expected to become the official nominee by surpassing 1,191 delegates necessary to secure the nomination.

As soon as tomorrow, the AZ Senator is expected to be endorsed in person by Huckabee, President Bush, and the Republican National Committee. The White House has indicated that the President would also like to campaign on the trail with McCain. This raises an interesting question: how desirable the active support of Bush is to McCain considering his approval stands at little more than 30%?

To be sure the President could help with massive fundraising–which has been a weekness for McCain and other Republicans–and also help with the conservative base–which is also a weakness for McCain. That being said, so much Bush could only help so much for the moderate conservative who will need to appeal to independents in 2008 in the face of general Republican unpopularity. Time will tell how the campaign strikes the delacate balance.

Popularity: 13% [?]

At 7 pm EST, the time polls closed in Vermont, sources predict Obama to win the state of Vermont. It comes as no surprise considering Vermont is one of the most liberal states in the union. Contrary to most states, the Iraq war was tied for the most important issue with the Economy, and Obama won by a lot among voters who identified with the Iraq issue (exit polls). While this victory is no surprise, it is interesting to note that Obama could net more delegates from Vermont (winning +5, if he ends up with 65% of the vote) than Clinton could if she won a narrow victory in Ohio.

Polls just closed in Ohio, where McCain was declared the victor while its too close to call on the other end. Polls had Hillary up by about 7 pts in the poll averages, in large part due to the fact that it is a blue collar state with large economic concerns, although the latest Zogby poll says the race is tied.

Texas polls close at 9 pm EST, and polls indicate the Dem race is razor close there. While Obama pulled ahead in the averages in the past two weeks, Clinton seems to have wrestle that slim lead back from him. She appears to be up by about 2 percentage pts. Because of the mix of caucuses and primary in Texas, Obama is expected to win the Texas delegate count, but the popular vote is up for grabs and has a particular momentum value for the campaigns.

Rhode Island has 35 delegates, the majority of whom are anticipated to go to Sen. Clinton.

Meanwhile, on the GOP side, John McCain has already wrapped up VT and OH. The big test for the GOP tonight is whether McCain will win enough votes to wrap up the official nomination tonight.

NSP will have coverage throughout the night, so stay tuned.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Bill Buckley, the conservative writer, commentator, and founder of National Review, died yesterday at the age of 82 in the town neighboring my own. I have subsequently spent time reading more on the man and watching more of him. His prominence is owed to his unfettered defense of conservatism throughout the post-WWII era when the Left really dominated the zeitgeist and moderates, in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller, had a hold of the Republican Party. Today, American politics is centered noticeably further to the right in part because of Buckley’s promotion of figures from Barry Goldwater to Ronald Regan. And the fact that it is now hard to imagine the Nixons and Rockefellers of the world leading the GOP is a tribute to Buckley’s way with words.

In the second-ever issue of his brain-child, the National Review, he declared the magazines mission statement, which included its famous vow to “stand athwart history yelling, stop.” While this represents my own fundamental discontent with the philosophy of conservatism–for no philosophy can have merit by virtue of being the status quo–it appeals to both my romantic sense, by unequivocally promising to fight for a successful tradition, and my rational one, by standing for limited government and individualism at a time when collectivism was rising to the top of the intellectual order.

The doctrines of conservatism, which today is often cast as a three-legged stool consisting of aggressive national defense, traditional social values, and economic libertarianism, was different in many ways from what it was in 1955. Perhaps the biggest change from early Cold War conservatism, was the relative rise of the third prong, economic libertarianism, which Buckley was particularly known for. As a matter of fact, he claimed that he floated between the self-label of conservative and libertarian for some time during the latter part of his career. Additionally, he came out against the war on drugs later in life, but at the same time his reasoning was rooted in the impracticality of the fight rather than individual rights–hardly the essence of a true libertarian.

Politics aside, what remembrances seem to have concentrated on are the style of the man himself and his unmatched way with words. Watching him and hearing him and reading him, I gained a sense of an aura of refined elitism–and I mean that in only the best way–that arose from his able mind and own rebelilon against the liberal intelligentsia. His quick wit and sesquipedalian vocabulary were second to none and made his writing unmistakable.

Of all the obituaries I read today, here are the links to the five best:

from The New York Times

from Ann Coulter

from The Nation

and from the the two most Buckley-esque journalists left: Peggy Noonan and George Will

While the sources of these articles generally mix as well as water and vinegar, all of their memorials include great recollections of the man and are well done. The irony of the timing of Buckley’s death is that it coincided with the nomination of a Republican presidential candidate who is out of favor with self-proclaimed conservatives and who appeals to the center of politics, while the Democrats may be running on their most liberal platform in decades this year. The question remains: did Buckley die alongside the modern conservative movement for which he served as a fountainhead? I think that is probably overly-simplistic, but the question has been asked and is well worth asking. I anticipate that the American conservatism is still politically strong despite an unpopular president and will remain more like the party of Ronald Reagan than that of Gerald Ford in the years to come.

Popularity: 36% [?]

Since the negative article was published on the front page of the Wednesday Times, the backlash has been overwhelming against the story. An article from today’s Daily News covered not only the backlash but also the response of the Time’s executive editor.  It sounds a lot like he is blaming readers too:

The embattled executive editor of the New York Times defended its John McCain story Friday with a novel explanation for the flood of critical e-mails the newspaper received: slow-witted readers.

“Personally, I was surprised by the volume of the reaction,” Bill Keller wrote in a Times Web site Q&A forum. Readers posted 2,000 comments and sent in 3,700 questions.

“I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot,” Keller added.

The problem, Keller went on, is that readers didn’t get it. “Frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story.”

That point, he said, was that McCain, “this man who prizes his honor above all things and who appreciates the importance of appearances, also has a history of being sometimes careless about the appearance of impropriety, about his reputation.”

Not only is the paper’s top editor arrogant in his defense, he does not actually address the substantive grievances raised about the story first among those being why the article featured a completely unsubstantiated implication of sexual impropriety with a lobbyist.

The rest of the story did little more than summarize past questions about potential conflicts of interest between McCain and certain lobbied interests on no more than a few occasions. It did not break any story younger than the eight-year-old story of the female lobbyist and went all the way back to the Keating Five controversy back in the late ’80s.

The common denominator among the few of these stories is that not one iota of malfeasance has ever been brought to light in the decades they have been known to the public. The Times’ front page article did not change that–at all. And its nothing more than arrogance and wishful thinking on the part of Keller and the Grey Lady to suppose that fault over the matter lies, not with the editorializing of news, but with the readers.

At the end of the day, however, this story may be a blessing in disguise for McCain who has trouble exciting conservative Republicans. But if the “liberal media” has it out for the presumptive nominee then he must not be so bad (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). For instance, conservative talk show hosts, who have spent the past month or so discrediting McCain’s ideological credentials, have rallied around him on this issue as have donors. Essentially, the Times story gave conservatives something to get excited about. And whereas funding for Republicans had been hard to come by of late, this controversy has been the fountainhead of new donations:

 Team McCain has parlayed The New York Times anonymous-source hit on the GOP front-runner into a cash bonanza.

A campaign fund-raising letter ripping the “particularly disgusting” Times story and pleading with contributors to fight back “was the most successful to date,” a top McCain aide said Friday.

The aide gave no numbers, but the McCain campaign reported raising $11.7 million last month - topping the $6.8 million he collected in the previous three months combined.

The Republican National Committee sought to piggyback on McCain’s success with a similar fund-raising letter of “outrage” at The Times. That prompted a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser defending The Times.

Popularity: 25% [?]