Chris Matthews' initial reaction to the death of colleague Tim Russert can be summed like this: Bush lied. People died.

Yes, MSNBC's Chris Matthews found a way to use even the death of a beloved journalist (there's a term you don't see often) to again roll out the liberal chestnut that the Bush-Cheney cabal had manipulated Americans into war by raising the specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and like-minded ne'er do wells.
 
The Hardball host's live shot from Paris last night gave vivid illustration to the expression "like a belch in church."

Asked by a justifiably teary-eyed Keith Olbermann to reflect on the sudden death, Mr. Matthews professed his love and admiration, calling Mr. Russert "everyman", a "true patriot", "Mr. America" --  by which he meant that the Meet the Press moderator had supported the Iraq invasion because of the trumped-up threat of nukes.

In other words, Mr. Matthews clearly implied, Tim Russert was like the rest of you rubes who were suckered by Bush.

Less than two minutes into his fond memories of his departed colleague, Mr. Matthews called Mr. Russert's privately-expressed concern about atomic terrorists "the essence of what was wrong with the whole case for the war."

It's hard to fathom a soul so craven that he would use a eulogy to resurrect his timeworn attack on the stagecraft of the Bush administration. But the overflow of Chris Matthews' darkened heart also spilled onto the rest of us 'patriotic Americans' who were fooled by what Bush-Cheney Inc. was "selling." In a nutshell, we're all just a bunch of hard-working dopes like Tim Russert.

"Tim was...us, the American people," said Mr. Matthews.

Of course, by 'us' he doesn't mean 'me and you', just 'you'.

In an uncharacteristic moment of staggering truth, Mr. Olbermann then paraphrased news doyen Barbara Walters in noting, "This is a loss for the country. This is a loss in terms of the ability to get information from an honest broker -- someone who managed a neutrality that the rest of us dream of, perhaps. How big is that gap that we have now seen opened today...How big is the loss, and how on earth is the American public going to fill it in terms of getting the information it needs for the vital choices ahead?"

Mr. Matthews wisely dodged the query, perhaps because the answer is painfully obvious. Having the Olbermann-Matthews dynamic duo discuss this valid question would qualify as satire of the highest order.

How indeed?

As I watched the parade of journalists reminiscing about Tim Russert's integrity and passion for his craft, I realized that not one of them would merit a five-hour interruption of programming on the day of his death.

Timothy J. Russert -- a serious, joyful, gracious, tough, hard-working objective journalist -- died June 13, 2008, at the age of 58. The last of his professional line, he left no survivors in the field. In lieu of flowers, cancel your cable subscription and use the money to take your Dad to lunch each week for the rest of his, or your, life.

Dear Sen. Obama,

Now that you are back on the market, so to speak, having abandoned your church home of two decades to allow your friends to "worship in peace", I'd like to invite you to consider my church. Let me tell you a little bit about it.

Senator, in my church we love and worship Jesus. We believe the Bible is the word of God. Our preachers faithfully proclaim the gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. Our people live out their faith in a variety of ways, from feeding the poor, to providing medical care in rural Africa and elsewhere, to taking the good news of Jesus to Tanzania, France, England and several dozen other places around the world.

Sen. Obama, if you love Jesus, and enjoy the fellowship of others who share your faith in Christ, then you and Michelle and the girls might feel at home here.

Of course, we're not perfect. We lack some of the features to which your family has become accustomed. For example, our pastors never talk about political candidates from the pulpit. There's not a whole lot of angry screaming -- in fact, none. No preacher here has ever called down God's condemnation upon our native land.

In fact, on Memorial Day and Independence Day and Veterans Day, we praise God that we live in a free land, thanks to the willing sacrifice of those who bled and died that this nation might live. We actually sing, from time to time, 'God Bless America', because it's a prayer to the one who has secured our liberty that he might guide us even in dark and troubling times.

We're Republicans. We're Democrats. We're Independents. We're political apathetics. We're Americans. Above all, we're people who love Jesus. Through Jesus, we have come to love others, even those with whom we disagree. We're happy that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:1,2)

If you like liberation theology, at our church you get it, but it's not limited to the poor, or to any particular race, because "if the Son (Jesus) sets you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:38) no matter what you look like or how much you earn.

So, Sen. Obama, now that you're church shopping, why not stop by?

For a man who's all about "change" this one might be refreshing.

Sincerely,
Scott Ott

A World War II veteran, closer now to 90 years than 80, told me he once had a dream that he died and was reunited with his fellow soldiers who had perished between Normandy and the Ardennes.

They were all as he remembered them, young men. He, however, in the dream appeared as he does today -- well advanced in years. They didn't know him at first, he being now decades their senior. It disturbed him to see himself that way, and to be seen by them an old man.

They left their youth on the beach.

Manhood rushed upon them, and they waded in -- wave upon wave. Then, just as suddenly, the life-tide ebbed, seaping into the sands of Omaha, Utah, Juno, Gold and Sword.

Those who fell left memories of perpetual youth and vigor, boldness, daring, duty and courage. They left their youth on the beach.

And what of they who slogged on through sand and mud, through hedgerow and hamlet, through field and forest eventually returning to their homes? What of they who rode the transports back, building homes and families, building vibrant communities and lasting institutions? They too left their youth on the beach.

All of the boys died that day near Cherbourg, Le Havre, Dieppe and Calais.

Beneath the deafening roar of artillery, amid the smoke and stench, manhood marched ashore soaked in salt and blood, and a decade passed in a moment. Only snapshots of youth remained. Only men lived on, aged beyond years.

Generations rolled by, and a thousand daily flag-bedecked caskets mark now each passing day. Those who left their youth on the beach with their fallen brothers of another century now leave their bodies for a distant shore.

Every war exacts its toll.

We left our youth on the beach, and in the sweltering jungles, among the snowclad hilltops and in the choking sands.

Yet green limbs, pruned in the flower of life, have somehow rejuvenated this land. 

Those who died inspire us, and those who live return to lead and transform us.

America's status as "the land of opportunity" can be proved by this single fact: Frank Rich gets paid to write columns for The New York Times.

In other nations, a man with no rationality, no moral perspective, no sense of justice nor fairness, would find it nigh on impossible to rise through the ranks to such a lofty perch. He might be able secure work as a mid-level propagandist for a communist regime or fascist dictatorship, but to parade in public as a man of thought and reason -- one of a handful of opinion-shapers for "the paper of record" -- would have to remain a dream if he didn't possess the great gift of U.S. citizenship.

His Sunday, May 4, "Op-Ed" column in the Times (The All-White Elephant in the Room), for example, attempts to liken Sen. John McCain's endorsement by a couple of TV preachers, with Sen. Barack Obama's 20-year relationship with his pastor, the race-bating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The implication that receiving an endorsement from a celebrity implies the candidate supports everything the celebrity ever said or did is childish at best. Perhaps we should apply the same standard to Hollywood celebrity endorsements, and we should impute to Democrat candidates, all the loony statements and immoral behavior of their famous friends.

In any case, Sen. Obama is not in political hot water because of Rev. Wright's endorsement, but rather because of his long-term, close relationship with this bigoted, conspiracy theorist, to whom the Illinois senator looks for spiritual leadership for himself and his young daughters.

Of course, Frank Rich would have you believe that Sen. McCain takes no flack because he's white, not black, like poor Sen. Obama. 

It's not a real issue, of course, not even to Frank Rich. It's just a springboard to dive into the Democrats' favorite topic this year -- American racism, or more specifically, Republican racism.

Did you know, Mr. Rich points out, that there are no black Republican members of Congress? Ipso facto, Republicans are racists.

Of course, any time a black Republican rises to prominence (Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and J.C. Watts come to mind) blacks in the Democrat party brand him or her as an 'Uncle Tom', because in the modern liberal mind, Black = Democrat, and anything else is betrayal of the race.

Indeed, the Democrat party has done an admirable job convincing people of its love and loyalty to blacks, even as the party promotes programs and procedures that ...

• denigrate black competence and intelligence (Affirmative Action and a state monopoly on schooling),
• destroy black families (welfare),
• create permanent ghettos (HUD Section 8 housing), and
• not just decimate the black population, for that means killing only 1-in-10 -- the Democrat party actively, passionately pushes policies that target the race for genocide, with white "physicians" slaughtering a full 50 percent of black infants before they ever draw breath.

This is the platform which has made Democrats out of some 75-to-87 percent of black voters. Perhaps, Mr. Rich would prefer that Republicans stop touting freedom, justice, reverence for life, opportunity, self-reliance, community-based solutions and less-burdensome government, and would instead try to woo black voters with the promise of mediocre education to prepare their children for the joys of life on the dole, living in a slum, and avoiding overpopulation by having whites winnow their young from the womb.

Frank Rich laments that we have not yet, in earnest, begun our national conversation on race.

Well, Mr. Rich, let it begin now.

As the New York Times, and others, continue the debate about whether its really al Qaeda we're fighting in Iraq, or just some loose network of radicals with no centralized command-and-control, somewhere in the bowels of his plush subterranean digs in Waziristan, Usama bin Laden laughs, then he cranks up his generator and pops in the next DVD in his favorite movie series, Star Wars.

Until we, in the West, understand why Mr. Bin Laden loves Star Wars, we cannot effectively fight a "war on terror."

In a nutshell: Usama bin Laden thinks he's Luke Skywalker. He thinks the United States and its allies are The Empire. In his mind, we are the evil Darth-Vaderian types, and he is the good Master Luke trying to restore balance to the force.

The Empire has legions of well-equipped soldiers and billions of dollars worth of battlefield technology. Usama bin Skywalker has a ragtag band of loyalists in desert attire, using improvised weapons and feats of daring to exploit the weaknesses inherent in the size of their bloated enemy.

Mr. Bin Laden remembers that the Death Star -- that impenetrable fortress in the heavens -- had an exhaust vent vulnerable to attack only by a small, fast-moving fighter. He recalls the battle in the forests of Endor, when the Muppetine Ewoks brought down the Storm Troopers with sticks and stones and rope. He rejoices as the Empire's  elephantine walking All-Terrain Armored Transports, in 'Return of the Jedi', drop to their mechanical knees, tripped up by simple cables strung across their paths.

As planners in the Pentagon for years have focused on answering massive force with overwhelming force, al Qaeda's planners look for cracks, creases and hidden faults that can be leveraged for massive impact with few resources, by small cells of committed fighters.

To Mr. Bin Laden, it doesn't matter whether you call them insurgents, terrorists, Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, or one of the many other affiliated labels. He doesn't care if you think that Iraq is in the midst of civil war, or instead, being infiltrated and destabilized by outside agents. He doesn't need to wear a military uniform with a chest full of medals. He doesn't care who gets the credit. What matters is the objective, the outcome. The Empire must fall.

To fight such a delusional creature, one must get inside his delusion. There are many indications that Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, and his top advisers understand it.

By bringing relative security to the streets of one neighborhood after another, they demonstrate our good will. By training up a law-abiding Iraqi military force -- a novel concept in that part of the world -- we give Iraqis a glimpse of a nation ruled by law, not by powerful men.

Gen. Petraeus has decentralized the military in Iraq, fanning them out into small, dare I say, cells that patrol neighborhoods and get to know the people -- rather than just rolling through, peering out of armored vehicles and retreating to the base at night. Using tactics like respect for the local people, fairness and compassion, our troops have induced the local civilians to unmask the terrorists in their midst.

To defeat a rebel, one must think like a rebel and exploit his vulnerabilities.

Mr. Bin Laden's rebel plan has a crack-- nay, a great, gaping chasm.

His miscalculation is not military, but ideological and spiritual. While he may think of himself as Luke Skywalker, he is, quite literally, immersed in the Dark Side. He appears to himself as an 'angel of light'. The Biblical word for that is Lucifer.

While Luke Skywalker's tactics in Star Wars dealt direct blows to The Empire, Mr. Bin Laden's tactics strike fear into even his own potential allies. Indiscriminate bombings in crowded markets shred soldier and citizen, Christian, atheist and Muslim alike.

Awash in his own delusion, this latter-day devil slaughters his own soldiers and allies -- failing to see the danger in a house divided against itself.

Don't call him al Qaeda's second-in-command anymore.

Ayman al-Zawahiri has just, in effect, announced that he is in charge of the terror network because Osama bin Laden is dead.

"Wait," you say, "I have not read or heard of Bin Laden's demise from any mainstream news source."

That's because mainstream journalists have no understanding of basic logic.

The official declaration that Mr. Bin Laden's body has declined to cave-temperature came in two, apparently unrelated, sentences from Mr. Zawahiri's latest audio release.

Here are the two statements:
1) "We haven't killed the innocents, not in Baghdad, nor in Morocco, nor in Algeria, nor anywhere else..."
2) "Sheikh Osama bin Laden is healthy and well, by the grace of Allah..."

To state this in the language of logic: "If al Qaeda has not killed innocents (non-combatants), then Mr. Bin Laden is healthy and well. Because Qaeda does kill innocents almost daily, therefore Mr. Bin Laden is supine, subterranean, and pushing up poppies somewhere in Waziristan."

To state it more plainly: "If Bin Laden is healthy and well, then everyone who works in the World Trade Center in New York will be home for dinner tonight."

Mr. Zawahiri must be delighted to have the top job now, but for those of us who remember 9/11, he'll always be 'Number 2' ... and so will Mr. Bin Laden (peace, maggots and mold be upon him).

We'll convince ourselves that we're made of better stuff; that we would not squander such blessings. We believe we love our wives and children more than he does. We're stronger. We can avoid or rebuff such temptation.

Yet conscience calls our bluff: Do you really believe that you are so different from Eliot Spitzer?

There's an interesting episode in the life of Jesus of Nazareth in which the people were amazed at his character, his integrity and his incredible accomplishments. But John's gospel says, "Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people..." (John 2:24)

What did Jesus know about all people?

It's the same thing you know about yourself.

No matter what you may tell others (i.e. "I'm basically a good person."), there is something at the core of your being that seems to stain even your best intentions. Like Gollum in the caves of Tolkien's trilogy, it dwells within the heart and mind of all. Rarely does this beast reach full ferocity and manifest itself so publicly in some heinous act of cruelty or depravity. But it crouches at the doorstep for each of us, insinuating itself into our daily lives.

The distance between you, or me, and Eliot Spitzer is not so great as we would imagine, or wish.

The difference between me and Eliot Spitzer is largely this: I have never been elected governor of New York.

Knowing we face a common threat, I don't dance at his downfall. I weep. Yes, I mourn for his demise, even though it may politically benefit my ideological comrades or the cause of conservatism.

I also pray. I pray for the Spitzer family, for the prostitutes who have sold their souls into opulent slavery, for the federal agents who labored at the distasteful task of uncovering the tawdry tale. I pray that justice might be done, and that each person involved would find the mercy I have found -- unmerited mercy that relieves me of my false confidence, and places my hope in the only world figure who ever successfully navigated the perils of power, both publicly and privately, because he alone had no inner-Spitzer.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

It's time to kill compassionate conservatism.

Actually, we just need to snuff out the adjective, because the modifier 'compassionate' is exactly what's killing Conservatism.

When then-Gov. George Bush popularized this phrase during his first White House run, it may have seemed to his supporters like a nice way of saying, "We're not just a party of rich, cold-hearted, saber-rattlers.

In fact, the addition of the adjective did nothing but play into the hands of those who have caricatured Conservatives as elite, aloof and ambitious. By adding 'compassionate', Mr. Bush in effect said, traditional conservatism is not naturally compassionate, but I'm going to change it to make it so.

This highly-effective misinformation campaign led us to at least two historic misappropriations of American earnings -- the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. And when Hurricane Katrina hit, the expectation of a 'compassionate' federal government inspired the victims to actually rise up and curse the entity that was pouring billions of dollars into their city, and to spew vitriol at the standard-bearer of compassionate conservatism himself.

While the president has been right about fighting Islamic terrorists overseas, a strong national defense combined with a big-spending domestic agenda deserve a more accurate slogan: Making the World Safe for Liberalism.

Perhaps ironically, unadorned Conservatism is the most compassionate, merciful, just and loving political ideology the world has yet seen. It's time for Conservatives to rise up on their hind legs, and proclaim the truth and beauty of it.

Conservatives cut government spending. They don't just reduce the projected rate of spending growth, or trim the fat from one corner as they lard up another. They actually cut spending, overall, relentlessly, continually. We do this because we believe that the people who earn the money should decide how it's spent. We trust them, on the whole, to spend it well, in ways that advance the vision of a free and moral society. Government spending, however high-minded, hinders the 'invisible hand' of capitalism -- the unseen force that drives men to altruism because it tends to their own benefit.

Conservatives reduce the size and influence of government. The weight of responsibility in most matters should be born by individuals, and by their freely-created associations. The more government does for us, the more it strips us of responsibility. Eventually, that leads to a society of passive recipients, rather than one of energetic innovators, industrious workers, and passionate transformers. Real men crave responsibility, because they're endowed by their Creator, not only with the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but with an inward desire to share the burden of accomplishment.

Conservatives cut taxes and so-called entitlement programs. When government tries to help a man, it inevitably strips him of his dignity. At the same time, it cheats another man of his opportunity for personal acts of mercy and generosity. In the hands of a bureaucrat, disbursing the redistributed wealth of others, charity is a cold, heartless program. In the hands of an individual, using his own money and time, charity becomes love again. Government's hostile takeover of the compassion industry has done immeasurable harm to the poor, and to those who would help them. When charity begins at home -- in our neighborhoods and towns -- rich and poor alike get to know each other. The helper and the helped meet each other as men, face-to-face, and work together shoulder-to-shoulder for the betterment of all. No longer are the relatively-wealthy seen as impersonal money bags. No longer are the relatively-needy seen as irresponsible sponges. We help one another to see our interdependence -- one gains in mercy, the other in responsibility. If government would divest itself of all entitlement programs, compassion would multiply at a fraction of the cost. The necessity for charity would decline with the resurgence of the dignity of man.

Conservatives take law-enforcement seriously. The spirit of the law is upheld by the letter of the law. Enforcing existing laws reduces crime and the need for additional laws. So, it enhances freedom. Piling up paragraphs in the criminal code is a waste of time without impartial arrests, speedy trials, honest judges, fair convictions, and full punishment. Criminals should fear the police. The rest of us should love them. Conservatives have a clear-eyed view of human nature, knowing that the threat of judgment for some men is the only discouragement to avarice. For a small number, that threat fails, so the punishment must swiftly and surely follow. For our protection, and for the preservation of freedom, these guilty few must leave our streets, and some must depart the land of the living.

Conservatives restore the balance of power. When the unelected usurp the rights of the people, and jeopardize their protections, Conservatives intervene for the cause of the victims. When free-speech is banned to protect incumbent lawmakers, we stand up. When collectivists in government confiscate private property for "the greater good", we rise to defend our brother's land. When law-abiding citizens are disarmed, exposed before their enemies, we gird ourselves for battle. When a woman's womb becomes a slaughterhouse, we defend the child who faces death for the sin of existing, and who suffers brutality to maintain a hazy halo of privacy. In so doing, we also defend the woman who has taken refuge in a lie promoted by people who think that earth would be a great place to live if it weren't for all of the people. Conservatives love women, and their babies; about half of whom are also female. Conservatives also love people of all kinds, and we despise the intrauterine genocide now waged against our darker-skinned brothers and sisters by liberals who demand civil rights, but only for those who escape the abortionist who lives on the payroll of liberal politicians.

Conservatives don't outsource personal protection. Much as we admire and value the police, we take personal responsibility for preemptive protection. We exercise our natural right to self-defense, and our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as both a bulwark for our freedoms and the best crime-prevention tool yet invented. When decent men bear arms, they pose an unreasonable risk to indecent cowards, forcing the would-be criminals back toward civil society where happiness can be pursued with less danger to life and limb.

Conservatives build a strong national defense. As our own president has noted, we don't crave an inch of foreign soil. If we need foreign oil, we willingly buy it at market prices. Once upon a time, this citadel of liberty stood beyond the forbidding sea. But technology has overcome distance as a defense, and the American island no longer lies remote from our enemies. When the first jet took flight, it turned the vast ocean into a mere moat. All men hate war. All men love freedom. Yet often war is the price of freedom. American blood irrigates the fields of liberty around the world. Conservatives don't shrink from this duty, because we know that a free Iraq or Afghanistan adds more winners to the revolution which began in 1776, whose ripples of peace and prosperity will most certainly come back around to our shores. Again the Conservative's unvarnished view of human nature guides his doctrine of war and peace. As the bumper sticker says: Peace Through Superior Firepower. Weakness invites attack, strength deters it.

These are some of the core beliefs that make conservatism as glorious an ideal as fallen man can conceive.

If the ideal seems yet afar off, it's not a failure of Conservatism. It's a failure of courage, and a lack of vision. Conservative politicians, and we who support and elect them have wavered, and sometimes collapsed in the face of the vigorous onslaught of liberalism.

It's time to kill compassionate conservatism, and to call Conservatives to rise up and live out the true meaning of our creed. Under this banner we march boldly forward, with freedom as our object and compassion as the legacy of our rediscovered liberty.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

Sen. John McCain went to a beef producers convention yesterday, and gave a red meat speech. A cattle farmer in the crowd, remarked to his brother, "I'd like to hear him give that same talk at a convention of vegetarians."

Actually, it was a cluster of conservative political activists who listened as Sen. McCain spoke passionately of strong borders, devotion to the rule of law, strict-constructionist judges, defense of human life in the womb, free-market health care, lower taxes, vigorous cost cutting, the death of sneaky earmarks, and his strong suit, an aggressive national defense policy.

He made some headway with skeptical conservatives more familiar with Sen. McCain's proclivity to partner with liberal lawmakers to write legislation that limits liberty for all but illegal aliens.

But giving a meat-lovers speech to the beef council doesn't test convictions. He needs, with equal exuberance, to carve and devour a rib-eye in the presence of the vegetarians and vegans whom he loves so well. Even more, he must tell them of the rich flavor and satisfying texture of steak, wave it before them on the tines of the fork, and celebrate it with such sincerity they long to take a bite.

"I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."
    -- Sen. John McCain at CPAC, February 7, 2008

At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Sen. McCain gave his best speech to date. But it's not his stump speech. It should be. To make it better, the candidate should take Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK, with him on the trail, because Sen. Coburn's introduction yesterday stands with Marc Antony's eulogy to Julius Caesar in the annals of extreme makeovers.

Sen. Coburn made a convincing case that with President McCain, you may not always get what you want, but you'll always know what you're getting. Of course, that's exactly what causes such trepidation as the Republican nominating convention approaches. We think we know what we're getting with Sen. McCain, and much of it we don't like.

But Sen. Coburn painted his colleague as a thrifty, incorruptible stallion eager to kick down the doors of the brie-filled rooms where budget deals are made on the backs of hardworking taxpayers. He said Sen. McCain has no plan to grant amnesty to illegals, and if he did, that Sen. Coburn would kill it. More than anything, he portrayed the former POW as a gutsy fighter, willing to sacrifice all for a just cause.

Senators Coburn and McCain said nearly all the right things at CPAC. Now, let's hear the Republican presidential front runner take that show on the road consistently, in a way that convinces conservatives that it's more than just a show.

Sen. McCain has the God-given ability to lead.

Time will tell if he has the convictions that inspire conservatives to follow.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

As neo-lib presidential candidate John McCain heads for the Republican nomination, and a November thrashing at the hands of Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton, conservatives across the land endure the dark night of the soul, wrestling with their consciences.

We reason in our hearts that at least Sen. McCain is right on fighting terrorists in Iraq, though he would be kinder and gentler interrogating those who strap bombs to retarded women and remotely trigger them in public pet markets.

At least, President McCain would maintain Gen. David Petraeus' strategy for crushing al Qaeda door-to-door in the cities, and winning over the tribal leaders in the provinces.

At least, President McCain could stare down Iran's Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Dear Leader. One can even hear him echo President Reagan's determined word to the Russian leader who sells nuke-tech to Iran: "Nyet!"

Of course, this doesn't assuage conservatives who feel they're watching from the beach as the prow of the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan slips beneath the foam.

Even if some conservatives can rationalize their way into the booth in November, and can bring themselves to press the McCain icon on the touchscreen, it may not be enough. The straight-party Democrats can still beat him.

Recall that the inept, personality-free Sen. John Kerry did not get stomped by the marginally-conservative George W. Bush, and the unhinged former Vice President Al Gore actually won the popular vote. A Democrat-nominated inflatable porpoise would pull at least 49 percent of the popular vote in a general election. So, what chance does maverick McCain have against a ruthless machine like Hillary '08, or a well-organized, well-funded messianic movement like Obamamania?

Short story: Sen. McCain can't do it alone...but Team America could.

To bring principled fiscal, and social, conservatives into his campaign, Sen. McCain must take steps to neutralize his toxic flaws. The Team America strategy calls for the war hero to run as Commander-in-Chief, and to surround himself with Lt. Generals who compensate for his weaknesses in almost every other area.

Here's one potential roster for Team America.

Bring Fred Thompson on as vice president to serve as the Constitutional conscience of the administration -- an ideological gravitas behemoth -- who can do for President McCain what Dick Cheney has done for President Bush on foreign policy. Behind the scenes, Vice President Thompson offers President McCain private counsel, guided by our Founding Fathers, without drawing attention to himself. Mr. Thompson seems eminently qualified for such a role, eschewing publicity and advancing the cause which impelled him to mount his own White House bid.

Mike Huckabee has said that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reminds voters of "the guy who laid them off." This is, of course, precisely the kind of guy we need to tame our bloated bureaucracy. With Mitt Romney as director of the Office of Management and Budget, we can expect streamlined processes, spending cuts, tax cuts, departmental reorganization, hierarchy flattening, technology-driven customer service advances, and the desperately-needed headcount reduction that OMB Director Romney will surely spin as "right sizing." President McCain would simply loosen the leash and say, "Go crunch that data, Mitt, and bring me your recommendations and a cholesterol-free budget."

Rep. Tom Tancredo, the stalwart champion of secure borders and respect for the rule of law, would naturally serve as director of U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (formerly the INS). Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani could head up the Department of Homeland Security.

That leaves former Gov. Huckabee. You can't make him Secretary of Health and Human Services, because he'll ban smoking, trans-fats, salt and sugar, and create a massive new government program to fight obesity by forcing fat people to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure. However, he would make an excellent chaplain of the Senate, where his daily prayers would stir the hearts, and wring out the eyes, of the sternest legislator.

While that last suggestion was a bit facetious, the rest constitutes my sincere recommendation -- one that Sen. McCain ignores at his own peril...and ours.


Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

The survival of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign provides a powerful illustration of how profligate borrowing and irresponsible lending gets us in trouble.

As global financial markets continue to stagger under the burden of the subprime mortgage crisis, we learn today that Sen. McCain resuscitated his "mostly dead" White House bid ($500,000 in the red) with a massive loan involuntarily backed by the goodwill of his supporters. In November, the bank took his mailing list as collateral for a $3 million line of credit, almost all of which he blew in less than 30 days by betting on New Hampshire. As it turns out, his casino-style gamble with other people's money (OPM) strategy worked, and he lived to spend millions more of OPM.

Say what you will about Mitt Romney, at least he's risking a big chunk of his own cash on his candidacy, loaning his campaign some $18 million during the fourth quarter.

If the McCain campaign had collapsed, the banks held little but the hope that McCainiacs would pony up some pity money to bail out the debt. Of course, the bankers didn't see the loan as a wild risk. After all, John McCain is a U.S. Senator, and senators can always find cash. (They also secured the loan with a life insurance policy on the septuagenarian politician, which just makes sense.)

Subprime mortgage lending leads to upside-down debt-to-equity ratios when interest rates ascend -- houses that aren't worth what's owed on them. John McCain's subprime candidacy, if it succeeds in garnering the Republican nomination, will lead to an upside-down personality-to-principles ratio. In other words, we get a candidate who growls like Gen. George S. Patton, but votes like Sen. Harry "Pinky" Reid on immigration, tax cuts, global warming, drilling in Anwar, and other significant issues.

Oddly enough, Sen. McCain has flip-flopped on his own economic prowess -- once acknowledging it wasn't his strong suit, later bragging of his expertise. Now that we know he leveraged his faithful friends to wager on his ambition, without even asking them to co-sign the loan, perhaps we should marvel at his financial wizardry.

In November 2007, Sen. McCain could have acknowledged that his mismanaged campaign had burned through tens of millions of dollars with little to show for it. His own top adviser, Charles Black, said McCain had overestimated what he could raise, and had overspent. He could have shut the operation down, stopped the bleeding, and backed a more viable candidate for the good of the party. That would demonstrate fiscal restraint, prudence, humility and the willingness to make tough choices for the benefit of all Americans. In bowing out, he would have displayed the hallmarks of the conservatism he claims to embrace.

But instead, he placed an all-or-nothing bet, backed by the full faith and credit of people who are convinced that he's the man to lead us out of this economic morass, because he's not like those big-spending liberal Democrats who redistribute American wealth and mortgage our future to finance their agendas.

Given the track record of his own campaign, what can we expect from a President McCain when the nation is faced with trying economic times?

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott
[Audio Version Available at ScrappleFace.com]

When it comes to his "fellow citizens", President George Bush has two words: Trust and empower.

The refrain of the first half of his State of the Union address called on Congress to "trust" the American people, and yet to spend a lot of tax money to "empower" them in almost every area of life. The president professed to trust in the "collective wisdom of ordinary citizens", but through his proposals he portrayed us as moderately wise, but ultimately helpless. In other words, we Americans know what to do to secure the blessings of liberty, but we cannot do it without government intervention, taxpayer dollars and a federal safety net to protect us from failure.

He told Congress to trust us with our own money, our own health care choices and to trust our children to learn if given a fair chance at decent schools. He said Americans are smart, skilled, innovative, creative, financially-savvy, hard-working and good-hearted.

Flattered as we are by his assessment of our gifts and abilities, we might wonder why such bright, industrious, thrifty people can't manage our own lives in a free-market economy, in the greatest harvest field of opportunity the world has ever seen. If we're so clever, why do we need so many new injections of government-controlled redistributed wealth, which is exactly what the president repeatedly proposed.

For starters, President Bush believes we need the short-term shot in the arm of tax rebates, because we suffer short-term economic "uncertainty", ostensibly because we don't understand the cyclical nature of markets.  We need a new $300 million Pell Grant for Kids to "help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools," as Congress continues to flood those same public schools with cash under the guise of 'No Child Left Behind' reforms. We need to bail out people who make bad mortgage choices, rescue and retrain those who cling to jobs in declining industries as they ignore the obvious, pump more money into our struggling university laboratories for research that private industry apparently won't fund, and we must make sure that faith-based charity groups have a place at the public trough alongside their godless counterparts.

By his own description of trust, if President Bush trusted you to ride a bicycle, he would never let go of the back of the seat. It's his hand on the seat that empowers you. Without it, you would fall, never to rise again. We've finally discovered what's connected to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" -- it's the long-arm of the federal government.

"We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens."
-- President George W. Bush, January 29, 2008

It's an odd turn of phrase for a man who professes faith in the superintending grace of God, and who regularly reads the Bible. But odder still, since, in all of our "collective wisdom", we've still made such a mess of the economy that President Bush and Congress must ride to the rescue, bearing bags of our own cash to empower us.

This Neo-Market Capitalism is "compassionate conservatism" in full bloom. In a word, it's cruelty.

From his first presidential campaign, then-Gov. Bush established a dynamic tension, and embraced the false dichotomy, between conservative principles and compassionate living. His misunderstanding of conservatism and capitalism leads him to believe that something must be added to each, in order for them to be loving, gracious and kind.

Conservatism doesn't need an adjective to complete it. Properly understood, conservatism is the most compassionate, and empowering system of government ever devised.

Conservatism empowers because...
-- It champions liberty and respect for law, without irony or contrast.
-- It acknowledges man's responsibility and God's sovereignty with equal vigor.
-- It preserves the dignity of man by allowing him to feel the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, without government scraping off the proceeds of success, or pouring on the pity when prospects seem dim.
-- It recognizes that risk, reward and failure must all exist for the achievement to be worth the toil.
-- It fosters charity at the community, church and individual levels where money changes hands with more accountability, and where benefactor and recipient get to know one another as persons.

President Bush, if you trust us, stop trying to empower us. We have all the power we need from a source beyond the beltway.

Your well-intentioned meddling can only foul the propeller of our progress. And the people all said, "Mr. President, sit down. Sit down, you're rocking the boat."

[Audio Version Available at ScrappleFace.com]

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

As Hillary Clinton slunk out of South Carolina last night, under cover of darkness, having parlayed the world's greatest political brand name into a 2-to-1 primary pounding by a relative neophyte, the exit polling reveals a possible way forward for the former First Lady.

Sen. Barack Obama defeated Sen. Clinton in every age group and every income cohort, among college grads and non-college grads, among males and females, self-identified liberals and conservatives, those who focus on issues and those for whom personality is paramount, the Iraq cut-and-runners and they who wish we would stay indefinitely. 

Sen. Clinton can claim only one clear victory niche. Among those who think the country is "not ready" for a black president, she won handily (48-23).

In other words, Sen. Clinton runs strongly among those who judge a person by the color of his skin rather than by the content of his character, or who believe that America is still too racist to elect a black candidate, though they might personally harbor no such prejudice.

Although she got more support among whites than Sen. Obama did, she didn't win the white vote -- John Edwards did (at 40 percent). She only won the "America's not ready for a black president" vote. Call it Hillary Clinton's Confederate coalition.

Columnist Dick Morris, the disgraced former adviser to the disgraced former president, has already written that the Clintons will play this loss for all the "white backlash" they can get. However reprehensible, Mr. Morris thinks it's a winning strategy.

Of course, no one is talking about a "male backlash strategy" for Sen. Obama, but then he beat Mrs. Clinton soundly even among those who said the country is "ready" for a female president (50-33). In order for a backlash strategy to work, you have to get whupped, and only Sen. Clinton succeeded in doing that.

The big unanswered question of the day is "Where have all the white Democrats gone?"

In a state where 29.5 percent of the population is black, the racial minority comprises 50 percent of registered Democrats, and they turned out at the polls in that proportion. It's sad to see the party of equality and Civil Rights unable to get ebony and ivory to live together in perfect harmony.

There's ample evidence that the mainstream media has already bought the Clinton campaign spin that South Carolina served only to establish Sen. Obama as "the black candidate," an attempt to marginalize him as the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of our day.

The Clinton presidential duo plays this tune at their own peril. (If she had won South Carolina, would her partisans have said "Hillary triumphed despite the high black turnout"?) Methinks Mr. Morris and the mainstream media misjudge most Americans, even most Democrats.

Remember, Sen. Obama won the Iowa caucuses, where blacks represent a mere four percent of the population. He lost New Hampshire, another land of Wonder Bread and Mayonnaise, by only two points. He actually won more delegates in Nevada, though the media played up Sen. Clinton's victory in the meaningless statewide popular vote. Sen. Obama's race for the White House is not racial.

The Obama campaign, unlike those of the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, has not run on traditional tracks of Civil Rights and social justice. The problem for Sen. Clinton is that, on ideology and policy questions, most voters cannot distinguish between her and Sen. Obama.

So, Democrats, of all races, now ask themselves, whom would I rather see striding to the podium to stand behind the presidential seal? Whose voice would I rather listen to for the next eight years? Which candidate makes me proud to be a Democrat, nay, even proud to be an American?

Team Clinton should recall that they, and their white Democrat ancestors have been pandering to blacks for 40 years by telling them they deserve not only a place at the table, but a fair shot at the big chair in the Oval Office.

The time has come. Democrats are ready. Only Sen. Clinton and her Confederate coalition stands in the way of this significant fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream.

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

If John McCain ever wants to hear 'Hail to the Chief' played in his honor, he must do something that he, among the remaining GOP candidates, is particularly ill-prepared to do: carry a conservative coalition into Congress on his coattails.

Mr. McCain, who fought President George Bush's tax cuts and now supports making them permanent, professes a desire to slash federal spending, eliminate wasteful programs and sneaky earmarks, and find new ways to reduce taxes. Be still my blood-red beating heart.

However, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid each would greet President McCain's vision with four words: "Over my retired body."

In other words, it takes a Republican Congressional majority to cut spending and taxes.

While Sen. McCain has demonstrated a proclivity for reaching across the aisle, his bipartisan spirit has only worked to advance causes dear to Democrats -- campaign finance reform (read: free-speech restraint), immigration reform (read: illegal alien amnesty), and what might be called 'Senate Majority reform', when Sen. McCain's back-room "Gang of 14" deal squandered the main benefit of a 55-vote majority -- the ability to confirm the president's strict-constructionist judicial nominees.

Sen. McCain can build consensus, he just can't seem to build it around conservative principles. And while he presents himself as a straight-talking maverick, he has succeeded in little but talking himself into compromise with people who think "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" would be better concepts if the federal government were completely in control of their distribution.

The man who has made a PR career out of bucking the right wing of his own party must suddenly transform himself into the leader whose bedrock conservatism inspires a new generation of Congressional warriors (elected in 2008 and 2010) who fearlessly and relentlessly wield the sword against the budget Hydra. If you believe that will happen, I have bridge to nowhere I'd like to sell you.

The next Republican presidential nominee needs to use his positional authority to reform the GOP into a party that vigorously recruits candidates based on conservative principles, personal integrity and demonstrated ability to lead, rather than the party's current myopic practice of doing whatever it takes to get 'R' people elected, regardless of their adherence to the ideology that once made this party great.

Sen. McCain's bomber jacket has no coattails, and conservatives will deliver a little straight talk to him.

In a word: "No."

Scott Ott is editor in chief of ScrappleFace.com, the family-friendly daily news satire site, contributing author of the forthcoming book "The New Media Frontier" (Sept. 2008, by Crossway), and a dynamic public speaker available through Premiere Speakers Bureau.

by Scott Ott

No sparks. No attacks. No clever sniping against fellow Republicans. What kind of presidential debate was that?

That's the tone of the mainstream media coverage of last night's Republican presidential forum in Boca Raton, Florida. Journalists and pundits have decided that what America needs in a president is a guy (or gal) who really knows how to verbally eviscerate his opponents. When the candidates fail to do that, the pundits describe the debate as "