Mainstream media (MSM) apologists for the extreme left fringe (Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Air America, etc.) are, knowingly or unknowingly, subverting the nation by becoming the accomplices of their more radical ideological brothers and sisters. How? They are the “bridge” that connects them to the rest of the “body politic.” But is this really possible to do without specific intent, or knowledge? Could such a large “conspiracy” really exist except in the disturbed minds of conspiracy theory nuts?

It is doubtful that there is some secret liberal “star chamber” (other than the “war room” of the Hillary for President campaign) that is working behind the scenes to plot our national destiny. One only needs to look at the multitude of missteps taken by the recent Democratic “leadership” of Harry “the war is lost” Reid, Nancy “self-appointed ambassador to Syria” Pelosi, John “Impeachment” Conyers, Charles “tax-hike” Rangel, Hillary “Ask me a question” Clinton, and others to realize that if there is any liberal leadership cabal that they aren’t the “sharpest tools in the political shed.” However, this does not mean that the collective effect of the shrill, even rabid, Left is not effective at shaping national politics when facilitated by constant, and favorable, media access.

The Clinton strategy of “triangulation” illustrates how a noisy “lunatic fringe” on the Left works as a political strategy to shift national politics toward an overall liberal agenda. It can make what was politically unthinkable, possible. While the radical Left has generally been too delusional to carry out large scale organized, effective political activity within, or in conjunction with, the Democratic Party that does not mean that their impact has not been felt as they tilt the national political debate to the Left. In legal terms, to be guilty of conspiracy it is not necessary for the left hand to know what the right hand is doing. (Or in this case, the far left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing.) This is why none of the current crop of Democratic candidates are willing to alienate themselves from the radical Left. They need them to make their own liberal agendas seem moderate.

The right-left political spectrum (represented by the inferior line of the triangle) is bridged by the political media (represented by the two superior, angled lines of the triangle) which if, “fair and balanced,” does not result in a skewing of political discourse.  However, if the political media caters to radical ideologies due to personal, collective, or organizational biases; the entire political environment is shifted towards the radical end of the spectrum.  The strategy of furthering a “progressive” (that’s code for “radical and liberal”) agenda within the Democratic Party is outlined in Paul Waldman’s Being Right is Not Enough.  Of course, the book’s subtitle, “What Progressives Must Learn from Conservative Success,” points out that it’s all the Republicans’ fault that such tactics are necessary in the first place.  (Amazon, Audible audio book)

CNN’s Lou Dobbs is something of a unique cable news journalist.  Personally, I find him to be rather pompous and self-important with his “War on the Middle Class” theme.  Also, he has an irritating anti-GOP bias that is, fortunately, readily transparent.  However, he does have some valid points and criticisms to make of both the Left and Right from time to time.  But yesterday, I had to hit the rewind button on my TIVO several times to make sure that I heard him correctly.

During an extended segment on Lou Dobbs Tonight October 26th episode, an almost agitated Lou discussed the defeat of ”Dream Act” legislation that was little more than a smoke screen for an illegal immigrant amnesty. He dutifully noted that both Hillary and Obama (a co-sponsor of the bill, no less) were both supporters of the legislation.  Continuing, he then went on to express his, and more than 70% of New Yorker’s, outrage over Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to issue driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Plus, in an invitation to massive voter fraud, Spitzer has ordered state employees to register ”voters” on an essentially “no questions asked” policy which can conveniently be accomplished in the Great State of New York while obtaining a driver license.  It’s not hard to connect the dots here.

But the most notable of Lou’s comments came in response to a viewer who wrote in to say that she had changed her voter registration to “independent” and that she felt that Governor Spitzer, and both Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton should be “voted out” of office.  To which Lou replied that he “couldn’t agree more.”  Remember, this was on his prime time CNN news program!  Watch the video and see for yourself.

Until Fred Thompson became a candidate with his declaration on the Leno Show, conservatives - for the most part - didn’t have a “first-tier” candidate in the Republican primary that really got them excited about the upcoming 2008 Presidential race in spite of the general recognition that a 2008 Democratic victory would be a tragedy for nation.  (Fred ‘08 website)

Unfortunately, it takes an actual candidate to win an election.  In the US we are only allowed to vote “for” a candidate and not “against,”  “anybody but Hillary,” or “none of the above.”

Rudy and Mitt, for many on the Right, are “compromise candidates.”  It isn’t that Rudy and Mitt are disliked on the Right.  On the contrary, they enjoy wide respect for being “Yankee Republicans” that have managed to get elected in the nearly “solid blue” Northeast.  That said, they are not viewed (by many in the GOP) as “brethren” in a struggle that predates the “Reagan Revolution.”  Furthermore, their recent conciliatory moves to the Right are viewed more as expedient political maneuvers, rather true “conversions” to the conservative point of view.

The lack of a candidate that “connected” with the so-called “Republican base” allowed Fred to remain the “stealth” candidate for months.  He has had the luxury of seeming very “presidential” by avoiding the primary race’s “squabbles.”  In the absence of definitively stated policy positions - made necessary during the “typical” primary process - the former senator continues to make the most of his Law and Order television persona, Arthur Branch, a southern conservative turned Big Apple prosecutor.  (Shouldn’t that story line have premiered on the SciFi Channel first?)  As such, he has been portrayed week, after week, season, after season, as the wise, all-knowing, “down home” and folksy older (but not elderly) boss that explains to his urban, mostly liberal staff, the conservative positions of the day using rural southern anecdotes that are conveniently, debated, and poignantly resolved in the 60-minute prime time episodes of Law and Order.  We doubt that NBC ever imagined that they were creating a conservative icon when the created Thompson’s character.

But there is a cloud on Thompson’s horizon - politically and personally.  Could a page from the Democratic history book, Paul Tsongas’ presidential campaign of 1992, be repeated?  (NY Sun, “Thompson’s Cancer Stirs Memories of Tsongas” and National Review, “The Tsongas Problem”)  Paul was Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party primary rival who made the contest a real “horse race,” until he suddenly dropped out.   Like Tsongas, Thompson returned to politics to run for President after a stint in the Senate.  Also like Tsongas, when he entered the race, relatively positive prognoses were stated by the candidate, his staff, and a variety of “experts.”   What’s not known is whether the parallels between Thompson and Tsongas include the deceptions (or the gentler description “lack of clarity” used by Tsongas) made by the 1992 Tsongas campaign regarding his recurrence of cancer and his prognosis.  (Red State, Fred Thompson’s Statement, “What you need to know — Facts about my cancer”

Nobody on his deathbed ever said, “I wish I had spent more time at the office.”   Paul Tsongas   Could Fred have shared this sentiment with Paul and then have left the Senate for an acting career?

Interestingly, Paul Tsongas died January 18, 1997, in what would have been the final days of his administration had he won the 1992 election.  (If this would have happened in the Clinton administration, think of how many pardons he never could have sold, er… granted.)  Does anybody doubt that Tsongas’ ability to govern effectively would have been affected during the final months of his administration as he was dying?  Could the same thing happen to Thompson?  Granted, the statistics on survival of patients diagnosed with Thompson’s relatively rare form of lymphoma are encouraging, but what about patients’ subjected high levels of stress - you know, like serving as President of the United States?  That’s where the theory of Fred’s “Magic Carpet” comes in to play.  (Jeremy D. Mayer at Politico.com, “Is Death on the Ballot in 2008?”)

The closer Fred Thompson gets to the nomination, the greater attention will be paid to his VP choice — especially in light of the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll just released (Rudy 30%, Fred 23%, McCain 15%, Romney 10%, Huckabee 4%).  This is the so called “magic carpet track” into the Oval Office, the Vice-Presidency on a ticket with a partner that has a fair chance of not completing their term in office.  At anytime, a future President Thompson (or Giuliani, a cancer survivor himself) could declare that he is unable to carry out his duties and elevate the VP to the Presidency.  Is this a likely scenario?  We think so.

Another issue for the Thompson campaign is his “gender gap.”  In the WSJ/NBC poll, he only had a little more than half the support among Republican women, 16%, than he showed among Republican men, 29%.  This gap is made even more urgent by Rudy’s strong support among female Republicans in the same poll (25% male, 35% female).  If Fred is the eventual nominee and doesn’t take decisive action, we suspect that this gender gap would grow larger during the general election.  Although a female VP choice is a possibility for either candidate, this makes us think that Thompson would be more likely to choose a female VP than Rudy.  For Fred, it is absolutely essential that he improve his support among women for the primary and the general election.  Is Condi on Fred’s “short list?”   Or someone else’s?  Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?  (Interesting Trivia: Both Condi and Fred are native Alabamans.)

With Hillary and her megabucks capturing the majority of the media buzz for 2008, the “B-word” that might come to mind when contemplating the next Democratic presidential nominee, especially for “sore loser” Republicans after the recent midterm elections, would rhyme with “witch.” But soon it will be replaced with “Biden,” as the Senator from Delaware announced that he’ll be holding hearings about Iraq. As the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he’ll be kicking off the presidential posturing on Capitol Hill. Given his history of brain aneurysms and belligerence, his “invitation” for Condi to appear must be viewed with suspicion — although it will provide an opportunity for our Secretary of State to finesse this obvious attempt at political grandstanding. Be careful what you ask for Joe, you might just get it! (CNN)