Heritage's Ed Feulner on the State of Conservatism

The Heritage Foundation's President Dr. Ed Feulner delivered a motivating speech on the state of conservatism at Heritage's President's Club meeting earlier this week in Washington.

In my opinion, it was the best speech I've heard on conservatism in many, many years. This is "must read" material for all Conservatives.

Here is the link to read Dr. Feulner's speech: www.myheritage.org/archive/articles/2008/ed-feulner-on-the-state-of-conservatism.html

Heritage Foundation Unveils Trailer for "33 Minutes" Documentary

As a President's Club member of The Heritage Foundation, I am always impressed by the quality of its products and the expertise of its employees.

However, I must say that its newest initiative, called "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age", may be its most impressive and important work ever.

This past Monday, I attended The Heritage Foundation's President's Club Fall Meeting where we were shown the seven-minute trailer for the documentary set for release in early 2009. The hundreds in attendance, include me, were completely blown away. If this trailer doesn't scare you, nothing will...

Take a look at the trailer below:



For more information on this important initiative, visit http://www.heritage.org/33-minutes/index.htm.

In the Winter of 2009, The Heritage Foundation will release a high-definition documentary that tells the story of the very real threat that hostile nations and rogue dictators now pose to every one of us. In 33 minutes or less, life as we know it in America could end. That's the time it would take for an enemy's ballistic missile to hit the United States. Aptly named, "33 Minutes: Protecting America in the New Missile Age", our documentary will be a key component in exposing our vulnerability to moms, dads and citizens across the country. The time has come to revive the strategic missile defense system that America uniquely can develop, maintain and employ for its own defense and the peace-loving world's security.

Liberal Washington (Com)Post Admits Obama Bias

WOW! The Washington Post's Ombudsman, Deborah Howell, exposed her own paper for what it really is -- a liberal rag. Funny how this analysis, and others like it at other media outlets, didn't come out until AFTER the election was over. We'll see if anyone remembers this four years from now...

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Howell
Sunday, November 9, 2008; B06

The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.

My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.

The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views.

There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."

The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.

Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.

The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.

McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.

Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues.

Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.

Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.

The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.

Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.

The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men.

But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.

The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.

One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.

In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.

Final Comments on the Election...

Sorry for the delay in posting original material to the R.C. Blog. I promise to keep it current and discuss many of the core issues important to Conservatives, especially under Liberal Rule.

It has been five days since Election Day and I needed a few days of R&R from politics and the blog. As a political junkie, I wanted to review the voter breakdown numbers and see the trends, both good and bad.

In a nutshell, why did Obama win? The answer is simple -- principally, the economy, but also I give credit to the Obama team for running a better campaign. It didn't hurt that they were flush with cash and in a position to focus on all battleground and "on the fence" states.

The Obama team was also the victor in the four-month tug-of-war between "is McCain just like Bush or isn't he". The Obama campaign was successful in making the argument stick and the McCain team was unable to adequately defend it. No one who follows politics believes this notion, but Obama was able to sell it to the average American.

I know the elite media was overjoyed in helping Obama get elected and they were quick to throw out terms like "Liberal Mandate in America". However, the facts support that America remains right of center.

Let's look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) from Tuesday:

Marriage Proposals Go in Favor of Traditional Definition -- All four states that included proposals on the ballot this year to "define" marriage went in favor of the traditional definition of a man and a woman. Most notably, the Liberal heartland of California approved an amendment to the state constitution. This comes in a state that voted for Obama by a 55-33 margin.

African Americans and the Youth Vote Disappoint the Dems -- In a year where the Democrats and the media were predicting huge voter turnout in general and record levels for African Americans and the youth, the final results were not even close. The overall vote count was on par with 2004 and not even close to the highest percentage in recent history. In addition, the African American vote was up a whopping 1 percent versus 2004 (13% vs. 12%). The youth vote was the same as 2004 in terms of percentage.

Obama Wins Independent Voters with Conservative Ideas -- As The Heritage Foundation reported on Wednesday, "Obama promised to cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families, expand the Army by 65,000 and the Marines by 27,000, and enact a net spending cut for the federal government. Lower taxes, a strong defense and shrinking the size of government. These are core conservative beliefs. Anyone who claims yesterday’s election was the end of conservatism simply was not paying attention to the campaign."

Predicted Senate and House Dem Gains Fall Short -- Despite predicting a filibuster-proof Senate with 60 seats and a gain of 25 House seats, the Dems fell short in both chambers. They are sitting at 57 with three seats still in play (Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota) and only gained 20 House seats. The GOP did not fare so bad in the Senate when one considers that two-thirds of the incumbents running were Republican.

Catholic Vote Goes for Obama -- As a practicing Catholic, this was the most shocking and personally disappointing of all the results from Tuesday's election. In 2008, dozens of American bishops issued strong public statements reminding their people of their moral obligation to vote in defense of human life. Those statements varied in candor and in quality, but their overall impact was remarkable. The 2008 campaign produced a seismic change in the attitude of the American hierarchy; the bishops as a group were far more outspoken, far more explicit, than in any previous election. Did it help? Sadly, the answer was a resounding "no". According to the exit polls, 54% of American Catholic voters cast their ballots for Obama, despite the Democratic candidate's enthusiastic support for unrestricted legal abortion. A closer look at the numbers does provide some insight. Among Catholic voters who attend Mass weekly, McCain won majority support: 54-45%. Among those who do not attend weekly Mass, the margin for Obama was an overwhelming 61-37%. Thus Obama drew his support from inactive Catholics. And unfortunately, most American Catholics are inactive.

As we prepare for the Obama presidency, Conservatives around the country are asking, "now what?"

The first thing is to not give up or, even worse, conform to their beliefs. What we saw in 2008 was a re-energized Democratic Party who worked hard to get their party elected. The Republican Party was never energized and there was a split between the Conservatives and the Moderates. The Conservatives need to take back the leadership roles in the House and Senate, albeit in the minority, and push the Conservative Agenda. Whether the Dems want to admit it or not, America is still hungry for Conservative beliefs and policies.

Second, get involved. Find Conservative candidates and go volunteer. If you live in Northern Virginia, get involved with State Senator Ken Cuccinelli as he prepares to run for Attorney General in 2009. He is a strong Conservative, in the mold of Ronald Reagan, who could help reshape Virginia. For more information on Sen. Cuccinelli and his campaign for AG, visit http://www.cuccinelli.com/.

Finally, support key Conservative organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation, National Rifle Association, and the Club for Growth. Heritage is the No. 1 Conservative group in America and have been extremely successful in working with the Congress to both pass Conservative legislation and shutdown Liberal policies. They were at the forefront of nixing the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court and in shutting down the Bush-McCain-Kennedy immigration bill a few years ago. For more information, visit http://www.heritage.com/.

Final comment on the 2008 results: Don't believe for a minute that Obama and the Congress are going to have a "love affair" starting in January. I have believed all along that Congress, with its record low approval rating, used Obama to gain seats. Members could see that Obama had all the momentum, not them, so they used him and rode his coattails. Come January, Sen. Obama will learn the hard way that Washington politics is a cutthroat game. I don't think that Obama will be able to get many of his Socialist agenda items through Congress without a lot of give and take. The good news is that without 60 votes in the Senate, strong willed Conservatives and Moderate GOPers can keep legislation in limbo for a long time.

Don't let your hearts be troubled. Although disappointing, we will survive this low point in American history as we did during the Carter years. Remember, without Carter we might not have had Reagan.....

How to Fight Back Against the Left

Dear Fellow Conservative,

We conservatives have our work cut out for us to hold back the liberal tide, and The Heritage Foundation -- America's leading conservative policy organization -- is prepared to fight back.

The Left is sure to claim a mandate to impose its radical agenda on America-from the economy to energy to the war on terror, from the Supreme Court to taxes, health care and education.

If we are to fight back against the liberal onslaught, we need your support today. Our goal is to raise $80,000 towards this effort by November 15.

Help Heritage fight to defend conservative principles and get a free Pocket Constitution with your gift of $35 or more.

And thanks to a generous matching gift, your gift today is worth double. So your tax-deductible donation of $50 is worth $100 to Heritage, and your gift of $100 is worth $200.

Triumphant liberals have already spelled out their plans:

1. On the campaign trail, liberal candidates called for tax increases, massive new government health care programs, drastic new environmental controls and more.
   


2. Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts said, "we'll have to raise taxes ultimately" as a result of liberal spending increases. He also wants to cut defense spending by a quarter.
   


3. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports re-imposing the Fairness Doctrine-an onerous regulation that could silence conservatives on talk radio.
   


4. Liberals of all stripes have pledged to enact the Employee Free Choice Act, a handout to big labor that eliminates the secret ballot in unionization elections.
   

The Heritage Foundation is ready to stand up to this challenge. We will not stray from our mission to fight for the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

We are ready to fight back against the liberals and advance our conservative principles. We will build on our 35-year record of success-from welfare reform to missile defense to tax cuts-and help get America back on track.

But we need your help if we are to raise $80,000 by November 15 to make this possible. Will you stand with us?

Make a contribution to help Heritage counter the liberal threat and get your FREE Pocket Constitution.

Remember -- your gift is worth double, thanks to a generous gift from the Benwood Foundation.

In Washington, there are no permanent victories and no permanent defeats. We must remain firmly committed to our principles in both good times and in bad. That's why your help is so important.

Now more than ever, we are grateful for your support for our conservative principles and ideals. Without the support of conservatives like you, none of what we do would be possible.

Sincerely,


Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.
President
The Heritage Foundation