"Virginia’s aggressive push this year also represents a subtle shift in philosophy from last year, when the Cavaliers went to the wire with several high-profile national prospects but lost out on most of them at the last minute to schools such as Michigan, Southern Cal and Miami. Virginia’s recruiting class of 2004 was not as highly regarded as its previous classes.
This class, though, could be well on its way to being U.Va.’s best ever. “I’ve kept up with how Virginia is stacking this class,” Robinson told the Daily Progress of Charlottesville. “There’s a lot of big names becoming part of the program, and I wanted to become part of the great class of 2005 recruits.”
Fuller has kept up as well. “Everybody he’s picked so far, everybody I’ve met, is great,” Fuller said. “When you see other good players, who want to do well, you want to be on the same team with them. I really think we’re going to be a national contender team.”
WahooWah...MUD
"Third party fever seems to attack conservatives on a cyclical basis, something like a cicada rising, only a bit more frequently. After the moderate Republicans turned on Barry Goldwater in 1964 and helped cause his defeat, after the liberal GOP establishment defeated Ronald Reagan in 1976, and after more moderate candidates won the nomination over more right-leaning ones in 1988 and 2000, leading conservatives have called foul and sought the third party route.
They could not have been more wrong in 1964. Senator Goldwater's defeat was the best thing politically that ever happened to conservatism. It led to the conservative dominance of the party platform, rules and a large majority of candidates for at least the next three decades. Governor Reagan overcame the supposedly all-powerful establishment just four years after he was supposedly read out of the GOP forever and became a two term president who moved the whole world's agenda toward the right. As far as the two later experiences, conservatives had their challengers both times and since when has whining become us? In a party where conservatives represent a large majority of voters, we could not unify on a candidate and the moderates won. Was that their fault or our own?
An American party is simply a framework for political organization. Its primary voters, activists and candidates fill in the rest--walls, ceiling, floors, platforms, rules, candidates, funding and participation. The U.S. winner-take-all electoral system encourages two major parties, one staking out the left and one the right of the political spectrum. The groups representing philosophical tendencies and material interests divide up into two broad sets of players, decide what particular ideologies and officeholders will contest with the other side through primaries, and then the two battle it out in November to see which wins. The nomination process is when the conservatives and moderates fight it out to get the bonus votes of the partyline voters in the general election. Whichever faction secures the nomination sets the tone for the next four years. After the nomination, it is too late since third parties cannot win.
Sure, conservatives will be weak at the 2004 Republican convention. Conservatives could have united behind Steve Forbes in 2000 but they choose not to do so. No one challenged George W. Bush for the nomination in 2004 and that is how the system works. No other way makes sense and conservatives need a fair system when it is their turn. Paleoconservatives argue that conservatives are doomed to always play second fiddle to the moderates since they have the money and, therefore, conservatives should start a third party. Ronald Reagan proved that financing was not a barrier if the right is united. Our time will come again and it is in our interest to preserve the two party system until we get our own act together.
In the meantime, the battle goes on. Rep. Patrick Toomey took on the White House, a savvy long-time moderate Republican senator with a 3-to-1 spending advantage, the whole Pennsylvania GOP establishment including a popular fellow conservative senator and kept the incumbent to 50.8 percent of the primary vote. As one reporter put it, Toomey "was brazen enough to suggest the party is deserting the antispending, antitax beliefs that helped bring it to power in Congress 10 years ago." Rather than the defeat of conservatism, Toomey looks more like Goldwater as the precursor of the next wave of revival for the principles of limited government that made this party so successful. Toomey himself may be just between jobs as the potential next governor of his state.
The same Republican primary in Pennsylvania also saw a conservative challenger to Rep. Bill Schuster, the son of a long-serving archetypal big-spending Republican, almost overcoming long odds and a massive spending advantage. Long time conservative activist and former GOP nominee for governor, Bill Sizemore, reports nearby the defeat by an underfunded conservative challenger of what he calls a Republican-In-Name-Only who supported a large tax increase in liberal Oregon. In South Carolina, five big-spending Republican lost primaries, including the House leader. In North Carolina, the speaker of the state House is being challenged by a conservative who is receiving the support of most of the Republican contributors and activists in the state and who is widely expected to upset the long time incumbent.
Senate primaries in 2004 represent an incredible opportunity for conservatives to win nominations especially in Southern states trending Republican. Open seats in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Colorado, North Carolina and South Carolina all could lead to the election of conservatives more willing to fight the establishment. Jim DeMint has just won a critical primary in South Carolina. He is a one man army who could make all of the difference in the world in a Senate where one person can make an enormous impact. Think how we miss the leadership of Jesse Helms and Phil Gramm. Jim has proven himself in vote after vote, ideological battle after battle. He has a record that only a few dozen can equal and none can exceed. It is easy to espouse conservative principles when everyone is going with you; it is difficult if the party legislative leadership or the White House is pushing for a bad bill that they think is necessary. Jim DeMint is not afraid to say no to his friends when necessary. In the Senate, that attitude makes the difference between just a vote and a leader for conservative principles.
Another potential nominee who can make a difference is former Congressman Tom Colburn, who is running for a Republican Senate seat in Oklahoma, in a difficult multi-candidate primary. Some of the other candidates are sound but Tom was the one Congressman every conservative in Washington knew would always stand up for the right thing. He even took a term limit pledge and had the strength of character to actually step down and give another person a chance at his House seat. Paul Weyrich tells the full story about why his election is so critical for conservatives. David Vitter in Louisiana and Bob Schaffer in Colorado are other candidates who could make a big difference.
The Club for Growth specializes in targeting primaries where conservatives are challenging moderates for legislative office and can provide many more examples of races critical for conservatives (www.clubforgrowth.org). The conservative Congressmen who led the fight to defeat the unpopular $8 trillion unfunded Medicare drug bill are planning a joint fundraising committee to help conservatives who can make a difference to win public office, especially in higher office, after they have proved they have the guts to go against their leadership in the House when matters of principle are at stake.
Conservatives looking for opportunities to advance their agenda can find many outlets for their energies in primaries within the Republican Party. The third party route drains effort from the more critical battle to return the party of the right to the principles of 1964 and 1980 that have made it great.
Donald Devine, Editor."
Interesting opinion...MUD