WhackyNation

My fellow investigators and I at Seattle’s KIRO-TV a few years back have been vindicated, even though, tragically, it may be too late for most of the 2,000 or more Americans who were prisoners of war in Vietnam and Laos and still have not been accounted for four decades after that war ended.

KIRO’s investigative staff and I, as a commentator, had received reliable information from the Far East back in the 1980s that, although some of our POWs had been returned in accordance with a peace agreement, many others, estimated at close to 2,000 or more, had been moved to prison camps deep in North Vietnam and some even to camps in Laos, China and the old Soviet Union.

The staffers continued their investigation, with no help from the U.S. military nor the State Department. Throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s, I kept calling for the U.S. to take action to find the missing POWs and bring them home before it was too late. But our entreaties brought no response. The reason? It would embarrass the government and endanger peace negotiations!

The vindication of our continued efforts to find the missing POWs has come with the publication of a dynamic book by co-authors Elizabeth Stewart and Bill Herndon, a former congressman. Their book, titled An Enormous Crime — The Definitive Account of American POWs Abandoned in Southeast Asia, has just been published by St. Martin’s Press. Stewart and Herndon devoted at least 25 years to their own investigation of the POW tragedy — which is about the same amount of time the KIRO-TV staff spent trying to get action on the prisoners from our federal government and occupants of the White House, all to no avail.

In their foreword to the book, the authors have explained that, while about 500 captured and imprisoned Americans were released at war’s end at the so-called “Operation Homecoming,” hundreds more “were similarly captured and imprisoned but held back by the Communists at the ‘Homecoming’ event to ensure payment of billions of dollars in postwar reconstruction aid promised them by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.”

Early on, the Watergate scandal intervened and, the authors said, “these prisoners have never — never — been released.” Chalk it up as another tragedy that can be blamed on Nixon and the Watergate scandal. If my readers will remember, still another tragedy that was directly attributable to Nixon and Watergate was his failure to act on the brilliant energy report submitted to him by Dr. Dixy Lee Ray late in 1973 — a report that would have prevented the energy crisis and kept us out of the present Iraqi war and our reliance on Mideast oil.

As was the case with our KIRO-TV staff, Stewart and Herndon have provided convincing evidence “that hundreds of American POWs have remained captive long after the end of the war.” Their book offers several indications of “postwar sightings and intelligence reports revealing that Americans were being held throughout Vietnam and Laos.”

The authors have implicated many American leaders in the enormous coverup. In addition to Nixon and Kissinger, they mention Senators John Kerry and John McCain, as well as President Bill Clinton. All of them were more interested in a peace accord with Vietnam than with the return of hundreds of American POWs — to their everlasting shame. The authors were right in calling it America’s “enormous crime”!

The time is ripe for one of my favorite ideas for promoting world peace to be recognized and accepted by Israel as being inevitable. For years I have been trying to popularize the notion that one of the most important routes to peace in the Middle East and peace between the Western World and Islamic nations is to turn Jerusalem into a Universal City to be governed by a combination of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim leaders.

There is an extremely important precedent for such action. All three religions can trace their beginnings back to Abraham for one and Jerusalem itself for another. It is a city that history dictates belongs to all three, not just one, as is the case today. However, it is obvious that designating the fabled city as belonging to all three won’t be easy.

The Israelis fought so hard to establish their new nation and to have it accepted as such by the U.S. and European powers back in 1948 that it cannot be expected to relinquish total control of Jerusalem today. Nevertheless, I’m convinced that it is a fair and equitable idea and that the Jewish people will be far better off in the long run if they accept the Universal City proposal.

Today, events in Jerusalem seem to be begging for adoption of the idea. News reports from the city indicate something of profound importance is happening there. While the number of Jews leaving the city is growing, the number of Arabs there is rapidly increasing.

According to a dispatch by the New York Times, “In a 1967 census taken shortly after the war, the population of Jerusalem was 74 percent Jewish and 26 percent Arab. Today, the city is 66 percent Jewish and 34 percent Arab, with the gap narrowing by about 1 percentage point a year, according to the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies.”

As authorities on all sides agree, “Jerusalem’s religious and historical significance makes its status perhaps the single most explosive issue in the Arab-Israeli conflict. And the status clearly would become even more contentious were the balance of the population to tip toward the Arabs.”

The war referred to was the 1967 conflict, in which Israel’s military forces captured East Jerusalem and reunited it with the rest of the city. Because the Arab population continued to grow and the Arab communities in Jerusalem became overcrowded, many Jews left the city or moved into East Jerusalem, where they are 200,000 strong.

The Palestinians still continue to dream of Jerusalem as “their city,” despite the strong military control of the city and the nation by Israeli forces. At present, the Jewish population of the city is 475,000 and the Arab population 245,000. The Christian presence in the Holy Land is much smaller, but the Christian world still wants a share of control in the city of Jerusalem.

It seems to me that the only way to prevent future clashes of the three entities in the Holy Land is to bring them together in a peace conference and determine that Jerusalem, the city common to all three religions, should be governed by all three and that a three-way governmental structure be improvised to run the city.

As I have noted before on numerous occasions, I believe that a World Council of Religions should be created by all religions and that the Council could begin its deliberations by requiring that Christians, Jews, and Muslims come together to agree on establishment of Jerusalem as a Universal City belonging to all three sects.

While I was attending a public school in the heart of Cleveland’s Little Italy back in the early 1930s — as the Great Depression was in full sway — my friends and I noted one day that several boys, ages 14 and 13, were missing from classrooms and would never be seen again at the school.

Had they been kidnapped? Or had their families moved to another city? It was nothing of the sort. The boys had been recruited by Mafia families in the district to move to a city in Nevada whose name we would later learn was Las Vegas. We also learned much later that the Cleveland Mafia had “invented” Vegas and that the boys were being trained to man roulette, poker, and other gambling games. The excuse was that the poverty brought on by the Depression made it necessary to find work for the youngsters so they could help feed their families. Some excuse that was!

The gambling bug didn’t mean much to me in those days, but it soon became a major menace in my mind as I moved into newspaper reporting and, eventually, into full-scale investigation of all types of crime. It was then that I discovered the rottenness of gambling and its role in inviting corruption, cheating, political payoffs, and other crimes.

Is it any wonder, then, that I became an enemy of all gambling because of the despicable characters it attracts, as well as its penchant for fleecing suckers? As managing editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I led my staff in exposing racketeers and gambling — as well as political and police officials who had profited from illegal gaming.

All of this leads me to the report this month of 24 federal indictments against casino-related criminals, who had devised an elaborate system of using marked cards to cheat 18 casinos of millions of dollars in Washington, California, Nevada, Connecticut, Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, and even Canada.

Among the men indicted were card dealers and pit bosses working for the casinos. Ten of the casinos involved are owned and run by Indian tribes. Although security workers at one of the Indian casinos have been credited with starting the investigation, I have no sympathy with any gambling casinos, whether run by the Mafia or the Indians.

That brings me to the main point of this commentary: I believe Congress and all 50 legislatures should act to ban professional, organized gambling everywhere in the U.S. and to order heavy fines and even prison terms for those who break the law and set up high-stakes gambling,

Of course, some persons addicted to gambling will argue that it’s all in fun and that it’s just an innocent pastime. They also argue that, if a man or woman wants to toss his or her cash into a game of chance, that should be each person’s prerogative — and that every person has a right to do so.

To these addicts, I can say only “Boloney!” The damage done by high-stakes gambling is often tragic.

A few gamblers “hit the jackpot” on occasion — but that’s exactly how the casinos want it to happen so that the publicity about the few “big winners” will entice non-gamblers to visit the gambling houses and go into heavy debt, as a result.

At the same time, we must reckon with the payoffs the gambling industry indulges in to keep its operations going. Many money-hungry politicians have been all-too eager to arrange legislative and other favors to casino operators in return for a hefty political contribution. Gambling is a curse and should be banned nationwide.

Just one day in 365 to pay tribute to the thousands of American men and women in our history who have given their lives or their limbs to protect our liberty and freedom! Just one day in 365 to honor those who gave their lives so that all the rest of us could live full lives in the world’s greatest democracy in the past two and a half centuries!

It is an insult to their memories that we set aside just a single day to remember what these heroes and heroines have done for us. No, I insist that every day of the year should be Memorial Day and that we learn to begin each day with a prayer in their honor — and then something I think should be a common, every-day occurrence for each of us.

That common occurrence? I think that each day of every year, we should resolve to do at least one kind deed for someone or something — and to do it clearly to honor the memory of not just one who gave his or her life for our country, but for every one of those men and women who died for you and me.

What could that deed be? The potential is unlimited. For example, you and I could resolve to help a needy or unfortunate family that has lost a breadwinner or a loved one — and dedicate that help to all our fallen heroes. Or it could be something as simple as pledging to vote at every election to honor those who died to give us that privilege forever.

See what I mean? Do it this way: When you rise in the morning, shower, brush your teeth, and dress for work, look at yourself in the mirror before breakfast and say to yourself, or loudly, if you wish, today is Memorial Day, just like yesterday and just like tomorrow, and I will do something today in honor of those men and women who gave their lives so that I might be a free American on this and every other day — free to enjoy my freedom and the chance to help a person or family that is in great need.

Use your wits to decide what you will do each “Memorial Day” of the year. Wouldn’t it be a fantastic achievement for Americans if all of us honored our departed heroes with a good deed each day — and dedicated it to them? Make it a ritual, if you like, and follow it religiously, to use a proper term.

Now, I can just hear some wag saying: “Guzzo, you’ve flipped your lid! One Memorial Day is enough, you idiot!” And I would reply quickly that the real idiots are those forgetful and unappreciative people who do not love America as much as I do. I am not a sunshine patriot, nor have I come to my strong patriotism by chance.

Two elements have made me an unabashed patriot and lover of this wonderful country. The first was the influence of my father, an Italian immigrant, whose love for America was so strong that he imbued me and my brother and sister with the promise of this great land and strode proudly to the voting booth on each Election Day.

The second was the fact that I served in the Army for four and a half years in the Second World War and was one of the lucky ones who returned home alive and sound of body and mind. Some of my best friends weren’t so fortunate; they lost their lives in battles in Europe and the Far East. To them I owe a special prayer — and a resolve to do something for someone less fortunate than me each “Memorial Day.”

May God bless every one of those fallen heroes — not just one Memorial Day but on each and every day of the year, year in and year out!

A dark, menacing shadow is creeping across Iraq and threatening to lead yet another internal campaign of death and suicide bombings in a nation already suffering from more than four years of an undeclared civil war. The name of the shadow is Muqtada al-Sadr, leader of a brutal Shiite faction.

Should we in the United States care? We don’t have a choice. We must care. Al-Sadr clearly hopes to undermine the present Iraqi government, led by Nouri al-Maliki, and seize control of Iraq. In other words, al-Sadr is another Saddam Hussein and would be as dangerous as the tyrant the U.S. and allied forces invaded Iraq to capture in 2003.

Anyone in doubt about the new would-be dictator need only peruse his words, as reported by the Associated Press:

“No! No! For Satan! No! No! For America! No! No! For the occupation. No! No! For Israel! We demand the withdrawal of the occupation forces or the creation of a timetable for such a withdrawal. I will call upon the Iraqi government not to extend the occupation even for a single day.”

Doesn’t he sound like a Democratic congressman? Not all Shiites in Iraq are allied with al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia, all of which further magnifies the growing problem. In fact, many of the Shiites, who were principal targets of the tyrant, Saddam, and his Sunni legions. have supported the American effort to create a free, democratic government in Iraq.

Al-Sadr has been the principal voice of anti-Americanism in Iraq, and he has been rallying his forces and other Iraqis to his call for U.S. forces to leave immediately and leave the Iraqis to run the country without our troops. Of course, he has left no doubt that, as soon as our troops leave, he will lead his Mahdi Army to Baghdad to take over the nation.

There is no doubt that al-Sadr would retain theocratic control of Iraq once he has taken over a government he would lead as the new dictator. If that should happen — and all indications are that it will happen as soon as our forces leave — we would be back to Square 1 in Iraq and in the Middle East. And the deaths of more than 3,000 American soldiers would have been in vain.

Adding to the present dilemma is the fact that anti-Bush forces in the Democratic Party are now in control of Congress. They have been insisting that Bush order the immediate withdrawal from Iraq and threatening to cut off funds for the military in Iraq, an action that would be tantamount to “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,” as the old saw goes.

Even more important, such a defeat would strengthen the cause of the international terrorists and the Muslim extremists around the world. Al-Sadr is already aligned with Iran and the hate-America brigade in the Middle East and elsewhere. He is also aligned with the main villain in the terrorists’ camp, Osama bin Laden.

The Democrats will be to blame if President Bush isn’t granted the additional troops and military budget to get the job done in Iraq. That job now must begin with the eradication of al-Sadr, the “new Saddam,” and his Mahdi Army. If the Demos fail in the effort, they will deserve the scorn of Americans across the land.

Let me get this straight: While only three percent of citizens use public transit the liberals want voters to approve $23 billion for Light Rail Transit (and this doesn’t include county bus systems) and only $14 billion for roads.

I am sorry.  That’s so way out of wack for such a huge sum of local tax revenues.

Roads need a larger slice of the pie, especially if 97% of our citizens rely on them.  Our political leaders, who are living in Disneyland’s Tomorrow Land  Fantasy Land, failed us in delivering the two ballot measures which must now be voted down.

This is a shame, because we must improve our transportation system in Puget Sound.  It’s going to take increased tax revenue to do that.  That’s not the objection.  We need a plan that addesses the real problem of highway congestion and not the utopia of trains for the tiny minority.

Additionally the environmental wackos need to drop their objection to Pierce County’s Cross-Base highway because of ridiculous global warming fears.

The public needs to realize Republicans don’t object to raising taxes to deliver real solutions.  But Republicans don’t believe in wasting tax dollars on foolish and downright stupid proposals.  The voters need to hold the Democrats responsible for the delay in transportation solutions.  They need to elect Republicans to get the highways fixed.

Two seemingly disparate news reports are not only relevant to the same critical issue for the U.S. but are loud reminders of the need to adopt a remarkable energy proposal made by the late governor of Washington State and renowned marine scientist, the late Dr. Dixy Lee Ray.

First, the news reports: Russia has announced deals with Central Asian governments that will give it virtually total control over shipments of oil and gas from Central Asia through a new pipeline from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan to all the nations of Europe. The deal strikes a solid blow to American and European plans to build oil and gas pipelines from the Central Asian countries that would bypass Russia en route to Europe.

In effect, that may mean Russia will have control over the entire oil industry in the Middle East, as well as the Central Asian nations, shutting out the U.S. and its oil companies — and, most critical of all, threatening to boost the cost of oil to U.S. refineries and Americans by a substantial amount.

The second news report offers the spark of a new program that may materially offset the threat proposed by the Russian oil takeover and mark the beginning of acceptance, at last, of the energy plan once recommended by Dr. Ray — and which became another casualty of the Watergate scandal in the Nixon era.

The “spark,” if that is the proper word, is a somewhat strange one, but it offers some hope, nevertheless. It is the report that Washington State political leaders and environmentalists, of all people, are beginning to look kindly at the possibility of developing more nuclear-energy facilities!

The irony of it all is that both the politicians and the environmentalists are suddenly pro-nuclear advocates because they believe nuclear power is one of the best ways to counter global warming! In effect, then, they are willing to forget all their diatribe against the Nuclear Age because it could save us from the gigantic hoax of global warming.

I don’t really care what they believe. If their new attitude will bring a new appreciation for Dr. Ray’s brilliant energy plan, then I’m all for it. I have recounted Dr. Ray’s plan in my new book, She Should Have Been President; The Wisdom of Dixy Lee Ray, but a brief summary is in order here.

While serving as chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1973, President Richard Nixon called upon her to develop a plan for making the U.S. energy self-sufficient. Remember that a severe energy crisis had developed that year. Dr. Ray summoned the resources of outstanding scientists in private industry and on the faculties of several colleges and universities.

The result was a call for a total energy plan, including development of more nuclear-power plants and increased study of all other potential sources of power — including solar power, windmill-generated power, ocean-generated power, power produced from coal underground, and several others.

In the fall of 1973, Dr. Ray delivered the plan to Nixon in the Oval Office. He thanked her for her effort, but he seemed listless and inattentive to her explanation. The Watergate scandal was already national news and Nixon seemed to have no more interest in energy self-sufficiency. He placed Dixy’s report on a shelf, and it never got to Congress — there to stay as another Watergate victim. I hope someone finds that report — and soon!

“We’re from the government and we are here to help.” No scarier words can be spoken with Democrats controlling the gears of government in Olympia.

I came across a full-page advertisement in the newspaper last week paid for by the Democratic caucus. The ad was trumpeting the “historic session” and highlighting all the great bills they passed. One of the bullet points mentioned “Children’s health care.” They were talking about SB 5093 which guarantees that the state will pay for health care for all children living in homes that make 300% (yes….300%!!) of the federal poverty level. Just for reference, that means that some families earning over $60,000 will be eligible to have you pay for their child’s health care. The bill reads,

“the department shall provide affordable health care coverage to children under the age of nineteen who reside in Washington state and whose family income at the time of enrollment is not greater than two hundred fifty percent of the federal poverty level as adjusted for family size and determined annually by the federal department of health and human services, and effective 22 January 1, 2009 and only to the extent that funds are specifically appropriated therefor, to children whose family income is not greater than three hundred percent of the federal poverty level.”

Now this bill may sound noble, even generous, but what it overlooks is the unintended consequences it will have on private sector health care. There are lots of Washington families that make 300% of the poverty level that are currently paying for their children’s health care. When they find out they can make the state pay for it, they are going to withdraw their kids from their private sector plans and sign up for the state benefit. Why wouldn’t they? This bill will do very little to expand coverage. It will simply shift who pays for that coverage.

And, just in case enough people don’t sign up, the state is going to engage in a CAMPAIGN to go find them! The bill notes,

(6) The department shall undertake a proactive, targeted outreach and education effort with the goal of enrolling children in health coverage and improving the health literacy of youth and parents. The department shall collaborate with the department of health, local public health jurisdictions, the office of superintendent of public instruction, the department of early learning, health educators, health care providers, health carriers, and parents in the design and development of this effort. The outreach and education effort shall include the following components:

(a) Broad dissemination of information about the availability of coverage, including media campaigns;

(b) Assistance with completing applications, and community-based outreach efforts to help people apply for coverage. Community-based outreach efforts should be targeted to the populations least likely to be covered;

So often, liberals simply don’t understand how their legislation perverts incentive structures which make our market work effectively. Our goal should be to create incentives that encourage parents to provide their own children with health care…not encourage them to shift that burden to the taxpayers.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng, one of the longest serving public officials in Washington State, has died at the age of 68. He is survived by his wife Judy and son Mark.In my last meeting with Norm former King County Prosecutor Chris Bayley and I met in his office to hear his advice on major criminal law cases before the Washington State courts. His office had recently been repainted and only a few pictures had been returned to the walls. One was of his family and the other was of his prize winning cow “Lassie” from his days as a member of FFA.

Norm Maleng was a trusted and admired public official who was a vital member of the moderate Republican movement, serving on the board of the Mainstream Republicans and he provided excellent advice to the Constitutional Law PAC in our efforts to elect strict constructionist judges. I trusted his opinion without reservation and found him to be a source of inspiration and wisdom. I am deeply saddened by his death.

Maleng was an important voice in Washington State and the Republican Party. He inspired many to enter public service and his legacy lives on in the ongoing public service of Attorney General Rob McKenna, King County Council Reagan Dunn, and many others. I have no doubt that many attorneys and future public servant will be look back on Norm as a role madel.

The loss we as citizens have suffered is small compared to the loss of the Maleng family, Norm’s loved ones and the prosecutor’s office are feeling today. May god bless them and strengthen them.

I was alternately amused and disappointed by a recent Associated Press report that the Microsoft Corporation, based in Bellevue, Washington, and the world’s largest computer-software company, was rated as one of the best places in the United States for mothers to work in.

I was amused, because I thought it was high time that American industries and professions start considering the value of hiring mothers for responsible positions. What a waste of human ability it was in all those earlier years, when most companies frowned on employing too many women, whether they were mothers or not.

The A.P. report quoted Carol Evans, C.E.O. of Working Mother magazine as saying that a growing number of companies are offering customized schedules. “There are some very, very creative ideas,” she added, “and this is all related to what we saw in the past, with women dropping off the edge of a cliff, when they said it’s either working full time or not at all.

“Our country needs women to have babies, our companies need women’s brainpower and time. These two things going together really demand that companies wake up to this new culture.” In praising the companies that have hired many women to good jobs, Ms. Evans said the magazine used five main criteria as the basis for its judgments in honoring those companies that have given mothers special attention: Flexibility, leave time for new parents, child care, elder care, and the number of women occupying top jobs.

My disappointment in the magazine C.E.O.’s announcement came with the fact that she didn’t mention a program I have been pleading for in all American industries, professions, and services. In fact, I tried it on the C.E.O. of the TV/Radio station I served as a commentator and editorial consultant for a dozen years.

Because there were many young, struggling mothers working at the station and having a difficult time arranging day care and schooling for their children, I proposed to the station C.E.O. that he set up a daily day-care facility right at the station so that mothers (and fathers, too) might look in on them at intervals to make sure they were behaving and were being well cared for by professional attendants. He said, “Great idea, but we can’t afford it.”

I then suggested to the C.E.O. that he and other executives at the station appeal to our congressional delegation to support new legislation calling for tax write-offs and other financial benefits for employers who set up daily day-care facilities at their companies to care for employees’ children. Unfortunately, he failed to follow up on my idea.

What a boon the plan would be for mothers who find they have to work to keep families going! At the same time, on-site day-care facilities would give employers an extremely important advantage in hiring competent mothers — women they might not otherwise be able to coax to take a full-time job in their companies.

It should be a relatively easy task for Congress to write such legislation and to provide the incentives employers would need to establish in-house day-care facilities for their working mothers. The law would undoubtedly encourage employers across the nation to find space for such facilities.

Today’s commentary: “The media fails to accurately report the science of climate change.”

Script of Lou’s commentary:

  Read the rest of this entry »

When colleges and universities are in need of finding a new president, they usually appoint a top-grade, blue-ribbon search committee that devotes months, maybe years, to the job. School boards do it, too. So do many private corporations, libraries, foundations, symphony orchestras, museums, and opera companies.

They want to be absolutely certain they will find the best possible leader, one who has special qualifications for the position. Contrast that with our method of selecting the most important executive in the nation and, without question, in the world, the President of the United States.

We permit the candidates to appoint themselves in a veritable free-for-all for which there are few qualifications, except those contained in the Constitution. Then we’re obliged to make a choice between those who begged enough cash to run a campaign and those who smiled the most in the national beauty contest.

When a presidential-election year comes around every four years, we find ourselves left with a clutter of uninspiring presidential candidates in both major parties and even less inspiring candidates in third parties. All the candidates in each of the parties are, of course, self-appointed.

What can we do about it?

First, the political parties could shelve politics as usual and go looking for the best qualified candidate, not the one who has kissed the most babies, grabbed the most headlines and magazine covers, or collected the most admirers with empty promises.

Second, we could amend the Constitution to borrow from the parliamentary system and let Congress elect a President after a thorough search for a proven leader and to get rid of one who goofs badly. The system seems to work well in Great Britain and a few other countries and should work well in the U.S.

With regard to the parliamentary system, that approach might work well as the nation moves deeper into its third century of existence as a democratic republic. At the same time, I would like to see the adoption of a proposal I have been making for the past 50 years or more.

That proposal calls for amendments in the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of all 50 states to limit terms of elective office to six years with no re-election to an office, including the presidency. It comes under my belief that no public official in our free nation is indispensable and that we have a great many qualified persons able and willing to fill all the federal, state, and local offices.

Furthermore, those amendments should include the provision that the public should have the right to recall any elected official without cause. After all, we have the right to elect any person we choose to any position in the land; we should also have the right to “dis-elect” an official at any time.

The changes I have suggested are, obviously, somewhat revolutionary, but, combined with an experiment to try the parliamentary system, I believe America would see a marked improvement in government and government’s service to all the people.

I think we Republicans are having a Barry Goldwater moment here.

Goldwater, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill because as a Libertarian he did not think the state should impose social change but still believed in the equality of blacks, drove the blacks to the Democrats who for hundreds of years had been enslaved by Democrats, lynched by them and segregated under Jim Crow laws by them.

The irony is that this important civil rights legislation was supported more by Republicans than Democrats (who represented the South at the time).  80 percent of the House Republicans and 82 percent of the Senate Republicans voted for the bill while more Democrats opposed it.  Goldwater, who opposed the bill on academic, Libertarian reasons, was villified by the media while President Lyndon Johnson, who was a lifelong Texas bigot, got the credit.  The injustice of history was perpetrated by a liberal media and an adolescent baby boom generation which was too immature to understand the politics of the day.

The problem with most blacks today is that they are too ignorant of history and too unappreciative of nuance to get the joke.  For my entire generation they have been supporting the very people who oppressed them .. sort of like the Stockholm Syndrome.

Today we face a similar situation with Hispanic citizens.

I’m talking about the Immigration Bill.

Republican opposition to the Kennedy-McCain compromise will will turn the Hispanic community against the party just as Goldwater’s principled opposition turned the blacks against Republicans.

It doesn’t mean the conservatives are 100 percent wrong in standing up for principal.  But there is a price for purity.  That’s why there is a a need for compromise.

Goldwater was a very honorable man and a great public servant … maybe that’s why Hillary Clinton was a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in 1964.  I personally respect the  man very, very much.

But there’s the game of politics and public perceptions.  Goldwater was thinking ahead of the public.  On an intellectual level, Goldwater was correct: government cannot legislate social change.  But politically he was wrong.  And since, we Republicans have been paying the price for 40 years.  The majority of black voters identify with Democrats today because they think Goldwater’s and thus all Republican’s attitude towards race is Hitleresque despite the fact our party waged a civil war on their behalf.  How long it will take before the majority of them wake up is the question.

When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law he is quoted as saying “We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation.”  He did not realize the corollary.  Republicans lost the black vote because of Goldwater’s principled position to remove the state from social equalizer.

Let’s not repeat a losing strategy position by rejecting out of hand the bipartisan bill on immigration.  Hispanics, as a demographic are conservative when it comes to values.  Let’s not piss them away for idealogical purity.  They should be Republican.  Let’s learn to work the issue.