Blogcritics

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Time to Rethink the Nomination Process

Drew McKissick — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:11:25 EDT

The first ballots for President will not be cast for almost a year and the nomination process is already approaching full tilt. It will soon get even more hectic if several states have their way.States such as Florida, California, Illinois and New Jersey are working to move their presidential primary dates up earlier in 2008 in order to grab a share of the media spotlight that shines on states that vote early in the process. In fact, over half of all states, representing almost three-fourths of the total US population, could be holding their primaries or caucuses on February 5th of next year - a full month before what used to be known as "Super Tuesday".Clearly someone needs to declare a cease-fire in the battle for the national limelight. When this cycle is over, the political parties and state governments should work to broker an agreement creating a rotating system of primary and caucus dates. So many delegates from so many states elected within such a short time frame means that we're getting closer to a de-facto national primary, which is good for no one but the insanely rich or the already well known.The irony is that, with so many states voting earlier in the process, they only decrease the influence their own voters will have on the outcome. No state will be special anymore, as the media and the candidates will have too many places to spend their time. In fact the media coverage itself - not the states or their voters - becomes much more paramount. In many ways it almost becomes the process.Years ago, many small states moved their primaries up earlier in the process to help offset the fact that they were so small and had few delegates to their national conventions. And since such small states are usually easier and cheaper to campaign in, more candidates are inclined to run. This is a good thing.The main reason those states have became so important is simply because the media is so quick to write off anyone who doesn't win them - despite the fact that they have only a tiny percentage of the total delegates needed to win. And why does that media coverage become so important? In a word, money.Being declared a "winner" or a "loser" in those small early states by the media means that some donor somewhere will be more or less likely to give money to particular candidates. That then means that some candidates will be more or less able to compete in the big states because those states are also the ones with the most expensive media markets. And if you can't pay to be on TV in those states, you can't win.In fact TV is really what's gone wrong with this whole process, which is less a product of the political parties and more a result of the 24 hour news cycle. Each of the major news outlets has an arrangement with a major research company that produces the crack cocaine of the news room - the horse-race poll. And since it's the media's job to fill empty airtime and blank pages - and the polling companies get paid to do polls - viola!, you get two or three of these polls produced every week.In other words, the media pays a pollster to ask voters some questions so they've then got "news" to report and, as a result, the "news" becomes all about who's up and who's down and very little about substance.The there's the cost of TV advertising. If it were free, then it wouldn't matter nearly as much who won a few thousand votes in Iowa in the middle of winter. The candidates would still be able to campaign in the big, expensive states with free TV time. And those states wouldn't get ignored, which caused them to start moving to the front of the calendar to begin with.Instead of breaking their necks to bunch up their primary dates and thereby hand the process over to the media, the states should get-together and demand that Congress help them take the process back FROM the media. Mandate that the television stations that make so much money off of our public airwaves by way of their government issued broadcast licenses grant some free airtime to political candidates. It would seem like a fair trade. And it makes more sense than limiting how much money each American can contribute to political campaigns, since TV is what makes the process cost so much to begin with.The result would be a less rushed and more competitive campaign season, and a better look at all the candidates by a larger segment of the public. Sounds like an improvement to me.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Poor Hillary

Drew McKissick — Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:27:47 EST

It ain’t easy being Hillary. As far as the general public is concerned, she’s the single most divisive major political figure in the Democrat party; while the various liberal constituencies that constitute the Democrat’s party base worry that she’s not liberal enough. Some who consider her too far to the right on the war issue even took to heckling her at a recent speech to the Democrat National Committee.Poor Hillary. It’s not as though she’s brought any of these problems on herself. First, there was her clumsy entrance onto the national political stage in 1992 with that famous reference to “not staying home and baking cookies” or “standing by her man like Tammy Wynette” in vague reference to Bubba’s past indiscretions. Then there was the attempted nationalized health-care debacle, questionable profits in cattle futures, missing law firm billing records that suddenly materialize in plain sight, suspicious suicides on the part of close friends, Whitewater, and then of course those continued “indiscretions” on the part of her husband.But after enduring all that she finally got the payoff and made it to the big game in her own right – even if she had to move to another state to do it. All the while, she’s been biding her time, waiting for the right moment to taker her shot at what she thought should have been hers all along – the White House.The ground was prepared. Her U.S. Senate campaigns in New York were used as vehicles to build the national fundraising base she would need, as well as to hire the staffers and consultants that would be needed in preparation of a White House bid once re-election was secured in 2006. All the boxes were checked. Nomination seemed like a fait accompli. She could take her time and make a fashionably late grand entrance when ready.But some funny things happened on the way to the coronation. The radical base of the Democrat party grew more empowered, and the more empowered they became, the more they demanded of the woman who would have their support – so much so that many of them see her as their last choice for a presidential nominee.Her primary strength among Democrats at large had been her perceived electability, but a January Gallup poll shows that doubts about her ability to win that have been taking their toll. When asked if they were voting for presidential nominees today whom they would vote for, thirty-four percent said they would definitely vote for her. Fifty-two percent said they “might consider” her, while fourteen percent said “definitely not”. Among the two-thirds that weren’t “definitely” for her, the number one reason given was that they didn’t think she could win.Then there was John Edwards, free from the constraints of the Senate and even freer to be a bomb thrower. He’s constantly creating situations that needed or even demanded her response, uncomfortably causing her to put herself on the record when she would rather not do so. In short, Edwards has kept giving the far left of the party more reasons to be unhappy with her.Then, to make matters worse, along came the new media darling Barak Obama. Like the kid who transfers from another school and becomes instantly popular, Obama began to steal much of the oxygen she was used to having all to herself. Even the young generation is getting in on the act, turning his “Million for Obama” Facebook campaign into a political Internet phenomenon. To add insult to injury, the new kid is barely two years removed from being a mere state senator, the national political equivalent of grade school.Even Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg – previously reliable Clinton financiers – have jumped on the Obama bandwagon, recently hosting a $2,300 per plate fundraiser for him. George Soros sent Obama a check as soon as he formed his exploratory committee. And worst of all, Barbara Streisand herself is no longer in the bag. Babs recently announced that she would be hedging her bets, so to speak, by contributing to Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.And in the aftermath of the Democrat’s takeover of Congress, in walked Nancy Pelosi to steal the role of the lead woman in the Democratic orbit, removing some of the novelty associated with having a woman in such a major role on the national stage. So what’s left for Hillary?Suddenly, two things she could normally count on, being the primary subject of the media’s adulation and the primary beneficiary of big campaign bucks from the Hollywood elite, are no longer sure things.And now, here she is, forced to play a game of political hopscotch with John Edwards and Barak Obama. Forced to actually campaign for support that should have been hers by right.Poor, poor Hillary.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Beware the Reformers

Drew McKissick — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 19:45:04 EST

There they go again. Ever vigilant to protect themselves from democracy, the self-styled reformers in Congress are attempting to diminish the capacity of average Americans to have an impact on their own government. This isn't the first time.In 2001, Congress passed a campaign finance reform bill, known as McCain-Feingold, which was geared towards controlling how Americans and political parties could participate in elections. Now the reformers are trying to take the next logical step - controlling how Americans can participate in the political process once the elections are over.Under current proposals, anyone who "encourages members of the general public" to communicate their views on any issue to a federal official could be categorized as a lobbyist and subject to reporting restrictions. This means that communications among the general public on issues before the Congress become subject to regulation by the Congress!One such proposal from the House Democrat leadership would "require groups to account for and disclose their efforts at grassroots lobbying" and prescribes civil penalties upwards of $200,000, in addition to criminal penalties for failure to comply. How's that for free speech?One of the key Republican supporters of such an approach in the past has been none other than Senator (and presidential candidate) John McCain, who had his own bill aimed at grassroots lobbying in the 2006 Congress. Entitled the "Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act", it would have redefined the term "lobbyist" to include "grassroots lobbyists". Further, it defined "grassroots lobbyist" as anyone attempting "to influence the public, or segments thereof, to engage in lobbying contacts" with members of Congress. In an interview with talk show host Don Imus in April of last year, McCain displayed his love of free speech saying that "I would rather have a clean government than one where 'First Amendment rights' are being respected..." McCain tried to mitigate some of the damage with the "First Amendment" crowd last week by opposing the same type of measures that were in his own bill.The bottom line from the reformers? If you want to encourage your friends to contact their government on an issue you care about, you're a lobbyist. And you'd better get your paperwork in buddy, because bureaucrats live to enforce this kind of garbage.Is there anyone who seriously believes that elected officials can be counted on to take no action whatsoever against those who attempt to generate unwanted public scrutiny? Many people have legitimate reasons for wishing to remain anonymous when acting on their opinions in the political arena. Ever wonder why we have the secret ballot?Grassroots lobbying is disclosed enough as it is. The messages that are delivered are not secret messages to government officials, but rather public messages written to citizens laying out the merits of an issue and urging THEM to contact their elected officials. In the process, the public can decide for themselves. They may even read such messages and take an entirely opposite position, even contacting their elected officials and demanding that they do the exact opposite. What could be more democratic?The problem is that this isn't about democracy. It's about the desire of some politicians to know "who" is making life difficult from them. Forced disclosure of "who" is encouraging such contact enables the politicians to retaliate. And requiring registration discourages those who may have otherwise acted on their beliefs from participating to begin with.A recent study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project estimates that over fourteen million people currently qualify as "online political activists" - people who write and post their own opinions, the opinions of others, and forward them to others via email, audio and video. In the eyes of some members of Congress, that's fourteen million potential "grassroots lobbyists" whose activity needs to be regulated.Being able to anonymously advocate on behalf of one's own opinions is entrenched in our country's history and heritage. It was practiced by no less than our own founding fathers, most notably those who authored the Federalist Papers as an encouragement for ratification of our Constitution. Suffice it to say, they didn't consider it a problem in need of reform.As Ronald Reagan once said of elected officials, "When they feel the heat, they see the light". This type of "reform" is an instance of politicians trying to turn off the heat and blow out the pilot light.Don't call them, they'll call you - and usually for a campaign contribution.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Special Rights, Not Equal Rights

Drew McKissick — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:43:04 EST

The jig is up. We can now officially put to bed the lie that advocates of gay marriage only want equal rights. According to a Reuters story out of Connecticut, eight gay and lesbian couples are asking that state's Supreme Court to mandate the legalization of gay marriage. You should know that Connecticut is a state that already grants the "rights and benefits" of marriage to homosexuals under a civil unions law.The couples claim they are seeking the right to marry because "a ban on gay marriage violates their constitutional rights". They claim not being able to marry is a violation of their equal protection rights under the Constitution. Oh? What rights as individuals are they being deprived of? Surely not privacy. The Supreme Court covered their rights to conduct their special behavior under the un-enumerated right to privacy several years ago in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision.What this is really about is their "right" to force everyone else, via the state, by way of the judiciary, to approve of - and officially sanction - their behavior and grant them rights and benefits on the basis of that behavior alone. It would seem that, if they have the right to everyone else's approval, then everyone else no longer retains the rights to their own opinions. Of course, that irony isn't lost on them, just ignored.They're proving that they don't just want their rights to privacy, and they're not satisfied with being granted equal rights based on their behavior. They want it all baby! They're opposed to marriage licenses with checkboxes marked "husband" and "wife". They're against the state issuing birth certificates that identify "mother" and "father". Essentially, they want the eradication of sex as a distinction.If they are granted such rights, what happens to the rights of others? What about the rights of religious groups that provide adoption services and who's faith will not allow them to place children with homosexual couples? What about the rights of society to govern itself in a way that protects its future? What about the rights of children?Aside from its purpose of creating an entity to foster an atmosphere for the growth and nurturing of the next generation and protecting the family's resources, there would be no reason for marriage to exist. What's left is just a corporation. The state, as well as many private institutions, offer benefits and inducements to encourage male and female partners to sacrifice their individual rights and freedoms to that of the marriage, for the sake of the next generation. And if society has an interest in anything, it should be its future generations.This is a subject that the American people have spoken out very loudly and very clearly on. State constitutional amendments or similar referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman have passed by an average of seventy percent of the vote in twenty-seven out of twenty-eight states where they have appeared on the ballot. Bypassing the will of overwhelming majorities of the electorate on an issue that would have repercussions all throughout our legal system will give us what we have in the abortion debate; an unsettled political issue that was never fully aired, thanks to the judiciary.And make no mistake about it, we are headed to a lawyer's dream world when it comes to litigation that would spring from such a radical redefinition of marriage. The institution is so interwoven into our legal structure that simply changing the definition of the term would call other laws that contain the term into question. The class actions suits would fly. Add the fact that people are constantly moving from state to state and the problem gets worse. The challenges to one state's laws on the basis of marriages in other states will flood the courts.Already, the state of Virginia is as odds with Vermont and a lesbian who divorced her former partner in a civil union in that state. The fight is over a child. The former Virginia couple went to Vermont to obtain a civil union, then moved back to home. Thereafter, one of them was artificially inseminated and later gave birth. The "non-biological" mother (man this gets confusing) never legally adopted the girl under Virginia law. The couple split up when the biological mother became a Christian. As a result, she left the union and took her biological, non-adopted child with her. The result? The state of Vermont orders the mother to grant parental rights to the non-mother, and Virginia says no. The case comes down to whether or not one state can impose its same-sex unions law on another state. We have dueling state courts and will no doubt soon have dueling federal district and circuit courts. Supreme Court here we come.Does an individual state have the right to define marriage within its borders, we have to ask? Is the federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional? Or will marriage be covered under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, causing all states to recognize marriages performed in other states, whatever their nature?Methinks we may have replaced Sandra Day O'Connor just in time.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Post-Thanksgiving Thanks

Drew McKissick — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:21:51 EST

It’s that time of year again (okay, past time) where we are reminded to recount and give thanks for all of those things we should be thankful for throughout the entire year, but usually take for granted. After being too busy with being thankful last week to write it down, here’s this year’s list:I’m thankful for my church, my God, and the religious freedom we enjoy in our country, and mindful of the fact that it was pilgrims of the Christian faith that helped lay the foundation for that freedom. These are the same pilgrims who are today maligned as religious zealots. I’m thankful for capitalism and the free market of ideas, products, and services, and the fact that it offers anybody the possibility to be or do virtually anything. It’s the reason why people speak of “American ingenuity” as opposed to “French ingenuity”. I’m thankful for the Internet and the incredible leveling power it provides. We may still be too close to its birth to truly appreciate its significance and its impact on just about every part of our lives. Like Guttenberg’s printing press, it has changed the world, only more so, and has the power to enable the development of still more tremendous changes.I’m thankful for a system of government where “we the people” are actually the proprietors. I only wish more of our fellow stock-holders had a sense of duty to participate and become educated on how this outfit is supposed to run, rather than outsource the job to politicians that bribe them with their own money.Then there is our Constitution to be thankful for, and the fact that we have a written one, even though most liberal judges don’t seem to be able to understand what it says. I’m thankful for the rights that it protects, especially those that John McCain doesn’t take seriously, like freedom of speech and freedom to lobby government for a redress of grievances. I’m hopeful that more people will actually take the time to read it occasionally and ponder whether or not out government bears any resemblance to the structure it proscribes.I’m thankful that, in politics, just like pretty much everything else in life, one can make lemonade from lemons. The recent election results provided the lemons, and the Democrats will no doubt squeeze them and add the sugar that should make holding onto the White House in 2008 a little easier than it otherwise would have been. It also provides a chance for conservatives to reassert themselves and demand more of elected officials who wear Republican labels but have spent the past few years doing their best impressions of drunken sailors on payday.I’m thankful that when liberals wield power, they cannot help themselves but to show the public what they really are – not what they claimed to be prior to an election.I’m thankful that conservatism continued to do well at the polls, demonstrated by numerous public referenda and quite a few newly minted Democrat Congressmen and Senators who campaigned as “moderate” conservatives. (Whether they live up to the label remains to be seen) Also, the American public passed seven out of eight referendums giving constitutional protection to the traditional definition of marriage. That makes a total of twenty-seven states that have passed similar measures by an average of seventy percent of the vote. Looks like a trend.I’m thankful for those who serve in our country’s armed forces, and the fact that they are willing to endure hardships on behalf of their fellow citizens to secure our safety. Also for our country’s veterans, and the examples they set for future generations as well as our own.I’m thankful for my family and for large family get-togethers – and the fact that there are so many good cooks in the midst. Also for fried turkey and pecan pie.Last, but not least, I’m thankful for Gamecock football, and the Ol’ Ball Coach, Steve Spurrier. Plus the fact that we managed to beat Clemson this year.Now back to our regularly scheduled ingratitude…

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Election Dissection

Drew McKissick — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:31:05 EST

As George Bush put it, the Republicans took a "thumpin'" on November 7th. By the time the counting and recounting is finished, the balance of power in the House of Representatives will have essentially flip-flopped, giving the Democrats approximately the same numerical strength that the Republicans had prior to the election. In the Senate, they will hold a one vote majority, providing that recently exiled Joe Lieberman makes good on his word to continue to caucus with the party that abandoned him.That's the result of what happened on Tuesday, but what actually happened? Well, a lot of things. To state the obvious, GOP candidates were paddling up stream, against public opinion infected with the infamous "six year itch". There was bad news from Iraq, scandalous lobbyists in black fedoras, a gay congressman that liked to text dirty talk to House pages, and a hostile press (ok, that's not new) that will no doubt soon begin to discover that the economy is actually in great shape, their previous reporting notwithstanding.Add to that years of allowing themselves to adopt the drunken-sailor attitude towards federal spending, losing their appetite for reform, failing to make real progress on the issue agendas of those who helped elect them in the first place and, more recently, failure to adopt a party-wide strong stance on the immigration issue. In the end, the Republicans did more to lose the election than the Democrats did to win it. But the result is the same.But what kind of Democrats won? In short, most of them weren't your garden variety liberals. In fact, most of them ran as moderate conservatives. In the Senate you had former Republican military man Jim Webb running in Virginia; gun lovin', big game butcherin' John Tester in Montana; pro-life, moderate conservative Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and moderate liberal Sheldon Whitehouse running against moderate liberal Lincoln Chaffee in the blue, blue state of Rhode Island. Contrast that with far left liberal Democrat Ned Lamont losing out to moderate "Independent" Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.In the twelve GOP House seats that were open, Republicans held five and lost seven. Of those seven loses, three were the "scandal seats", (Ney, Foley and DeLay), which would have easily been held otherwise, (in two cases, the Republican's name wasn't even on the ballot). Among the newly elected House Democrats is Heath Schuler, a pro-life, pro-gun, evangelical Christian, (mark him as a prime GOP target for a future party switch).This is not to say that the Democrats didn't do well, they did. But they didn't quite match up to the historical trend of off year gains for an out of power party, and their gains came largely in nationalizing the election around the issue of Iraq. Generally, they sought to define themselves around what they weren't rather than what they were - and not as "liberal" alternatives to conservatives.Then there were the ballot measures. According to the latest tallies, state marriage amendments passed in seven out of eight states. In Colorado, the amendment passed while an alternative referendum that would have created homosexual domestic partnerships failed. Arizonans made English the official language, legalized marijuana failed in each state it was on the ballot, and voters in the state of Michigan approved restrictions on affirmative action, (something the Supreme Court couldn't bring itself to do over a year ago). Add to that a clean sweep for amendments that would reign in government's ability to use eminent domain to take private property as a means of increasing tax revenue, (again, something the Supreme Court couldn't do). All in all, not a bad day for conservatives.This is not to say there weren't disappointments. The South Dakota abortion ban failed by ten points, but when you consider it allowed no exceptions whatsoever that probably indicates that a similar bill with rape and incest exceptions would pass, setting up a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade.The point is that the issue environment wasn't bad for conservatism, as many moderate to conservative Democrats are now newly minted members of Congress. It was bad for Republicans. Partisan cycles come and go and, odds are, the political environment in 2008 will offer Republicans a chance to contrast themselves with the Democrat leadership in Congress, which will be dominated by liberals. The conservative members of their caucus are sure to be shown to the back of the bus and the old liberal war horses that have been out of power for a dozen years will take the wheel. We've seen this movie before.But in this election, as in elections for well over twenty years, the American electorate continued to demonstrate a general preference for conservative issues and governance. As the Republican leadership (and Republicans all across the country) conduct their post-mortems and plan for the future, they would do well to keep that in mind.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

Rants, Raves, and Idle Curiosity

Drew McKissick — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:06:57 EDT

Who decided Republican states would be “red” and Democrat states would be “blue”? Is this just the result of the colors that network news shows chose to use on national maps in the 2000 election night coverage? And how did they all decide on the same colors? I do seem to recall forty-nine states being colored blue for Ronald Reagan in 1984, so it wasn’t always that way. On the other hand, I suppose states that have a majority of people that would vote Democrat for President have a right to be blue.*** Why is it that you have to search for the Sunday comics? Am I the only one who remembers a time when the comics were an actual section of the newspaper that was folded just like every other section? It was usually the innermost section, which would serve as a wrapper of sorts for all of the sales circulars that were included in the Sunday paper. No more. Now it is hidden amongst the circulars like some sort of buried treasure to be used as bait to lure us in among the advertisements.*** Why do people who don’t wear boots wear bootleg jeans? Sometimes with flip-flops no less. Aren’t flip-flops kind of the opposite of boots, or about as close as you can get from boots without going barefoot?While we’re talking flip-flops, why does everyone seem to think it’s okay to wear them absolutely everywhere? I do mean everywhere -- like that visit to the White House last year by the national champion girl’s lacrosse team from Northwestern University. There they were on the lawn of the White House, getting their photo-op with the President, with half of them wearing flip-flops. Don’t these people have parents? What happened to that inner voice people used to come equipped with that made them want to try a little harder before going out in public?While it is true, and is being duly noted in survey after survey, Americans are getting fatter, when did it become fashionable to accentuate it? Specifically, why do some people tend to wear clothes that highlight every jellyroll and love handle? Other than their purely utilitarian purposes, clothes are normally used to help make the wearer look good, or at least better. So what gives?What about the steady downward progression of unspoken societal dress codes that lead people to go about their everyday public business dressed like they just finished cutting the grass? On the other hand, it does tend to make those who actually dress presentable more likely to stand out from the crowd.*** We have no shame in society anymore, at least partly due to the fact that we have too many people shaming those who are inclined to shame others. In other words, the only shameful practice is that of judging other people’s behavior based upon one’s own values, or even collective societal values. The only intolerance that’s tolerated is that which is directed at, well, intolerance.*** For all of the complaining that people and politicians do about the cost of prescription drugs, you would think someone would seriously propose reinstituting the ban on advertising such drugs on television (unless of course I am missing something and those ads are free and don’t influence drug prices). It’s the same logic for banning cigarette ads. More people smoke, get sick, use health care, drive up insurance, etc.For that matter, we could propose the same ban on attorney advertising. More ads equal more lawsuits equals higher costs to society. Is it a coincidence that we are the most litigious society in the world as well as the most medicated?Is it just me or do those pharmaceutical ads seem to be getting more and more descriptive with each passing day? Is there any bodily function we can all agree we would rather not have advertised during dinner or when children may be watching -- or even at all? Can’t any areas of our lives be roped off as being an “uncouth-free zone”?*** Why is it that you can’t find shoelaces to exactly match the ones that just broke at the same store where you bought the shoes to begin with? Is this just a conspiracy to get you to go ahead and buy new shoes?Why are so many drivers brave enough to tailgate another vehicle at high speeds, but not brave enough to pass? Or do they enjoy impatiently fuming while only a continual half-second from flying through the windshield?Where have all the hot airline stewardesses gone? What’s with the escalating number of dudes pushing the beverage cart? Does this explain the existence of Hooters Air?I see Alec Baldwin has a new TV show now. Isn’t he supposed to be living in Canada somewhere with Michael Moore?Do some people seriously believe Karl Rove secretly conspired to bring down the price of gas just in time for the election? If so, can we get them all identified and put into a special national database for sales leads?

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

2008 Speculation: The Republicans

Drew McKissick — Fri, 6 Oct 2006 18:08:58 EDT

At this point, the pending 2008 Republican nomination contest looks like it will eventually be a battle between two candidates: John McCain and the "anti-McCain".To some degree, McCain still has some work to do in locking up his end of the party, such as it is. He's still being stalked by Rudi Giuliani, who keeps popping up right along with McCain at or near the top of early GOP horse race polls. The problem for McCain is that they both seem to be fishing in the same pond, so he will have to nail down his left flank before he can look to his right, which is where the vast majority of Republican primary voters are. But given that, it's a virtual certainty - as sure as his ego is large - that McCain will be one of two serious contenders left standing by the time the primaries and caucuses are in full swing.The real contest will be the "anti-McCain" primary - the preliminary battle among conservative candidates to convince the party base that they can 1) beat McCain and 2) beat the Democrats in the general election.The list of candidates in the anti-McCain primary is large and growing. There's Virginia Senator George Allen, (who must first win re-election this fall), Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, (who currently chairs the Republican Governor's Association), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, (who would certainly make any debate more interesting), New York Governor George Pataki, Congressman Mike Pence and Congressman Tom Tancredo, (of anti-amnesty fame), just to name a few.That list is no doubt overly exhaustive, and the mere march of time as well as pending events will trim it considerably. For example, the South Carolina Republican Party will host the first nationally televised GOP presidential candidate's debate in May of 2007, just five days prior to its state convention which will feature a presidential straw poll of the delegates. This will provide an early glimpse of candidate strength with a representative sample of the party base, and the people most likely to do the work in the coming campaigns. The Iowa GOP and a few other states will likely follow suite with other straw polls later in the year.Then there's the contest for staff, and there are only so many good local operatives in early primary and caucus states to go around. Some hires are already being made, but this will pick up in earnest when the 2006 elections are over next month, as the candidates will officially "come out of the closet". For now, most people are being less anxious than the candidates as they try to evaluate who has the best chance of becoming the "anti-McCain" alternative.Lastly, there's the money primary. In short, given a frontloaded calendar with so many early caucuses and primaries, any candidate who hasn't been able to raise about twenty million or so by Christmas of 2007 is probably wasting their time and will begin to hemorrhage support. Those that have money towards the fall will begin to attract still more money and volunteer support like a magnet.Given these realities, who is the likely anti-McCain winner? Early money would be put on Allen (assuming he wins re-election) and Romney. Both can raise money, have large networks and appeal to the base on the issues. Not to say someone else wouldn't sneak in, but it would be difficult.Allen's a solid conservative, with a record that's acceptable to pretty much any element of the party. He's a popular former governor, with a large network of support including other governors. Recently, former Bush advisor and national Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie signed on as Allen's finance chairman for his political action committee, (the precursor to any presidential bid).Romney also has good national connections and fundraising ability as well, in addition to good positioning on the issues. And yes, he's Mormon, but there are questions as to whether it is actually proving to be the negative many pundits suggested it would only months ago. And don't underestimate what some Republicans would overlook in exchange for beating McCain. So how does it all play out? Despite continued references to Republican's historical deference to candidates whose "turn" it is, McCain will not have an easy time. Any such benefit he may receive is offset by his repeated offenses against the party base on issues like campaign finance reform, judicial nominees, immigration, the Federal Marriage Amendment and, most recently, treatment of terrorist detainees. Not to mention his record of less than flattering statements regarding some conservatives. From a tactical standpoint, he'll find the state primary landscape more difficult this time, as some state GOP organizations, such as Michigan and South Carolina, are moving to keep Democrats from voting in their primaries. This would be unlike in 2000 when McCain benefited greatly from crossover voting.A successful anti-McCain candidate will unify the social, religious and fiscal conservative elements of the party. And the quicker one of them stands alone against McCain, the better off they will be.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

2008 Speculation: The Democrats

Drew McKissick — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:40:15 EDT

The 2006 elections are fast approaching, but mid-term elections are rarely as interesting as presidential races, so let’s take a look at what’s on deck for 2008. For this column, we look at the Democrats.Given that the nomination process consists of multi-candidate primaries and caucuses where it is only necessary to win a plurality of the vote in order to “win,” the candidate with the organized support of the radical, Internet-centric “new left” will have a big head start over the competition.If the radical left can gin up interest among its adherents for a US Senate primary in a state like Connecticut on behalf of a no-name guy like Ned Lamont and deny the nomination to an incumbent Senator, then doing the same to help get a plurality of the vote in a few states early in the nomination process won’t be a stretch.I think it’s fair to say that in 2004 Howard Dean only scratched the surface of what was possible in terms of marshalling such support and focusing it in targeted states via the Internet. Now imagine the same scenario, but on behalf of a politician that has more established credentials, or who is already accepted by more segments of the party base as well as the national media. Also, as Dean proved, they can be an invaluable source of money, no small fact when one considers the cost of being competitive in the rush of early primaries where it’s likely a majority of delegates will be chosen in the first six weeks or so. To say nothing of having “momentum," or “Big Mo”, as George Bush, Sr. once referred to it. Yes, Hillary has a lot of money and a lot of support, both in the Democrat party and in the press, but does that mean she will be the nominee? Especially when you consider that she’s extremely polarizing, with a pre-existing national image that gives moderate Democrats the willies (no pun intended). And she also has problems with the Democrat base, specifically the “new left” variety that provided the muscle to beat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. They don’t like her stance on the war in Iraq, or her overtures to moderates on some issues, such as abortion.So how about the rest of the field? Al Gore’s a no-go. He’s seen as even more liberal than Hillary by the general public as well as a bit of a sore loser. John Kerry’s just a loser, and not well liked by the Democratic base (that used Dean as their vehicle against him), or the financial base (such as the Hollywood types) that feel their 2004 investment in him was wasted.Then there’s former VP candidate and NC Senator John Edwards, who’s seen as somewhat of a moderate. He’s also a southerner with enough mainstream appeal that he may do better in the south in a general election. Ditto that for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Very similar are Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. These four will essentially be competing for the mantle of the “moderate who can win.”There’s Joe Biden, the Democrats most prominent voice on foreign policy, but who loves the sound of his own voice a little too much, has a bad comb-over and keeps getting caught suggesting that the Democrats should write off the south – and then denies he suggested it.Finally, there’s Russ Feingold, a real liberal’s liberal. He’s the anti-war guy, the reform guy, liked by big labor, the enviro-radicals and anti-capitalists. And unlike Howard Dean, he’s managed to win a general election in a state that doesn’t elect socialists.So how do things shake out? I see a showdown looming between the new left and the hopeful moderates, which will ultimately have the effect of squeezing Hillary out of the race. (Memo to Harry Reid: your days leading Senate Dems may be numbered.)This presupposes that one of the moderates can raise enough money to be competitive but, granted that, the Democrats could have a real knock-down, drag-out fight for control of the party. And not just among competing personalities, but between competing visions.Get out the popcorn, this will be entertaining.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.

A Consensus on Immigration

Drew McKissick — Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:45:15 EDT

Congress is back in session and the battle over immigration reform has resumed.For the past month or so, GOP House members have taken the issue on the road and held town hall meetings discussing the topic in congressional districts all across the country. What has been confirmed by such meetings is that a true consensus of public opinion does exist on the immigration issue. More specifically, that the majority of the American people want better enforcement of our borders and our current immigration laws. Further, they are opposed to laws that reward illegal behavior.Some pollsters and politicians have attempted to confuse the issue by combining various reform proposals in their presentations to the public. They cleverly propose amnesty oriented versions of reform combined with nods toward better documentation and border enforcement. And they make such combined proposals as though they are necessary in order to build a majority consensus on how to approach the issue.What they neglect to point out however is that there already is a stand alone majority of public opinion on how to approach the immigration problem, and that it favors a border enforcement approach. For example, the latest Fox News poll suggests that 77% of Americans think our border security is too lax, a healthy majority by any definition.Further, when the additional aspects of the "comprehensive" proposals (which are code for providing amnesty to illegal aliens) are accurately described, the public is decidedly opposed.When the public learns that the comprehensive approach would mean legalizing those who have come to this country illegally, they're opposed. When they learn it would mean pardoning those that have committed Social Security fraud, they're opposed. And when they learn that it would mean allowing illegal aliens to legally collect government benefits, they are opposed.The proponents of comprehensive reform know that the only way they can enact amnesty related proposals is to piggy-back them along with a healthy dose of tough talk, or an enforcement related bill. And the only thing standing in the way of the success of that strategy is the House Republican leadership.Fortunately the Founding Fathers saw fit to have at least one chamber of our legislative branch elected in its entirety every two years, ensuring that members would constantly be exposed to public sentiment and hopefully be more inclined to represent it, given that they would likely wish to keep their jobs.This fact is not lost on a House leadership that would like to remain in leadership. And they are keenly aware of what the White House and some in the Senate seem to have missed (or just ignore) -- that the party's core constituency is opposed to anything that resembles amnesty. At a recent GOP leadership meeting reporting on the results of their immigration field hearings, Republican Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King stated, "I have never seen such a disconnect between the American people and the elite." Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra highlighted the issue's national security implications, saying "There is a simple reason why we need border security. We are a nation at war. We face a dangerous enemy that is intent on attacking us again." Exactly. The House Republicans have resolved to propose and pass several border and immigration law enforcement measures in the coming weeks, attempting the put the Democrats on the political defensive as well as on the wrong side of public opinion just prior to the November elections. At this point, it seems each of the bills will focus on a single aspect of the immigration problem in order to focus attention, create more recorded votes, and prevent opponents (or amnesty supporters) from watering things down with a comprehensive bill.The fact is that illegal immigration is out of control, and the number of aliens entering the country has been increasing every year. They're beginning to show up in large numbers in states and rural areas where people didn't expect them, and where the infrastructure is unable to accommodate them. Education, law enforcement, and health care systems are heavily affected, and the result is a great burden on taxpayers. Then there is also the issue of the fairness of proposals which would grant amnesty to those who have broken our laws. Not to mention the fact that such a proposal was tried before in 1986 and helped create the illegal immigration problems we have today. To make it worse for conservatives, it's being supported by a Republican President and Republican Senators.The result is the crystallization of a major political issue that the majority of Americans are beginning to see as relevant to their everyday lives. For an issue to "cut it" in politics, it must be salient and relevant to large numbers of people. This issue has that in spades, and then some. And the House Republicans understand.

Drew McKissick is a Columbia, SC based political consultant and maintains a blog at Conservative Outpost. His column "The Right Side" is published weekly.