There is an old maxim: “If you’re charged with protecting the sheep,
don’t lie down with the wolves.” What that basically means is, if
you’re supposed to be looking out for someone’s interests, don’t
collaborate with people who advocate things contrary to the interests of
those you represent.
That idiom came to mind last Friday as I read a Washington Times
story about a voter referendum held in my home state of Missouri last
The referendum, called “Proposition B,” would have allowed
Missourians to exercise their constitutional right to carry a concealed
handgun, if they chose to do so. The measure was defeated 52 to 48
percent, with some 1 million votes cast.
Anyway, according to the Times story, former three-term Missouri
Republican senator John Danforth, the man who has been selected to lead
a new investigation into evidence the FBI and the Justice Department
have lied to cover up disturbing facts about the Waco debacle, contacted
the Justice Department last March when he discovered that a U.S.
attorney was actively involved in a grass-roots lobbying effort to
defeat Proposition B. The U.S. attorney — employed by the U.S. Justice
Department and paid with U.S. taxpayer funds — is Edward L. Dowd, Jr.
Danforth accused Dowd of improperly using federal funds to lobby
against a state initiative, something Danforth — rightly — believed
was against federal law. So he wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno and
appealed to her to contact Dowd and ask him to stop or, at a minimum,
look into whether or not Dowd was violating the law.
According to the Times, Dowd wrote a March 10, 1999 letter to some
Missourians, urging “recipients to oppose the referendum, suggest they
begin grass-roots lobbying campaigns across the state and announced the
creation of a toll-free number through which callers could obtain
anti-referendum materials for distribution.” Department officials, who
also manned the toll-free telephone number, wrote the letter to state
and local law enforcement officers throughout Missouri on Justice
“While opinions vary about this issue, one thing is certain,” the
Dowd letter said, “this is a dangerous law for those of us in law
enforcement and the citizens we protect and serve. We urge you to get
out and inform your communities about the dangers involved in passage of
Proposition B.” These people didn’t care one whit that the FBI’s own
statistics show that concealed carry laws lower violence and
crime in today’s society.
But needless to say, Dowd was cleared by the Clinton Justice
Department. “No illegality or wrongdoing there,” was the verdict.
So what’s new? Just this — Dowd is the man Danforth selected
to help him “lead” the new Waco investigation. What does that
tell you? Still think this new Waco investigation is going to produce
anything other than a few slaps on a few wrists?
Danforth has chosen to lie down with a wolf when he ought to be doing
everything he can to distance himself from a criminal U.S. district
attorney and political lackey for Clinton’s number one protectorate,
Reno’s Justice Department. How can he accuse this man of improprieties
and illegalities in one breath then request his assistance in an
important investigation in the next breath?
I hate Washington, D.C. And I hate the fact that all we have are
low-life, morality-challenged individuals to choose from to lead us.
GOP fears Buchanan
I suggested in a column a week or so ago that the “mainstream”
Republican Party was fearful of Pat Buchanan’s planned bolt from the
“Big Tent” to the smaller, but certainly more energized, tent of the
Reform Party. A story
in Friday’s Washington Post confirmed my suspicions.
According to the Post, GOP presidential candidates and lackeys in the
“conservative” press world are busy attacking Pat because he dared to
suggest duplicity as a reason the U.S. entered World War II. The fact
is he’s probably right, but he never said the U.S. should not
have fought W.W.II.
Nevertheless, the indignation from Sen. John McCain and Elizabeth
Dole — talk about “retreads” — is laughable not only because it’s as
reactionary as anything Democrats are used to pulling, but because it
represents the fact that these people will grasp at anything to
prevent Buchanan from “stealing” votes they consider theirs.
Buchanan, who just released a new book questioning merely the
timing of our entry into W.W.II — not the morality of it — is
right to assume his candidacy worries not just the GOP mainstream but
the Democrats as well. Al Gore is, in Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s
own words, unelectable, and Bush — as far as millions of
Americans can tell — either doesn’t stand for anything yet or continues
to support Big Government foundations that his party used to
I guess the GOP feels that anything they can do to win is all
right, even if it means lying their tails off to get into power. Gee —
and they claim not to be at all similar to Democrats.
I think the real ire being vocalized by Republicans has more
to do with a new poll, also released Friday. The poll shows that some 19
percent of registered voters would consider voting for Buchanan as a
third party (presumably Reform) candidate. “Experts” like Rush Limbaugh
have already tried to parse the meaning of this poll as insignificant —
naturally — but they’ve had to do so by ignoring the fact that in 1992,
when American voter dissatisfaction was at its highest in recent years,
ol’ “crazy” Ross Perot got 19 percent of the popular vote, after
leading both “mainstream” candidates for most of the prior summer. Perot
and “fringe element conservatives” were blamed for electing Clinton and
not George Bush in 1992 rather than Bush’s lying (about taxes),
lackluster administration and his inability to solidify conservative
support. Even after Dole’s pitiful 1996 performance — with no
substantial vote count being taken from Republicans or Democrats
by Perot — Republican stalwarts continue to blame “us defectors” for
setting the GOP up to lose again in 2000. And they call us
paranoid and delusional.
If I were a “mainstream party” candidate, I’d be worried about Pat
Buchanan too — as well as a number of other GOP and independent
candidates. They’re out there precisely because the two main political
parties are morally bankrupt, ideologically challenged and aren’t
offering much new in the way of throwing off the yoke of an increasingly
oppressive federal government. These GOP (and Democratic) stalwarts are
just ticked off because fewer people are taking them at their word
(repetitive lying has a way of withering support for a party).
Unlike 99.99 percent of Americans who live outside the
Washington beltway, Capitol Hill politicians don’t have a clue how
strong the anti-establishment movement has become. Let them discover it
in November 2000.
Until then, you GOP whiners, if you can’t be right about what you’re
saying, then be quiet about it. Your ranting and raving against
Buchanan and Co. is embarrassing to real conservatives, it’s being
viewed as grabbing at straws, and it makes you look more ridiculous than
before — when most of you were busy playing Bill Clinton’s doormat.
Clinton keeps our dough
As expected, President Bill Clinton has vetoed the GOP-led initiative
to cut taxes.
Granted, the tax cut proposal wasn’t significant. For most people, a
2.9 percent tax cut ($800 billion out of a projected $20 trillion
over ten years) would have amounted to the price of a few theater
tickets, a bag of popcorn and a few cokes — per year — for most of
On the other hand, Clinton the socialist has no business lying about
the “damage” returning money to American taxpayers would “cause.”
Anytime Americans can get some of their tax money back — or are
prevented from sending it to Washington in the first place — can be
considered a victory for the working man and a victory for those who
seek less (and smaller) federal government.
But if you’re talking about taxes the issue is never what Bill
Clinton or Trent Lott feel are “important” and “worthy” things for the
federal government to do — those duties are outlined in the
Constitution. Tax money is, by its very nature, our money
first. We earn it and we ought to get to keep most of it.
Consequently, the less of it Washington controls, the smaller (and more
insignificant) Washington becomes. And that leaves more for us to
control ourselves. A good thing.
If Texas Gov. George Bush slides into the White House in 2000 I’m not
going to move out of the country or anything. But I’ll be danged if
I’ll let him, or his GOP counterparts, forget that they owe us
this tax cut — and many other tax cuts as well. As far as tax cuts go,
appealing to Clinton is a lost cause.