Lyn Nofziger, Andy Card Depart White House

NewsMax ^ | 29 March 2006 | John LeBoutillier

[ckilmer]

The author is drunk

[Aussie Dasher]

Somebody is!

[ckilmer]

Any time someone dumps on the Bush's for Katrina business it means their brains are on automatic pilot--or they're just a democrat--which means they operate off of really bad data.

[EternalVigilance]

Oh, for a thousand Lyn Nofzigers in positions of power in the GOP.

But dang, there was only one of him...

[Aussie Dasher]

I wonder what the reunion was like...

[EternalVigilance]

From Lyn's blog:


Conservatives are fearful that Harriet
Will be George Bush’s Iscariot.
They have little doubt
That she’d sell them out
For a ride in a liberal’s chariot.

[EternalVigilance]

Years of accrued wisdom:


http://www.lynnofziger.com/musings.htm

[EternalVigilance]

Lyn Nofziger, during his last holiday season:

Nov. 23, 2005—Happy Thanksgiving, one and all. I hope you have much to be thankful for. As for me, I’m thankful to be alive and to have family gathered around for this special day. I am thankful that I was born in and live in the land of the free with all that that implies.

I am thankful that there is a God, a Creator to whom I can be thankful.

Thanksgiving, of course, is a religious holiday, whether or not one wants to admit it. Giving thanks implies that there is a superior Someone to be thankful to for the blessings one has received during the year. If God does not exis then who does one thank? His lucky stars?

I feel sorry for athiests. Who do they turn to in their hour of need or their time of joy? I have no idea. But I know who I turn to and in His name I again wish all who read this a happy Thanksgiving and much to be thankful for in the year ahead.

[EternalVigilance]

Like everyone else, including the lady herself, I don’t have the vaguest idea what kind of a supreme court justice Harriet Miers will make—if, indeed the president hangs tough and she eventually is confirmed.

But I do know one thing: The president made a first class political blunder when he picked her, kind of like his daddy raising taxes a couple of weeks before the 1990 congressional elections. This was a typical Bush family blunder—completely unnecessary and hurtful not just to the president’s relations with his party but more important, to the party itself. That drool you see on the sidewalks these days comes from the Dems slobbering all over themselves with glee. The blood you see is the result of the president sticking sharp sticks in his supporters’ eyes.

One thing you can bet: a lot of Republican politicians will be distancing themselves from the white house in the weeks ahead, figuring it’s more important to hold on to their constituents than it is to hold onto their relations with the president.

And it’s all so unnecessary. On the one hand the president didn’t need to appoint Ms. Miers and thus aggravate his base and on the other, conservatives might have given the lady a chance. But neither event happened.

I suspect the uproar from his base caught George W. completely by surprise. After naming John Roberts as chief justice I suspect he thought conservatives would not question who his next appointee would be. Boy, was he wrong.

Conservatives remember too well David Souter and Tony Kennedy and Sandra O’Connor and a multitude of other justices picked by Republican presidents who drifted leftward to show the liberal Washington elites that they had “grown” in the job. They are not willing to take a chance on a complete unknown whose only apparent qualification is her friendship with the president.

Having said all of this, the odds are good that Ms. Miers will be confirmed. The Democrats will see to it, just for the fun of it. The odds are not so good that she will turn out to be a bright and shining star on the historical record of her mentor and benefactor.

[EternalVigilance]

Sept. 30, 2005--The lead editorial in today’s Washington Times, in referring to Tom DeLay’s legal troubles, notes that that has been a “trying week” for Republicans. Actaully that’s not quite right. For DeLay it’s been an indicting week. The trying comes later.

---

Talking about indictments, it is well to remember that an indictment is not a conviction. An indictment is a tool the government and its representatives too often use to intimidate and persecute citizens against whom it may have a grudge. Criminal lawyers (all lawyers are not criminals) have a saying that government prosecutors can “indict a ham sandwich.”

Their tool is the grand jury. That body was originally set up to protect the citizen from the overweening power of government. It has been hijacked by government,, however, and is now used as a tool of the prosecutors from which the citizen has no recourse..

Persons brought before grand juries are not allowed to have their lawyers present nor do they have the right to question witnesses. They can be and often are browbeaten and insulted and ethreatened by prosecutors and by members of the grand jury. And in the end even a ham sandwich isn’t safe from the vindictiveness of government prosecutors whose job supposedly is not to put their fellow citizens in prison but to see that justice is done.

Prosecutors well know that a conviction is not necessary to ruin a person; an indictment by itself is often enough An indictment to the average citizen strongly implies guilt. An indictment means a trial, means lawyers bills, can mean bankruptcy, can destroy a family, can ruin a business or a career..

Ray Donovan, Reagan's secretary of labor, was indicted, tried and after months was found innocent. Afterward he asked bitterly, "Where do I go to get my reputation back."

No one had an answer.

Perhaps Tom DeLay will be luckier.

---

[EternalVigilance]

---

Sept. 16, 2005—Wes Pruden, who is the editor of the Washington Times also is one of the better and more perspicacious newspaper columnists in this town, asks a pertinent question in today’s column, namely: “Where are the Republicans, awash in their familiar cowardice, to defend the president....?”

Where indeed?

Most of the time to many of them are nowhere to be found or else are found consorting with the enemy, critical of what ever stand the president might have taken or might be contemplating, putting their own ambitions first.

Of course, nobody can be expected to support any president all of the time, but on major issues, where there is a clear political division between the parties it is a different matter.

When liberal Democrats demand that a deadline be set for leaving Iraq it seems to me that it is not too much to expect from party leaders that they rally behind the president.. Likewise, the president deserves support for his judicial appointees when Democrats are actively opposing them for reasons having nothing to do with their qualifications.

Nor is it too much to expect that congressional Republicans rally behind their president when Democrats go on the attack merely for the sake of going on the attack.

The fact is, Democrats are determined to destroy any legacy George Bush might leave behind. From the beginning of Bush’s first term they have been united in that endeavor, believing there is no other way for them to regain control of the reins of government.

Unfortunately, the people who should should know this and who should be supporting the president too often leave him twisting in the wind, forgetting that in the long run it will not be just George Bush who is the loser; it may well be—come the next election--the Republican party and the country itself.



Aug. 25, 2005--“How can people reach such high positions and then suddenly become so stupid?”

A friend in California, a political junkie, writes me this in utter frustration. He is referring, of course, to the governor of California, Arnold Shwarzenegger who started out like a house on fire and is winding up as little more than a pile of luke warm ashes.

My friend, here are some answers, which should come as no surprise.

.Reaching high position, either elective or appointive, is one thing. Serving well, living up to commitments, showing good judgment, exerting political courage, keeping promises under pressure, putting principle ahead of political ambition are something else again.

Let’s deal here with elective positions, governor, say, but the same principles apply to dog catchers and presidents.

Rarely is a person elected to high office solely because he or she is the most able, the most qualified, the most fit. There are too many other factors involved: The quality and numbers of the opposition, the make-up and turnout of the electorate, the issues, the ability of the candidates to appeal to the voters, money, the ability and enthusiasm of those running the campaign. Lastly, but maybe most important, everything else being reasonably equal, elections are won by the candidates who make the fewest mistakes.

None of this has much to do with how a person will run his office once elected and that is the mistake most peple make; they think and expect the person they elected will be the same having won your vote that he was when seeking it.. It never happens. Not with Arnie Shwarzenegger, not even with Ronald Reagan. You’re expecting too damn much if you expect this.

Looky.

Things, once you get on the inside, are always a lot different than they appeared to be when you were on the outside. Nothing is as simple, nothing is as cheap and for darn sure, nothing is as solvable.

It’s no longer a case of “I will do this or that” but rather a case of “Howcome those s.o.bs in the legislature keep screwing up what has to be done?”

It’s no longer a case of fulfilling campaign promises but one of dealing not with what you said you’d do but dealing with what has to be done.

Politics is always a game of tradeoffs. A legislator can stand firm, knowing he has the support of his fellows. A egovernor or president has to get something done which means making a deal, giving a little to get a little.

Issues come up after a person is elected (Nine-Eleven for instance) that are unexpected, that may call for breaking campaign promises.

I am just scratching the surface here—books can and have been written on the subject—but one more thing needs to be said.

Ambition! The most important thing to almost all politicians is to get reelected. For term-limited governors and presidents it’s to leave behind a legacy. These are more important than principles or promises. When you see a governor or president flip-flopping on a major issue it’s because he thinks it’s to his political advantage to do so. It makes no difference if he’s wrong if he thinnks he’s right. It makes no differenc if he breaks your heart or a few others if he thinks it’s for his long term good. You think what he’s doing is stupid; you know it’s dishonest. Maybe so. But will it help get him re-elected? Will it send him into the history books as a great man? Nothing else matters. Which is why you and I and others who care and believe are left frustrated and in tears. Regardless, this is and always will be life in a political democracy and anyone who expects anything different is living in a dream world..

---

[EternalVigilance]

Aug. 12, 2005--When they come to write the story of the rise of the New Right as part of the growth of the conservative movement in the last half of the 20th century one of the names that will be writ large is Paul weyrich. I have not always agreed with Paul. I am part of the libertarian fringe of the conservative movement. Paul is not. I am a Reaganite. Paul is not. You think I am sot in my ways and beliefs? Meet Paul Weyrich.

Everybody has a right to be wrong and Paul has taken full advantage of that fact.

And yet I say without hesitation that few men have been as important to the growth of modern-day conservatism as Paul Weyrich. Without him there would be no Heritage Foundation. Without him the New Right likely would have floundered before it ever got off the ground.

Weyrich is one of those who puts principle before politics. On the surface that sounds great, but politics is a way of getting something done and unless you figure out a way to convert principle into action it (principle) ceases to have much meaning.

As a matter of principle Weyrich once decided Ronald Reagan was unfit to be president and he and a few others of like mind decided to find a more dedicted conservative to be the Republican presidential nominee. Their man was Indiana Rep. Philip Crain who foolishly seized the bait, lost big and quickly and and hasn’t been heard from since. Worse, after Reagan was elected ,Weyrich and his mates were left sitting on the outside looking in.

In a way that was too bad. In another way it wasn’t all that bad; it left Paul owing Reagan nothing and free to second guess and criticize, the importance of which cannot be minimized.

Paul is one of those essential persons who operates better and more effectively on the outside.

A while back Paul had a nasty accident that left him crippled and in constant pain. Doctors decided that the only way to alleviate the pain was to amputate his legs. That was to be done this week.

If you can spare one, lift a prayer to the Lord on Paul’s behalf. He is a brave man, a principled man and a man who has fought most of his life to make this a better country.

------

[EternalVigilance]

To borrow the great Lyn Nofziger's words about Paul Weyrich:


If you can spare one, lift a prayer to the Lord on Lyn's family's behalf.

He was a brave man, a principled man and a man who has fought most of his life to make this a better country.


God rest your soul, sir!

[EternalVigilance]

-------

There was a time we thought the fort

Defending freedom was the court

That sits on high and reigns supreme.

But now we know ‘twas but a dream.

The highest court in all our land

No longer seems to understand

The constitution’s full intent

Or that the founding fathers meant

For it to keep our country free

And to insure man’s liberty.

But liberty no longer seems

To be the thing this court esteems.

It rules instead that governments

In general takes precedence

And we who once had liberty

Now must bow down to tyranny.

Or stand and fight for freedom’s ground.

It worked before, the Redcoats found.

by Joy Skilmer (aka Lyn Nofziger)

[Lancey Howard]

Any time someone dumps on the Bush's for Katrina business it means their brains are on automatic pilot

Exactly! Throw in the Dubai ports deal and you end up with a knee-jerk, finger-to-the-wind has-been named John LeBoutillier bashing Bush for failing to properly kowtow to the cowards on the Hill.

[EternalVigilance]

The thought that the Republicans have a 10-vote edge in the United States senate is a snare and an illusion. Yes, there are 55 senators who call themselves Republicans and who were elected as Republicans but what is often overlooked is that half a dozen of them are genuine, certified, dyed-in-the-wool RINOs (Republicans in name only) and several more view themselves as above-partisanship statesmen. This means there are somewhere around 10 Republicans who in a pinch cannot be counted on, at least five of whom at any one time can be counted on to vote with the Democrats.

Let me name them: Lincoln Chaffee, R.I.; Susan Collins and Olympia Snow, Maine; Arlen Specter, Pa.; John Warner, Va.; John McCain, Ariz.; Chuck Hagle, Neb., George Voinovich and Mike deWine, Ohio; Lindsey Graham, S.C.

These ten and perhaps one or two others time after time leave the Republican leadership scrambling for votes and just as often assure the Democrats the votes they need to block administration proposals, appointees and policies.

Such is life under the capitol dome. And such will it ever be until Republican leadership finally figure out that they are going to have to beat some of these people in primaries and quit supporting them for re-election just because they have an R after their names.

---

[EternalVigilance]

May 19, 2005--Third political parties in the United States are notoriously unsuccessful. They don’t win important elections, although from time to time one may garneer enough votes to give one of the two major parties a victory it might otherwise not win. In l992, for example, Ross Perot’s third party may have prevented the reelection of President George H.W. Bush.

Likewise, Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose party caused the defeat of President Taft and gave the presidency to Woodrow Wilson. And Democrats like to blame Al Gore’s loss in 2000 on the votes siphoned off by third party candidate Ralph Nader.

Nevertheless, despite a record of failures, the law of averages says that one day a third party will have the right issue(s) and the right candidate to win the presidency.

And right at this moment, far fetched as it seems, that that day might arrive as soon as the presidential election of 2008.

I’m beginning to believe the issue is there and what is needed now is charismatic candidate to rally Americans in support of that issue.

The issue: open borders and illegal immigration.

Currently both major parties are pretty much indifferent to it. Or rather, they show no desire to fix the situation by shutting down the border between the United States and Mexico. President Bush’s proposal is little more than an amnesty program for ten to twenty million illegals already here. As far as the Democrats are concerned the problem is hardly more than a blip on their radar screen.

Efforts by civilians to slow the flow of illegals across the border. far from being appreciated by President Bush, instead have unfortunately resulted in his calling them “vigilantes.”

Leaders in both parties appear to be indifferent to the growing problem, which is especially prickly in the southwest where illegals threaten to become a majority and where they are making no attempt to integrate into the American culture. Neither do they appear to be paying any attention to Mexico’s overt efforts to solve its economic problems by abetting the flow of illegals across the border.

Among other things the ease illegals have in entering the United States means its borders are also open to potential terrorists and to drug smugglers.

Unless the president and/or the congress take action in the next couple of years the situation will only get worse.

If the day comes when terrorists launch another successful attack within the U.S. and it is found that the terrorists walked across the border from Mexico how will the president explain it? How will congress defend its refusal to act?

The actutal launching or even the potential threat of a terrorist attack, along with the continuing influx of undocumented aliens, if properly exploited by a third party candidate, could well bring about a serious backlash against the two major do-nothing parties not only in the presidential race but also in the congressional races.

It seems obvious at this moment that both parties have become complacent about the problem. And in politics complacency, as the Democrats learned in the Republican sweep of l994, is the sure road to defeat.


Lyn Nofziger

---

[Lancey Howard]

I disagree on a couple of the names: Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine can be obstinate and fickle but will usually come through when the chips are down. The only total scumbag on the list is Chafee. A few of the others are dangerous cowards, a few are dangerously unreliable, and two are simply crazy. Don't get me wrong - - that's the right list - - but on any given day, half of them will come through on any given issue. Flip a coin.

[EternalVigilance]

Yeah, and then you get the guy who sells you out when you don't expect it...like Sam Brownback did in the Judiciary Committee on immigration.