Elizabeth Crum

So, about that CPAC speech and the subsquent dust-ups over Rush Limbaugh.

Rahm Emanuel and Robert Gibbs’ comments were obviously calculated.  Declaring Rush the de facto leader of the GOP put every elected Republican on the spot.  To agree was to admit taking your talking points from a radio talk show host.  To disagree and disparage Rush was to alienate his twenty-two million listeners, as Michael Steele so handily did on CNN.  Why so few Republicans went the obvious third way – giving Rush his just due as one of our country’s strongest, loudest traditional conservative voices while also pointing out that he is not running for office (or running the RNC) – is a mystery.

Unfortunately, some conservatives failed to love-their-neighbor and even went as far as to accuse Rush of being “bad” for the Republican party.  And many of the anti-Limbaugh comments were harsh.  David Frum got particularly personal and nasty, and I like him the less for it.  Why is Frum so concerned with policing conservative talk radio?  Is he now the self-appointed Roger Ebert of the airwaves?  Frankly, I find it silly that Frum would even enter the fray.  He made himself smaller in the process, and millions who had barely heard of him (and quite a few who had) now think he’s a royal jerk.

Some conservatives enjoy Limbaugh’s in-your-face style.  Not everyone does, and that’s fine.  It doesn’t burn a lot of calories to turn a radio dial.  As for Rush’s personal failings and struggles, we ought not to judge him by these things – lest we, too, be judged by our worst mistakes and most obvious flaws. 

What is important in the context of this intramural competition for The Party is that Rush is a (not “the”) star player who brings in the crowds.  He is unapologetically passionate re: his traditional, Constutionalist views; he swings his bat hard; and he is well loved for it.  At this point, there’s no doubt that El-Rushbo’s personality and following are Babe Ruth big.  His three hours a day on the field does far more good than harm for the conservative cause, if only to please the fans by kicking some dirt on the shiny shoes of an obviously biased referee:  the mainstream liberal media.

He ain’t high fallutin’, but I see no crime in that, nor any harm to The Party.  To my mind, and the minds of many conservatives with whom I talk from week to week, there is no real party at present. Indeed, while we argue amongst ourselves over What Happens Now, it seems to me that Rush is the glue holding together nearly half this country’s post-election conservative voters when they might otherwise have gone their separate ways in rank disgust.  As for the other half, if they want the reform and moderation the two Davids – Frum and Brooks – are selling, and if they like the pretty package it’s wrapped in, let ‘em have it.

For many of us, cow-towing to creeping social progressivism and big bureaucracy, advocating compromise on core conservative principles that must be unbending if they are to mean anything, and “reforming the message” by echoing White House attacks on widely-liked conservative personalities are vices far worse than any Rush has yet displayed – and are far more harmful to The Party.

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Blue Collar Muse:

You’d think after Chuck Schumer’s ignorance was plastered all over the news for leaking his letter to the Office of Thrift Supervision and personally creating the run on IndyMac Bank that destroyed IndyMac in just 3 business days that Democrats would learn to keep their mouths shut.

E!!:

You would, wouldn’t you?

Alas, Harry “I Am Compelled to Bloviate” Reid (D-NV), has not learned to keep his big trap shut.

Exhibit 1: Reid’s recent statement that he’d heard a big player in the insurance industry was on the verge of failure.

Exhibit 2: Three insurance companies fitting Reid’s description, “… a major insurance company — one with a name that everyone knows …” had major stock selloffs following his comments.

While I certainly don’t condone rumor-spawned panic among shareholders, the reality is that investors are reeling and the least little ripple rocks their proverbial boat.

So it is that Reid’s ego grew three sizes while MetLife stock plunged $7.19 (15%) to $40.96; Hartford dropped $12.20 (32%) to $25.91; and Prudential sank $7.15 (11%) to $57.65.

Reid then came out with a statement that he was “not personally aware of any particular company being on the verge of bankruptcy” and that “he has no special knowledge about nor has he talked to any insurance company officials.”

Whatever, Dude.

You either knew something or not, but either way, you ran your mouth, scared people out of their wits, and caused a major sell-off.

Apparently “consumer confidence” is a concept that exists outside the scope of Senator Reid’s cognitive skills.

Or perhaps he just doesn’t give a damn, because consumer panic and irrational thinking equal more room for government meddling – and possibly an Obama win.

I’m borrowing my post header from P.J. O’Rourke.  (VERY funny book if you have never enjoyed it.)

I do wish names would be Named, no matter the party affiliation:  who started and voted for all of the federal legislation, who harassed the lenders to conform, which lenders not only conformed but went above and beyond the call, and who made big bucks.

It won’t happen, of course, because they are all in bed together to some degree.

As Anne of Idaho quipped, “Someone needs to go to Washington and Wall Street and close down the whorehouses.”

I’m reading accounts that Senator Chris Dodd’s weighty remarks and swelling ego nearly crushed a few innocent bystanders this morning as he bemoaned the Wall Street greed that got us into this mess.

The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee uttered not one peep, though, re: his acceptance of $165K in contributions from failing Fannie and Freddie (presumably as payback for his opposition to properly overseeing and regulating them).

No mention either, that he benefitted from VIP insider discounted loans from the (now defunct) Countrywide Financial.

Whether you love or hate Bush policy, make sure you read Charles Krauthammer’s column re: Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin and the Bush Doctrine question. 

Krauthammer pointed out what most of us probably didn’t think about while we were figuring out whether Gibson’s glasses could slide any further down his condescending nose:  there have been at least four working definitions of the so-called “Bush doctrine” over the past eight years, none of them official.  

So, neither Palin nor Gibson nor Santa Clause could say for sure what it is without some sort of clarification.  Which is why Krauthammer called the NYT’s view that Gibson ”informed” Palin of the meaning of the Bush doctrine (anticapatory self-defense) “rubbish.”

Krauthammer knows a little something about this because (he points out) he was the one to first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” Krauthammer wrote that the Bush policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol (and others) amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called “the Bush doctrine.”

Then came 9/11.  In his address to Congress nine days after that event, Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This policy re: terror became the essence of “the Bush doctrine.”

Until Iraq. When Bush offered his major justification for the war vis a vis the necessity of a preemptive act. (This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks of as ”the Bush doctrine.”)

And then there’s the fourth (current) definition of “the Bush doctrine”:  as Krauthammer puts it, “the idea that the fundamental mission of American foreign policy is to spread democracy throughout the world.”  It was clearly enunciated in Bush’s second inaugural address: “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”

Near the end of his piece, Krauthammer wrote, “If I were in any public foreign policy debate today, and my adversary were to raise the Bush doctrine, both I and the audience would assume — unless my interlocutor annotated the reference otherwise — that he was speaking about the grandly proclaimed (and widely attacked) freedom agenda of the Bush administration.

So, ok, Sarah Palin doesn’t know what “the Bush doctrine” is.  But apparently neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least Palin didn’t pretend to know — while, as the New York Times noted, Gibson “looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher.” 

Seems Gibson is the one in need of a teacher - and I’d say Krauthammer schooled him real good.

Chuck Muth of Citizen Outreach has filed a complaint with the District Court of Carson City asking for the removal of Bob Loux – executive director for the Nuclear Waste Project Office of the Agency for Nuclear Projects for the State of Nevada – from office for malfeasance as provided for in NRS 283.440.

According to NRS 283.440, “Any person now holding…any office in this State…who is guilty of any malpractice or malfeasance in office, may be removed therefrom as hereinafter prescribed in this section.” 

According to a September 9, 2008, story by Cy Ryan of the Las Vegas Sun, Mr. Loux gave “himself and his staff an unauthorized 16 percent pay raise,” well above levels set by the Legislature for his office. 

On September 10, 2008, Brendan Riley of the Associated Press reported that Mr. Loux “apologized to the lawmakers’ Interim Finance Committee” (IFC) at the hearing on September 9, 2008, “for giving himself and other agency staffers unauthorized pay increases of up to 16 percent.” 

According to the AP report, Mr. Loux’s agency falls under the governor’s office, but Mr. Loux ”didn’t report the pay increases to the governor and instead signed the paperwork needed to authorize the higher pay.”

The raises came to light at the IFC meeting because Mr. Loux had overspent his budget – which in itself is malfeasance in office per NRS 353.260 (copy attached).

According to the statute, “It is unlawful for any state officer, commissioner, head of any state department or other employee, whether elected or appointed, to expend more money than the sum specifically appropriated by law for any such office, commission or department.”

Mr. Loux admitted to the IFC that he both overspent his budget and personally approved the unauthorized pay increases. “I take full responsibility for all of these errors,” Mr. Loux said.  “They were done by me.”

In an official letter to Mr. Bob Loux calling for his resignation, Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons noted that a review by the Budget Office discovered that “there has been a history of salaries in (Mr. Loux’s) office paid well over the amounts budgeted” and that “increases have been made without my approval and in violation of NRS 223.085.”

According to a report by Ed Vogel in the September 11, 2008, edition of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Mr. Loux’s “salary manipulation” resulted in Mr. Loux receiving a salary of $151,542 per year – well in excess of his authorized, approved and budgeted salary of $114,088.

In addition, the Budget Office review referenced by Gov. Gibbons shows that Mr. Loux’s willful and unauthorized actions resulted in salary increases for every member of his staff in excess of 27 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008, and in excess of 32 percent higher than budgeted for Fiscal Year 2009.  In one case, one employee was scheduled by Mr. Loux to receive a salary increase next year which would have been more than 50 percent higher than budgeted.

According to Mr. Vogel’s story today, Mr. Loux has rejected Gov. Gibbons’ request for his resignation, saying “I am not going away.”

We’ll soon see!!