Guest Spot: Keith Tessen

Keith Tessen is my Step-Father, although I refer to, and consider him, my Dad. He is a man of learning and respect, and there is no doubt that there is much he can teach me. He is also a Democrat and, though we disagree on policy, his e-mail response to my second blog just screamed for a chance at wider exposure. His response was incisive and respectfully passionate, and his line on TR, Reagan, and Nicaragua had me, in the lexicon of the internet, lmao. With limited editing, here is a contrary view:


First of all, I completely agree with you about TR being a truly great Republican president. In fact, he was a truly great man overall, having overcome some huge obstacles to reach the pinnacle of American political life. He was fair and he was intelligent and he really looked out for the common man. A bit heavy-handed with the foreign policy, but hey, no one's perfect. (It might have done Roosevelt--and the country--a bit of good if some other country had grabbed TR's big stick and smacked us a few times; then we might not have been so willing to bully everyone else in the hemisphere.)But that was 100 years ago, Kevin. Your Republican champion has been dead for many, many decades. My question is this: What Republican president since TR could be considered one of the greats? We've had 10 since then. I'm assuming we can both agree that Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Ford, and both Bushes cannot be considered great. That leaves Ike, Nixon, and Reagan. I personally would argue that Eisenhower was a great president (and, like TR, a truly great man overall). About the only major flaw I see in Eisenhower's administration was his reluctance to do what he knew was right in Little Rock. But even there he prevailed; he overcame his innate strong aversion to the use of federal power over the states, and he ordered the National Guard to protect the people who needed protection rather than those who were threatening the people who needed protection. Even though he himself was largely a product of the American military, he warned the country about the potential danger of the military-industrial complex as he left office.Perhaps you would include Reagan as a great president, and perhaps you would be right. I don't deny for a moment that he had a huge impact on history, and his dealings with the Soviet Union were astute and certainly very successful. I myself have a hard time assigning him the title of 'great' because I disagree with much that he did and because the guy had what seemed to be a pathological obsession with Nicaragua. (In that respect, he and TR weren't all that different.) The whole Iran-Contra fiasco clearly indicates that policy toward Nicaragua and the Sandinistas was based not so much on rational thought as on knee-jerk, radical anti-socialism/communism. That leaves us with Nixon, a man about whom, I have gathered, we have very strong but different opinions. I think Nixon was the worst president of the 20th century. By that I don't mean he was the least effective; no one could argue that. But he was a moral midget, an ethical cripple. In your essay you write about how Republicans are "proud of being Americans." Well, to me, Nixon made it very difficult to be proud to say I am an American, just as Dumbya makes it very difficult today. Am I proud that I am an American? Absolutely. But I definitely am not proud of my current president, or Nixon. The important things that Tricky Dick did accomplish (including normalizing relations with China and helping to develop the EPA) were accomplished between long hours spent plotting (and then ordering to be carried out) major crimes against American citizens. It seems to me that any president who orders people to steal psychiatric files and to plant incriminating evidence in the homes of perfectly loyal Americans (whose only "crime" was opposing the president's policies) can hardly be considered great. Psychopathic and unbalanced, maybe, but definitely not great.Thus, to my mind, we had exactly two great Republican presidents in the 20th century: TR and Ike. And this brings me to the title of your essay: "What the Republican Party was, and should forever be." If today's Republican Party was dominated by the likes of TR and Ike, I could envision myself as a proud member. I am all for the ideas of environmental protection, government protection of labor, and middle-of-the-road policies. Instead, today's party is dominated by people who I personally consider the near-antithesis of the Roosevelt/Eisenhower legacy, people like Gary Bauer of Focus on the Family and Pat Robertson. These are people who want to legislate morality, and that morality shall be THEIR morality and no other. People who want to force their own narrow, right-wing religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. Instead of emphasizing the virtues of heterogeneity and pluralism, they want to enforce strict homogeneity that is largely based on biblical principles, and woe be unto those who disagree. Obviously not all of today's Republicans are like that, and I am so very happy that you are not like that, but I think you must admit that the scary (at least they're scary to me) and uncompromising Christian fundamentalists represent a bedrock of today's party, a group of people without whose active support electoral victory would be very difficult indeed. I cannot bring myself to support a party that is largely controlled by such people.So I remain a Democrat, hoping against hope that the virtues and beliefs of TR and Ike will return to capture the Republican Party. Until that time, I cannot imagine myself voting for the glorious party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight David Eisenhower. I wish I could, but I cannot and will not until the party is once again dominated by moderates, not radicals.

Obama and Clinton: More inconvenient truths

It has recently been revealed that top Clinton campaign advisor Mark Penn was having it both ways. Penn, on behalf of the lobbying/communications firm he is chief executive of, attended a meeting with the Colombian ambassador to the United States. Their topic of discussion: a potential free trade agreement between the U.S. and Colombia. Colombia had hired Penn's firm to drum up support in Congress for the trade agreement. Problem is, Penn's other boss, Hillary Clinton is against the deal. The old saying about the left hand not knoing what the right hand is doing comes to mind, but the other one about the mouse playing while the cats' away is probably the correct one to use.

Barack Obama's campaign had it's own suspension of disbelief moment, this one on the Iraq war. Obama is THE anti-war candidate, just ask him. If you want out of Iraq, Obama is your candidate. Turns out, he might just be mine as well!. A paper from Obama's Iraq working group is recommending that the U.S. retain 60-80 thousand troops in Iraq until...dum.....dum....duuuum.....2010!. Bring 'em home huh? Guess "Bring some of 'em home" just doesn't resonate enough or fit as well on a podium placard.

My issue with these two campaigns isn't the policies mentioned above. On both counts, I agree with both campaigns. I support a free trade agreement with Colombia, a key ally in the war on drugs, along with maintaining responsible troop levels in Iraq. Perhaps a 2010 troop level between 60 and 80,000 will be spot-on. Yet these positions aren't what the two candidates are publicly running on. One is left to wonder: Is it possible for America to get some Straight Talk on the campaign trail? I say 'Yes We Can'!.

The fight for 2012: The Republicans

A group of conservatives (most, formerly of the Mike Huckabee camp) have sent a public petition to John McCain urging him not to select Mitt Romney as his running mate. For the record, Huckabee has claimed no connection whatsoever to this brazen gambit at wringing John McCain's arm, a tactic the sometimes irascible Arizonan probably does not appreciate.

While the Democrats are fighting it out over whom will be their '08 nominee, it appears some Republicans have decided to start duking it out for the 2012 race right now. The battle lines are being drawn by Huckabee supporters who have grown fearful of a photo op Romney and McCain shared recently. It is no secret that Huckabee wants the VP job, why else would he have doggedly continued to campaign for weeks after it was clear to all the universe that the nomination was McCain's. Huckabee reckoned that if he stayed in the race long enough, he would pass Romney in the tally of Republican delegates, and therefore lay some claim to the Veep-Stakes. Huckabee accomplished his mission, and did indeed edge out Romney for 2nd place, but the former Arkansas Governor probably hurt his cause by doing so.

The political calculus is this: John McCain is the Republican nominee. But he is also a 71 year old nominee. McCain may lose in November, and, as long of a shot as he has at securing the Presidency later this year, there is zero chance McCain will be running in 2012 as anything else but as the incumbent President. Win or lose, McCain's running mate would be in prime position to be "next in line". Huckabee's supporters have rightly or wrongly surmised that the future of the Republican party rests either in Mitt Romney's or Mike Huckabee's hands.

Personally, I feel that Romney and Huckabee are both unlikely prospects. Romney and Huckabee were once moderate governors of Democratic-leaning states. Unfortunately for them, in the Republican primaries they both energetically ran to the right of McCain, which would make them unsavory to independents. The fact that they are relatively new converts to mainstream conservatism could also make them untrustworthy to some conservatives. It is true that McCain could use a Veep who would help shore up Southern support. McCain may also be calculating that between himself, ( popular in New Hampshire) , and political ally Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), the Northeast will be in play as much as it ever will be for a Republican. A competent Southern/ Midwestern state governor or member of congress might just fit the bill. Better McCain choose a popular moderate or nationally obscure conservative than the potentially polarizing Huckabee and Romney. Of course, the cagey Arizona Maverick could make all of this talk of 2012 moot, by winning in '08.

Congressional Earmarks: An Arizona focus on a national addiction.

This year, Congress, under Democratic leadership, commendably set out with the goal to suspend the practice of "Pork Barrel" spending for a year. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to have been killed by politicians from both parties.

Some Arizona members of Congress, however, have decided to make the principled decision not to ask for any earmark dollars for their home districts and state. Congressmen John Shadegg(R), Jeff Flake(R), and Sen. John McCain(R) all "failed" to bring home the bacon, to the chagrin of two other members of Arizona's Congressional delegation. Representatives Raul Grijalva(D), and Ed Pastor (D),both chided the three Republicans, with statements like:

Grijalva: "We have members of our delegation who feel their job is not to bring equitable resources back to the state. The fact remains we are shortchanging our taxpayers by not bringing more resources into the state."*

Pastor: "All the money Arizona doesn't take goes to Alaska" *

While the three Republicans base their decisions based on responsible economic principles, their detractors justify profligate Congressional spending by prescribing to an idea enunciated by that def economist Snoop Dogg: "You gotta get yours before I gotta get mine."

This is exactly what is wrong with politicians on both sides of the aisles in the Capitol. At a time when America is fighting wars in two countries, is financing large entitlement programs for the elderly and infirm, and providing a record amount aid to Africa, both parties refuse to cut out pet projects, even for a year.

In a sense, Grijalva is wrong and Pastor is right. Sorry, Rep. Grijalva, but Arizona receives $1.19* in Federal funds for every dollar in taxes Arizonans send to Washington. To Rep. Pastor's credit, Alaska, ( a traditionally Republican state), does indeed receive $506.34* in earmarks for every Alaskan, while we Arizonans must make due with $18.70* a head. True political principle is a rare commodity nowadays. It is something American voters seem to be yearning for. It's just sad that Grijalva and Pastor are too jaded to recognize leadership when it is staring them in the face.

*Source: Arizona Republic article: "AZ last in pork barrel cash, lawmakers say it's a waste"