'Reaching out' to Democrats and other GOP masochisms

By Wes Vernon

The late Fulton Lewis, Jr. — one of the 20th Century's most astute radio commentators (for the benefit of our younger readers) — grew impatient with "moderate Republicans," especially those who constantly urged elected GOP officials to "reach out" to Democrats and liberals to prove that they were not those "mean-spirited" conservatives or "hide-bound reactionaries." That way, so the soothsayers argued, Republicans would be loved by the liberal establishment which would thenceforth smile benignly on them.

Lewis would draw a parallel to a hypothetical invitation to a man to join you at a private home for dinner. As soon as the guest's coat was hung in the closet, he would turn and kick the host in the stomach.

Later, the forbearance of the "moderate" host would impel him to invite the same man back to his abode on another occasion. As soon as the coat was in the closet, again the guest delivers a kick in the host's stomach.

Lewis would opine — just in case anyone failed to connect the dots of sheer reason — that after so much of this, the host might say (duh!), "I don't think I will invite that man to my home again. He's not very nice to me after I have reached out to him."

21st Century "reaching out"

Actually Lewis's point at the time was that U.S. president after president had "reached out" to the then-ascendant Soviet Union only to have Moscow "reciprocate" by double-crossing us, funding anti-American revolutions around the world, and stepping up the "United Snakes capitalist pigs" propaganda.

The exact same thing is happening today when Republicans are warned against doing anything that would bring a frown to the face of penultimate "non-partisans" such as Chuck Schumer.

The futility of the "reaching out" strategy has been proven repeatedly during this administration. Democrat leaders would go on hating President Bush even if he were to endorse the entire platform of the Democrat Party. His father once noted he had extended his hand to congressional Democrats "and they bit it off."

Decision time

This column has the disadvantage of going right down to the wire on its deadline just as relevant news is about to break, possibly too late to update. However, regardless of whom the president nominates for Attorney General, the following comments still apply.

William Kristol, a top editor at The Weekly Standard, revealed late Saturday that retired federal judge Michael B. Mukasey has vaulted to the top of the White House list for the AG nomination. Kristol cites Mukasey's distinguished record on the bench to which he was appointed by President Reagan: As District Judge in New York, he presided over the trials of a dozen co-defendant terrorists including the "blind sheik," all sentenced to lengthy prison terms following the first World Trade Center attack of 1993.

Kristol laments the fact that the first thing conservatives will hear about Mukasey is that his home state senator Chuck Schumer has praised him. Absent Judge Mukasey's outstanding record, that would (and should) be the kiss of death as far as the Republican Party's base is concerned. Kristol says in fact Schumer will "hoist on his own petard" trying to live down his praise for Mukasey, yet being asked to confirm a nominee whose whole approach to the rule of law (according to Kristol) is at odds with that of the Schumers and Leahys.

Another approach

Not to take anything away from Mukasey (from what we know of him thus far), this column's choice for the job is Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General and also attorney for George W. Bush in the Supreme Court showdown over the disputed outcome of the 2000 election where he foiled the Democrats' effort to steal the election for Al Gore.

Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid says Olson is "too partisan" for the job and that a "partisan" is "the last thing we need." Schumer calls for a "consensus" nominee. Like Janet Reno? How about her de facto boss Jamie "Stovepipe" Gorelick? (See this column Tom Kean: The Politics of Inclusion and the Senator who might have been, August 21, 2006).

First and foremost, like Judge Mukasey, Ted Olson is a first-rate lawyer — praised as such even by his political opponents.

Second — but not incidentally — nominating Olson would have been an ideal opportunity to make the point that this Republican president has every right to appoint (Gasp!) a conservative with whom he is comfortable, even if the nominee is viewed as a burr under the saddle of Democrats and their media and blogger echo chambers.

Olson is aware of the smashmouth tactics of the opposition. His late wife Barbara — who died when her plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 — had just finished writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. While he was grieving for his loss, representatives of the Clintonoid slime approached him through intermediaries suggesting that his departed wife's book not be published lest her reputation be posthumously threatened. That thinly-veiled threat notwithstanding, the book was released and became a New York Times bestseller. Olson has since remarried and moved on.

To put it bluntly, this would be an ideal time for Mr. Bush to pick a fight. Ted Olson is a brilliant constitutional lawyer of the highest professional standards. His service and loyalty in the Reagan and Bush administrations mark him as precisely the kind of attorney general the president needs, one who is willing — politely and with decorum — to tell anyone trying to bully the administration to pound sand.

This would be an ideal time for a showdown that would energize the party's base — which has shown signs of disenchantment with President Bush in his second term. After Harry Reid's threat to block Olson's confirmation, any nominee other than Olson (even one apparently as well-qualified as Mukasey) will be seen as a weakness that the president can ill afford. Nothing short of a true in-your-face nomination will do.

Where the rubber meets the road

The acid test for any nominee will be his refusal to cave in to Democrat demands for a special prosecutor to investigate the firing of U.S. attorneys, a fake "scandal" that led to Gonzales's exit. The former AG had nothing to apologize for (U.S. Attorneys after all serve at the pleasure of the president), but he navigated his response to the smears in a very ineffectual manner. If the new nominee for the job agrees to put a special prosecutor on a Plame-like fishing expedition, that will be the tipoff that the president is "reaching out" only to have his hand meet the fate of his father's. No more special prosecutor witch-hunts — period.

And if Harry Reid makes good on his threat (when Olson's name was floated) and refuses to allow the nomination to come to a vote, OK — pick another one just as qualified and just as conservative. Or perhaps leave current interim acting Attorney General Paul Clement to fill the vacancy for the rest of the Bush presidency. Clement — a 41-year-old gung-ho conservative would likely be more than happy to conduct the office in such a way as to give Schumer and Leahy fits before breakfast for the next 16 months.

Speaking of bullies, enter "21st Century Lenin"?

By now, the president surely must realize "reaching out" to the Democrats (on education, immigration, campaign finance) avails him nothing. Their leaders are now cheering on America's enemies because the terrorists hate Bush as much as they themselves do.

By now, the whole world knows that Democrats — including those running for president — bow at the altar of the vile ravings of MoveOn.org.

What may not be as clear in segments of the public square is that MoveOn.org is one of the playthings of multi-billionaire George Soros. He is in fact MoveOn. As such, he bears responsibility for the blog's ad in the Sept. 10 New York Times.

MoveOn's — or perhaps we should say George Soros's — ad in the Times denounced General David Petraeus (the commander in Iraq) as "General Betray Us." Mind you, this was before the general had a chance to open his mouth with his report, and already he found himself branded a traitor — an interesting moniker coming from the mouthpiece of a man designated by the liberal Republican Ripon Forum magazine as "The Lenin of the 21st Century."

Not one single Democratic candidate for president denounced the shameful Soros slur of a four-star general. Not one. There were some mealy-mouthed mumblings about a "poor choice of words," and (from Biden) that it was "wrong," but no unambiguous condemnation.

In fact, Senator Hillary Clinton put it this way to the general after his testimony about the surge in Iraq: "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the suspension of belief," a thinly-guarded way of saying "You're a liar."

"Reaching out" — Democrat-style

The fact that Democrats willingly accept the largesse of the likes of George Soros proves that for them "reaching out" is a one-way street.

The current Democrat movers and shakers dance to the tune of a Marxist-minded moneybags who takes no prisoners. Thus if "reaching out" to these people is futile when it comes to confronting enemies who threaten to annihilate us, it should go without saying that "reaching out" on the issue of an attorney general nominee smacks of a naiveté all but inviting the metaphoric blow to the stomach.

© Wes Vernon