Moloney's World: Appalachian trail of tears for Barack

It isn't just this week's blowout in Kentucky. It isn’t just West Virginia. We saw those same lopsided majorities for Clinton - three and four to one- in southwestern Pennsylvania, western counties in Virginia, and eastern Tennessee. Who are these people and what are they thinking? They live along a geographic belt of the country roughly corresponding to the Appalachian Mountains stretching from upstate New York to Alabama. Many call the area Appalachia and describe the people as “backward”. Such characterizations are both unfair and inaccurate.

These people have been there a long time. Migration is outward not inward. Overwhelmingly they are Protestant and largely of Scots-Irish descent. Many came from Northern Ireland when the British Parliament banned Presbyterians from holding office; others emigrated from the Scottish Highlands following the bloody defeat of “Bonny Prince Charlie” in 1745.

Though most of these people are geographically “Southern” they disproportionally enlisted in the Union Army because they detested slavery. West Virginia seceded from Virginia in 1861 over that very issue.

It would be fair to say - as Barack Obama did - that these people “cling” to God, guns, and patriotism, but not because they’re “bitter”, but because they believe that these are things central to the values that define their lives.

Accordingly they make fine soldiers. Characteristically America’s greatest hero in World War I was an uneducated sharpshooting woodsman from the Tennessee hills named Alvin York. In the age of the all-volunteer military enlistment rates in Appalachia lead the nation. Given this reverence for things military, West Virginians could not forget Al Gore’s invention of combat experience in Vietnam or forgive John Kerry’s slander of his fellow soldiers as “war criminals”.

In the wake of Obama’s wipeout in West Virginia, the liberal media have not actually used the term “racist hillbillies” - but clearly that’s what they mean as they try to explain away this “little setback”.

While race was certainly a factor in West Virginia, it was not the decisive issue in 2008 any more than religion was in 1960.

In each of these seminal primaries - half a century apart - the decisive issue was Patriotism with a capital P.

Those of us with distant memories of on-the-ground realities from the West Virginia of 1960 recall conversations in American Legion halls, VFW posts, and other places where gritty coal miners and hardscrabble farmers gathered to talk about who should succeed Dwight Eisenhower as leader of the Free World.

West Virginians decided they could forgive Jack Kennedy’s Catholicism and forget he went to Harvard because what sealed the deal was his undeniable heroism in saving his men in the South Pacific after the sinking of PT-109.

No doubt in countless attics in Wheeling and Charleston you can find yellowing political flyers with a picture of an emaciated young lieutenant at the helm of his boat. Probably in the same dusty box are the pins and other memorabilia - distributed by the thousands- that reminded West Virginians that the handsome but still shy candidate before them had gone in harm's way with their own sons, and brothers, and fathers.

In 2008 West Virginians used the same scale to measure Barack Obama and they found him seriously wanting by a stunning 69 to 28 percent margin.

But wait. You’re asking “How could Obama win so big in a 94 % white state (Iowa) and then lose so bad in another 94 % white state (West Virginia), unless the reason is racism?

The answer is that Iowans - unlike West Virginians - didn’t know things about Barack Obama that raise the gravest doubts about his patriotism. Iowans never heard of Reverend Wright; they didn’t know about Obama’s “friendly relations” with Bill Ayers; they weren’t aware that Michelle Obama had never been “proud of her country”; they hadn’t noticed the missing flag pin; and most damning of all they never heard the audiotape of Obama speaking to liberal fat cats in San Francisco in tones of obvious condescension describing rural lower income whites in a manner that made them seem ignorant, pathetic, and of course “bitter”.

These recently revealed pieces of the “Who Is Barack Obama?” puzzle will haunt him from now through November as they very well should.

Dr. William Moloney, a featured columnist on BackboneAmerica.net, was Colorado Education Commissioner from 1997-2007. Moloney has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post, and Human Events. He did graduate work in world history at Oxford and admits to being a veteran of all too many political campaigns.

Geddes picked to succeed Regent Schauer

Dr. Jim Geddes, a trauma surgeon from Sedalia, will carry the Republican banner for CU Regent from the 6th congressional district this November. Geddes was nominated by acclamation at Saturday's GOP assembly in Castle Rock after incumbent Paul Schauer quit the race Thursday night. "We're in a battle for the ideological soul of our university, our party, and our country," Geddes told the assembly. Schauer <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_told Allison Sherry of the Denver Post that his withdrawal had nothing to do with a storm of conservative anger, including a mailer that bracketed him with Ward Churchill as no fan of Western Civilization. Presumably he was also unruffled by a week of bruising criticism in print and on radio by Mike Rosen.

If you believe that, contact me about a special price on the deed to Pike's Peak, Mt. McKinley, or any national landmark of your choosing. More on target were the comments to Sherry by some of Schauer's liberal allies on the regents, Democrat Mike Carrigan who said he was swift-boated and Republican Pat Hayes who called the whole thing "frightening." For her crowd of lefties, yes. For real freedom of thought at the university, no.

Several party leaders told me they were disappointed Schauer didn't attend the 6th CD assembly, thank party workers for their support, and perhaps even offer the nomination of Geddes as his successor. It would have given more plausibility to his profession of not leaving under fire, but just wanting a change.

As it was, I gave the nomination for "Doc" Geddes, and was pleased to do so, having been a campaign strategist for him from the start. I expect Jim to win easily in the general election. It's a safe Republican district and he faces only token Democratic opposition. My nominating speech was as follows:

It’s a new day at the University of Colorado. CU has emerged from a difficult time and made a new start under the leadership of former president Hank Brown. The university now has an outstanding new president in Bruce Benson, a true Republican.

CU needs a true Republican majority on the board of regents to support Bruce Benson. All it takes is one more reliable vote, and Dr. Jim Geddes is exactly the man to provide it.

Jim Geddes is a fighting conservative and a gifted leader. We can trust him. Jim knows that the needed reforms in higher education will never be achieved by regents from our party who cater to the left wing faculty and repeatedly vote with the Democrats, as some have done in the past.

Paul Schauer is a good man. We should thank him as he departs. To replace him, and to take CU to the next level, I’m proud to nominate Jim Geddes for Regent.

Obama's problem & McCain's opening

With the North Carolina and Indiana results on May 6, and notwithstanding the West Virginia outcome a week later, it now seems inevitable that Barack Obama will be the 2008 Democrat nominee for president. He deserves a good deal of credit for taking on the vaunted Clinton machine and winning, and he did so by appealing to the grass roots of the party, raising obscene amounts of money in $100 increments. Pretty impressive stuff for someone who just four years ago was an unknown legislator in the Illinois state senate. But I've been asking myself a pretty important question in advance of November: why would anyone vote for Barack Obama to be President of the United States?

Yes, I know: the whole "change" thing is pretty sexy now. It is, after all, the final year of a two-term incumbent who has courted controversy, never cultivated public opinion and who has always been hated on the left for having "stolen" the 2000 election. Beyond that, Obama will undoubtedly appeal to certain constituents. White intellectuals, of course, will support him in droves to absolve themselves once and for all of the guilt of slavery and to show the rest of the world just how "progressive" America really is. Obama will get the "youth vote" because he is the living embodiment of all the multi-cultural left-wing drivel that their college professors have been drilling into them. And, of course, blacks -- who have proven that everything to them is about race -- will vote for him in overwhelming numbers as they have been in the Democrat primaries against Hillary Clinton.

But what about the rest of us? Conservative intellectuals who don't support a retreat from Iraq and who believe that we are at war with an enemy who can't be reasoned with? Entrepreneurs and small-business owners who believe that our money shouldn't go to pay for big government programs? Hard-working folks across industry who don't want to pay higher taxes and who believe that less (government) is more?

Obviously, this is a rhetorical question: even before the first campaign rally, at least 45% of the electorate would never vote for Barack Obama, regardless of who he was running against -- such is the nation's partisan divide. But, what does Obama offer that would appeal to a true majority of Americans -- people who don't belong to a fringe interest group or constituency? The kind of people who overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia?

The short answer is: nothing that I can think of. On every issue of importance, from the war to taxes to health care reform, Obama is either an unknown quantity or solidly in the arms of interest groups: feminists, unionists, environmentalists -- leftists in general. He offers nothing of the post-partisan, post-racial politics that he has been promising in his campaign. In fact, Obama is a divisive candidate who says one thing but does another. I find nothing in him that would (or should) appeal to conservatives or independents, let alone the "Reagan Democrats" that are a core constituency for victory in November.

On the face of it, John McCain would seem to be a natural alternative for the core "middle" in this election. He's a free-market proponent who has been resolute on the war on terror and has a deep base of foreign policy experience to draw upon. He's been solid on many core values that Americans hold important, and even though he's wobbled on immigration and global warming, you have to like his record over the long run. He's been tested in ways that Barack Obama can never understand, let alone emulate in any meaningful way. And he's been independent enough over the the past 20 years of public service that "maverick" and "rebel" have often been his middle name. He's no George Bush -- which in this election, is about the most positive campaign attribute anyone can have.

But this is no ordinary year, as Republicans are finding out. So far, the party has lost three traditionally "safe" congressional seats in special elections -- one in Illinois, one in Louisiana, and just this week in Mississippi. All three of these seats were in districts that George Bush carried by big margins in 2004 -- and each is now being represented in Washington by a Democrat. This is a cautionary tale of great significance -- showing just how bad the situation is for Republicans this year. John McCain ignores this signal at his own peril.

In the end, much will hinge on the kind of campaign McCain runs. If he is firm, aggressive and relentless is exploiting the emptiness of Obama's message and the danger inherent in his lack of experience -- while showing voters that he has a better direction for the country -- he can win. But McCain's platform has to have real purpose: lower taxes, lower regulation, market-driven solutions to health care and a true commitment to anti-corruption in Washington. He must show voters -- conservatives, independents and "Reagan Democrats" -- that he, and not Barack Obama, is the change they've been waiting for.

Survey of Key States: Obama Vulnerable

If nominated, Barack Obama has a better chance of carrying Colorado this fall than Hillary Clinton, but nationally he would win fewer electoral votes than she would. On net, Obama's chances of defeating John McCain for the presidency are much poorer than Clinton's. That's the indication from a new survey of nine key states by ccAdvertising of Herndon VA. Here's the link:Survey of Key States The matchups were surveyed in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Responses indicated that against Clinton, McCain would carry only CO, FL, IL, and NH, giving her the electoral college by 279-259, assuming other states go as they did in 2004.

Whereas against Obama, according to the ccAdvertising survey, McCain would carry 6 of the 9 states, losing only CA, IL, and NY. This would give him the electoral college by 311-227, again assuming a repeat of 2004 in the states not surveyed.

The survey predicts that Colorado, which has gone Democratic only twice in the last half-century, would be more competitive for Obama, who runs only 2% behind McCain among these respondents, than for Hillary Clinton, who runs 5.4% behind.

ccAdvertising conducts automated phone surveys with massive oversampling, in lieu of the scientifically sampled, live-operator approach used by conventional polling firms. A total of 6,675 persons completed the survey described here, with another 7,287 respondents answering one or more of the questions. Aggregated and averaged, this is 1,551 persons in each of the nine states, far larger than a conventional polling sample.

Gabe Joseph, who heads the company, points to a December 2004 analysis from Slate magazine, "Who Nailed the Election Results? Automated Pollsters," as evidence of his method's superiority. While the article doesn't specifically mention ccAdvertising, lauding only Survey USA and Rasmussen, Joseph notes the latter is a client of his company and conducts many of its surveys with ccA's systems, process, and data.

Here is again is the full survey including questions, results, and methodology: Survey of Key States

Jim Geddes for CU Regent

CU president Bruce Benson needs reliable Republican backing on the Board of Regents. Mike Rosen's May 9 column makes the case why Dr. Jim Geddes, MD, the 6th District challenger, will provide that far better than incumbent Paul Schauer. Donations to the Doc's underdog campaign can go to Geddes for Regent, PO Box 565, Sedalia CO 80135.