From: AdmrlLocke@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 07, 2000 10:34 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: GrammNet: Union-Leader on Debate GrammNet Issue 1/7/00.2 Dear Friend of Liberty, You may recall that liberals in the news media began pushing the candidacy of George W. Bush in November of 1998. For those of us who have followed national politics for two decades, however, liberal media support for Bush came as no surprise. Back in 1980, at what seemed the zenith of statist-liberalism, media liberals figured that if they only let Ronald Reagan speak, people would know him as mad. But a funny thing happened when people heard Reagan--as when the Hebrews heard Moses: they recognized the truth of what he had to say. At least, enough of us did that we voted Reagan into the presidency despite the implacable hostility of media liberals. Most media liberals learned their lesson, and since then have made a point of trying to choose the Republican nominee for us. What they do is christen one or two Big Government Republicans as "reasonable conservatives" and then find a third candidate to paint as the "wacko, right-wing extremist." Media liberals generally ignore any legitimate heirs to Reagan's populist conservatism. Media liberals in 1988, for instance, labeled Big Government Republicans George Bush and Bob Dole as "reasonable conservatives" and turned Pat Robertson into the "wacko" while totally ignoring Jack Kemp, who clearly represented Reagan's ideological heir. In 1996 media liberals again trotted out Dole--one of the major adversaries of the Reaganesque Contract With America, as we documented on GrammNet--as the "reasonable conservative," played up Pat Beltway Buchanan as the "wacko" and ignored Phil Gramm, the one candidate championing the Contract. Thus we should feel no surprise that media liberals once again trotted out a Big Government Republican as their choice for our nominee. Nor were we surprised when media liberals began trying to create an expectation that Bush's running mate would be another Dole--this time, the liberal Elizabeth--a story which continues. This fall Bush slipped, however, when he refused to give a straight answer to media questions about his alleged use of drugs. If there's anything media liberals hate more than liberty, it's people who won't give them straight answers. John McCain recognized the opportunity to start competing for the support of media liberals and quickly exploited it. Not only did he take the opportunity to trumpet what's probably media liberals' single most favorite bit of Big Government--further restrictions on our liberty to spend our money to support our political views, also known as "campaign finance reform"--but he stated unequivocally that he supports keeping Roe v. Wade. (Never mind that Roe v. Wade actually allowed third-trimester regulation of abortions some second-trimester regulation--we don't expect the liberal media to get it right. It's a later case, Boe v. Dolton, which tossed out all regulation of abortion.) With Bush in hot water with his liberal media allies, and McCain lurching leftward to steal them away, media liberals seemed poised to switch candidates. But then Bush lurched to the left himself, supporting federal gun-control against which even the generally spineless Republicans in Congress had fought tooth and nail. Bush probably saved the bulk of media liberal support for himself, but I suggested at the time that from then on we'd probably see some division among media liberals, with some supporting Bush, some supporting McCain, and others wavering between the two or supporting them both. Months later we see that indeed media liberals strongly support both Bush and McCain. Too many media liberals had too much invested in Bush's candidacy to dump him wholesale, but some of them clearly prefer McCain. Media liberals have created for themselves a no-lose proposition: as long as they fool enough Republicans into thinking that we can choose only between Bush and McCain, they've guaranteed we will select a supporter of Big Government. As you'll see below in a front-page editorial from today's New Hampshire Manch ester Union-Leader, I'm not the only one who recognizes that the false Bush-McCain-only choice is neither our only choice nor indeed a choice at all. Please spread the truth: we can nominate conservative Steve Forbes. We don't need to choose between Tweedle Big Government and Tweedle Bigger Government. Sincerely, David B. Levenstam, CPA, MT, MA Forbes in 2000! GrammNet is an independent newsletter, not affiliated with Senator Gramm. To subscribe to GrammNet, email me at AdmrlLocke@aol.com, with a message to the effect that you'd like to subscribe. GrammNet back issues available at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3390/ Steve Forbes web page (Forbes 2000) at http://www.forbes2000.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 Editorial: We Apologize If readers or New Hampshire viewers of last night's Republican event in Durham are upset this morning, it is no more so than this newspaper. We co-sponsored this Presidential primary program, as we did Wednesday night's Democratic one. Unfortunately, last night's moderator did exactly what many of his brethren in the national media often try to do - decide the contest before the New Hampshire voters have a chance to do so. NBC's Tim Russert apparently decided to make this his own two-man show with candidates George Bush and John McCain, virtually ignoring the four others for much of the questioning. No wonder the two are ahead in the polls! The national media have it all figured out for us. Bush the name versus McCain the hero. No others need apply. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy! But as candidates Orrin Hatch and Steve Forbes attempted to remind us, the real poll will be taken Feb. 1 by New Hampshire voters. As they have done many times before, we hope the voters will set the national media straight. That's the New Hampshire way. -- JOSEPH W. McQUAID Publisher