Another Example of the “Experts” Being Wrong

Underneath the illusory “normalcy of everyday living, it appears that Experts and Professionals outperform amateurs. However, if we are to look beyond the false reality of the “bell curve,” we find that Amateurs nearly always outperform “experts” in terms of breakthroughs, innovation, and societal evolution.

Home schooling parents have proven that the “experts” on Public Education are wrong.

The Wright Brothers, under funded “amateurs,” flew before the “government funded” expert, Samuel Langley. In 1904, The Scientific American (the same magazine touting “anthropocentric global warming”) wrote that it would be impossible to believe reports of successful flight by the Wright Brothers, since the government funded expert couldn’t get his plane to fly.

Some things never change. But what if things are getting worse? What if our growing reliance on “experts” is actually killing us?

One Doctor’s Lonely Quest To Heal Brain Injury

ATLANTA — As a young researcher in the 1960s, Donald G. Stein drilled through the skulls of anesthetized rats and vacuumed out sections of their brains to see the effect on their behavior. But he quickly became fascinated by something outside the scope of the research: Why did some female rats promptly recover from their injuries, while males remained impaired?

His supervisors told him the difference was inconsequential and urged him to move on to more important topics. But over his 40-year career as a brain researcher and university administrator, he never let go of the question.

40 Years!!!??

Here we have a man who discovered a break through (by accident – which is usual in these situations), and the scientific and medical establishment IGNORED and RIDICULED the data, and the man promoting the data!!!

Why do we hold “experts” in such high regard? Let us be clear here. I am not arguing that we should go to an auto mechanic for brain surgery. The brain surgeon is the expert on his domain. However, we should keep in mind that the brain surgeon is merely a “brain mechanic,” and given to no more special insight into new ideas or possible breakthroughs. As a matter of fact, a study of many large breakthroughs leads one to see that “experts” are often blinded by the “conventional wisdom” in their field.

It is often the amatuer, tinkering in his garage or lab, who finds the breakthrough that the experts ignore.

Dr. Stein was turned down for half a dozen or more grants from the National Institutes of Health during the 1970s and 1980s. Zaven S. Khachaturian, a leading scientist and former NIH official, says his ideas were “really creative but the NIH system never gave them the good scores they deserved.” At one point, he says, “I just told Don Stein that sometimes it doesn’t pay to keep hitting your head against the wall,” Dr. Khachaturian says.

Dr. Stein recalls feeling “shaken” by the denials, while at the same time growing more determined to prove his case. He kept up a steady drumbeat of research, published in a wide range of journals such as Science, Brain Research, Experimental Neurology and others.

During his time at Clark, Dr. Stein was given to jeans, long hair and shooting his mouth off in faculty meetings or challenging guest speakers, even eminent ones. “Eyebrows would go up whenever Don’s hand would go up,” recalls Julio Ramirez, a former student, now a professor of neuroscience at Davidson College.

Over the next three years, the study focused on 100 head-injured patients who had been brought into the emergency room at Grady Memorial Hospital in downtown Atlanta. Some patients received standard treatment to control bleeding and fevers along with state-of-the-art head-injury treatment. Others were also given intravenous progesterone, at triple the highest natural levels at the end of pregnancy.

One Saturday morning in 2005, Dr. Stein was driving north of Atlanta on a shopping trip with his wife when a stern-sounding Dr. Kellermann called him. Dr. Kellermann said he had just learned the study’s findings, adding, “Pull over to the side of the road.”

Dr. Stein froze, fearing that decades of research with animals would prove useless, that progesterone might have turned out to raise the death rate in humans for some unforeseen reason.

His heart was thumping as Dr. Kellermann told him the results: Patients on progesterone had a death rate of just 13% from their head injuries, less than half the 30% death rate of those on standard treatment. And progesterone showed no negative side effects. The 100-subject study was too small to prove that progesterone caused the lowered death rate, but the findings were consistent with animal research. Don Stein was so elated that he had to ask his wife to take over the driving.

In the respected journal “Annals of Emergency Medicine” this past April, Dr. Stein and his researchers summarized the study: “Moderate traumatic brain injury survivors who received progesterone were more likely to have a moderate to good outcome than those randomized to placebo.”

Imagine the number of people who suffered brain damage since 1960. Imagine that they were offered a shot at dramatically reduced debilitation from that damage. Imagine a world where we didn’t default to “expert worship” and listened to determined, intelligent, and driven amatuers instead.

Science Fiction writer William Gibson seems to be first to coin the phrase “The Future is Already Here, it Just Isn’t Evenly Distributed.” We live in a world where we can distribute the future very rapidly, but we have minds that default to giving “experts” too much say in what gets distributed, and who it is distributed to.

This is a function of YOUR mindset. YOU must change the default position in your own thinking. Render unto the expert the “due respect” for their mechanical expertise. Ignore them when the critique new and bold ideas. In that domain, “experts” are nearly always wedded to the dogma of their domain.

Detractors Were Correct, NCLB was a Waste of Effort

As some one who defended the “No Child Left Behind” act as a way for the Federal Government to enforce some standards on the wasteful and corrupt education industry, it saddens me to say that most of my fears regarding NCLB failure have come to pass.

The Education Establisment (or BIG ED, as I call it), has gamed and corrupted yet another reform, and is now in the position to do what they always do – ignore standards and accountability, but keep the money.

It is probably beyond the ability of Republicans to abolish NCLB entirely, which means that the upcoming debate will be won by the vile teacher’s unions and corrupt administrators. Thanks, George.

A Law Best Left Behind

With its focus on testing, achievement, accountability and transparency, the No Child Left Behind Act has undoubtedly altered the terms of the education debate in the U.S. But the law, which is set to expire this year, remains seriously flawed, and the Bush administration’s weak enforcement of its best provisions argues against renewal.

NCLB is designed to help close racial and ethnic leaning gaps. But schools have even been allowed to monkey around with disaggregating their AYP data by race and ethnicity. States have allowed schools to omit significant numbers of low-performing students by setting large minimum sizes — known as N-sizes — for calculating a subgroup’s test scores. If a state has an N-size of 30, for example, it means that a school has to have 30 black kids taking the third-grade math test in order for their disaggregated scores to count toward AYP. The games being played here are outrageous. Ohio set an N-size of 45 for kids with disabilities. California’s N-size is 100. These are telling shenanigans for a law meant to Leave No Child Behind, and the Bush education department has abided them.

To be fair to Ms. Spellings, her actions (or inactions) don’t exist in a vacuum. The teachers unions, led by the National Education Association, have opposed NCLB from day one. The powerful lobby has used its heft to thwart testing and accountability at the local, state and national level with equal vigor. But Ms. Spellings and other Bush administration officials have a bully pulpit that’s seldom been used in the service of enforcing their own law. And since the administration has clearly shown more interest in appeasing naysayers than challenging them, it needs to do a better job of explaining why Mr. Miller shouldn’t get his way.

The failure of this law, and every other reform scheme (class size, teacher pay, worthless masters degrees, etc. etc.), is simply more proof that the system is unreformable.

The best thing you can do for America and for America’s children is destroy this public education system. It is an engine designed to destroy human potential.

Fund Children, Not Bureaucracies.

The Worst Education System Your Property Tax Dollars Can Buy

Test scores sink to new low

Statewide passing scores on the Illinois high school achievement exams dropped to a new low this year, according to data released Wednesday.

High school juniors passed only 52.6 percent of the state math, science and reading exams they took in April. It’s the lowest pass rate since the state began giving the Prairie State Achievement Exam in 2001. The passing rate last year was 54.3 percent.

The biggest drop came in reading, where only 54 percent of students met standards, compared with 58 percent last year.

The decline comes as national, state and local education leaders continue to struggle with how to fix American high schools.

These lying pikers will try everything but what works – School Choice. Meeks, Martire, and the greedy liars of the teacher’s unions, the IASB and IASBO will try every trick in the book to scam you out of more money. But they will not let you choose the school that is best for your child.

They are a class of pathological liars. You live in a world of denial if you continue to support them.

Dismantling the entire system is the only answer, and the longer you deny it, the more you hurt America’s children.

Predict the Next “Black Swan” Event – win $100,000,000

I just finished “The Black Swan,” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. It would take a too long to really explain the value of this book in a short blog post, and I lack the time to provide my readers with the quality review they deserve. I may try to interview the author and post the podcast, but all I can say is that this book – properly understood – will cure you of your addiction to predictions, and the uselessness of the “bell shaped curve.”

Some parts will bore you, but the parts that don’t will provide you with valuable insights.

Ahmadinejad, Hitler, and “Liberalism’s” Fatal Flaw

The Ahmadinejad visit to Columbia University is one of those wonderful bits of social theater that informs us of much bigger things than the event itself.

Let’s start with the right’s whining about his visit and their comparing Ahmadinejad to Hitler, all based upon the Iranian leaders de facto denial of the Holocaust.

Let’s be reasonable here. Ahmadinejad, for all his faults as the figurehead of one of the “axis of evil,” has not done anywhere near the evil perpetrated by Hitler. He isn’t a Hitler, which is why he gets invited to speak at Universities. But let’s look at this from another side.

Let us look at the hypocrisy of Academia, in their false attempt to appear “open-minded.”

Columbia’s Conceit

On Saturday John Coatsworth, acting dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, made the remark that “if Hitler were in the United States and . . . if he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly invite him.” This was by way of defending the university’s decision to host a speech yesterday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

An old rule of thumb in debate tournaments is that the first one to say “Hitler” loses. But say what you will about Mr. Coatsworth’s comment, it is, at bottom, a philosophical claim: about the purposes of education; about the uses of dialogue; about the obligations of academia; about the boundaries (or absence of boundaries) of modern liberalism and about its conceits. So rather than dismiss the claim out of hand, let’s address it in the same philosophical spirit in which it was offered.

A few preliminaries: When Mr. Coatsworth postulated Hitler’s visit, he specified the year 1939, just prior to Germany’s invasion of Poland and the beginning of World War II. This, then, is not yet the Hitler of Auschwitz, though it is the Hitler of Dachau, the Nuremberg Laws, Guernica and Kristallnacht. Mr. Coatsworth takes the optimistic view that “an appearance by Hitler at Columbia could have led him to appreciate what a great power the U.S. had already become,” and thus, presumably, kept America from war.

Let us at least admit that it would have been possible that Hitler may have been invited to speak, and that “pre-Holocaust,” this may not have been a morally reprehensible invitation. What then, might have happened?

Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, offered a clue in a statement issued last week: “Columbia, as a community dedicated to learning and scholarship, is committed to confronting ideas — to understand the world as it is and as it might be,” he said. “Necessarily, on occasion this will bring us into contact with beliefs many, most or even all of us will find offensive and even odious. We trust our community, including our students, to be fully capable of dealing with these occasions, through dialogue and reason.”

This mindset, openly espoused by both Coatsworth and Bollinger, leans toward the belief that if we could just talk to these types of leaders (Ahmadinejad, Hitler, Assad, and Kim Jong Il), we could somehow make them see reason, and might dissuade them from their horrific acts.

What utter nonsense. Lenin had it right when he called many of these types “useful idiots.”

Like the poor, ill treated girlfriend who thinks she has the capacity “to make him change his ways,” these wonderful liberal dogmatics of academia actually believe that their limp works will change such people.

I found it humorous that Bollinger “got tough” with Ahmadinejad in his introduction. The media was fawning over his “tough words.” To understand how hollow these tough words are, all we have to do is listen to the meanderings of some of the Columbia students after the speech. One dingy co-ed, lamented Bollinger’s treatment of Ahmadinejad.

“He treated him like a child,” she lamented. In Iran, Ahmadinejad’s power base treats all women like children, while outright outlawing homosexuality, and this little co-ed twit is lamenting Bollinger’s harsh words. Mr. Bollinger, meet your little chickens. They have come home to roost. You, and your ilk in America’s K-12 schools have created a generation that is either incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or lacking the interest in making such a distinction.

Liberalism’s Fatal Flaw

This is what is so dangerous about ‘liberalism’ (in it’s current definition). It isn’t as if we can’t find ways to educate the poor and/or get them access to health care. As a conservative, I think there are better ways to do that than creating wasteful and unproductive bureaucracies. Those issues are open to debate.

It is liberalism’s psyche that needs to be fixed. Unable to call tyrant to the carpet for their misdeeds and dangerous, ideas, liberals save their intolerance for conservatives that occupy the same free society.

Demon Rummy

While Columbia President Lee Bollinger opines about “the powers of dialogue and reason,” the Stanford faculty has mobilized against the appointment of the former Defense Secretary to a fellowship at the Hoover Institution, a conservative research center affiliated with the Palo Alto university. Mr. Rumsfeld will join a study group exploring terror and ideology in the post-9/11 world.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s experience in these matters can’t be denied. And though his politics may differ from the professoriate’s, this would seem to make his “perspective” more valuable to a university dedicated to the exchange of ideas — especially one, as its motto has it, where “the wind of freedom blows.”

Something else altogether is blowing now. A group of self-described faculty “instigators” calls Mr. Rumsfeld “fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, [and] disinterested enquiry.” Their petition has garnered more than 3,000 professor, student and alumni signatures.

So the “open-minded” academia can invite and listen to Ahmadinejhad (and a pre-Holocaust Hitler), but can’t have Donald Rumsfeld on the Hoover Institution’s payroll. Bollinger won’t even allow the ROTC on his campus, despite the fact that the ROTC guarantees his right to invite tyrants to speak. In this matter, it is clear that liberalism truly is a mental disorder (and I hate agreeing with or using memes used by Michael Savage).

Unable to understand or process the evil of dictators, but being smart enough to know that something is off kilter with their lack of understanding, they project (look up projection) the faults of such people on to a convenient target (their political opponents in a free society.)

Political correctness, seething hatred of conservatives, and cowardice in the face of evil are not good traits. They are fatal flaws. I just hope they are fatal to “liberalism” and not fatal to our society.

The Truth Dawns on the Daily Herald

I’m not a big fan of most Illinois media outlets, as they;

A) tend to mirror each other’s group think,
B) report their “dead tree media” version of yesterday’s “conventional wisdom.”
C) ooze arrogance from every drop of ink.

But when the get right, they deserve credit. So I salute the Daily Herald for getting it right in their first article of ten. This is going to be as series that focuses on school finance. Would that the House of Lords over at the Chicago Tribune (the world most overrated news rag) deign to write articles that actually inform…

…but I digress.

Public schools’ revenue growth outpaces inflation

Our 10-week course will help you understand how you’re paying for schools

You’re a stakeholder in a multibillion-dollar enterprise.

Every year, you cut a check.

Every year, you give more.

Some years, you give much more — even if you live in the same house, work the same job, pull down the same pay.
Like it or not, you’re a contributor to big business — the big business of Illinois public schools.

This multi-part Daily Herald series will help you understand the financial side of your investment.

Other people do — people with a stake in the dollars and cents of public schools.

Teachers. Unions.


Lobbyists and lawyers.

Consultants of all sorts.

In short, people with a lot to gain from maximizing revenue for public schools.

Most of these stakeholders have a plan to tweak, update or completely overhaul the way Illinois funds its schools.

The Illinois Education Association has called for a constitutional amendment to increase the state contribution to public schools.

The Illinois Federation of Teachers has called for “comprehensive changes in the state’s fiscal system.”

The Illinois Association of School Administrators wants to increase state funding and amend or repeal laws that limit the amount schools can collect from taxpayers.


The remainder of the article covers the obscene (my word, not theirs) growth in so-called “education” spending over the last 1-15 years. It may turn out that the Daily Herald Editorial Board and the Editor of this series will default to the wrong conclusion (and HB750 style “tax swap.”

While I will be very critical of such a conclusion, as I would of ANY tax increase that gave the corrupt special interests mentioned above one more dime, I applaud the Daily Herald and Emily Krone for getting the very first paragraphs of their 10 part series 100% correct.

Let us hope they come to the only economically and morally correct conclusion – that it is time to fund Children, Not the absurd bureaucracies that they mention above.

What Job Security?

So the UAW is striking against GM. In a battle of two dinosaurs whose planet has been hit by a comet, who really cares about the outcome?

Not to be mean here, but if GM can’t build cars that people want for the price they want, why should they be in business? If their workers believe they can squeeze blood from a stone, let them. Let’s see how long the stone stays in business.

Fight Over Jobs, Cost Cuts Spurs Walkout at GM

The union’s membership has shriveled rapidly in recent years, and it wants to stop the bleeding. “Globalization is killing us,” said Jerry Gillespie, president of a UAW local in Warren, Mich., whose members work on engineering and design of future products. “They want to build engineering centers in the rest of the world and take that work away from us. That’s our fight.”

GM was resisting the UAW demand for jobs guarantees. The company’s goal in the talks is to win a contract that would allow it to narrow or even eliminate the wage gap with Asian rivals.

Here is a guarantee for you. There aren’t any guarantees!!! While we are at it, who says you deserve one. Why should you get that job over a possibly more motivated Indian? What are you willing to do to keep your job? What good is a “job guarantee” in a company that goes under?

Really folks?! Where is it written that you should be able to work at one place with one company, doing one thing for 20-40 years? Better yet, ask yourself why one should want to?

Clinton (pre-Monica) had it right. Let Globalization run its course, and fund education an job training programs instead of worthless protectionism. Manufacturing will come back, but in the interim, learn something new and do something useful.

Open a school, teach a kid to read for 1/2 the cost of the bloated and protected public education bureaucracy, get a psychology degree and counsel displaced workers. Just get over the idea that you deserve protection, or that such protection makes you stronger.

GM and the UAW are dinosaurs headed for extinction. Be a mammal.

Explaining Fred Thompson

If you are a political junkie, and follow all the hit pieces on RealClearPolitics and, you are one of the know-it-alls that dismiss Fred Thompson as a “light-weight” who simply doesn’t understand the importance of the Schivo case, or the intricacies of the your own personal 72 point plan to save the universe.

For my part, as a Thompson supporter, I’m not sure whether he will turn out to be all that I’d like in a candidate, but I’m frankly heartened by his performance so far.

Here’s why.

The Thompson Bounce

What explains this hostility? One factor is almost certainly Thompson’s decision to work around–not through–the mainstream media in Washington. He first hinted at his candidacy in an interview with the Fox News Channel. He spent time with reporters from THE WEEKLY STANDARD and National Review. He posted commentaries on conservative blogs and brief video editorials on his own website. Nothing generates hostility from reporters so much as ignoring or dismissing them. Just ask Dick Cheney.

If the punditry (even conservative punditry) hates him, he can’t be all bad. Let me put it to you this way. With a late entry, less cash, and up to 10 competitors on every podium, why WOULDN’T you run an unconventional campaign?!

If the entire electorate is burned out on the incessant debates with YouTube snowmen and Gay Straight Hispanic Spanish-Language Multi-Culti formats, isn’t a bored lack of participation the best way to set yourself apart from it all?!

I don’t have any special insight into the campaign, but if I were in Thompson’s position, I’d be hard pressed to come up with a better strategy than doing exactly what he’s doing. Even the perceived lack of interest in the issues works in his favor.

Why SHOULD a candidate have a 72 point plan to make every uninsured worker a scofflaw? (i.e. Hillary’s health plan) Why should a candidate respond to a question on the Schivo case when any answer is likely to galvanize at least 35-40% to oppose him, no matter what he says?! Frankly, I’ll bet his response would be considered refreshing to most voters.

Here is what he said (in part).

“I can’t pass judgment on it. I know that good people were doing what they thought was best,” Thompson said. “That’s going back in history. I don’t remember the details of it.”

That sure beats a 72 point plan to bureaucratize the next “Schaivo” case in some “Department of Living Will Security.”

Again, I have no idea how successful Thompson will be, and I may be disappointed by some positions he takes (or has taken). One of my favorite Aesop’s Fables is The Man, the Boy and the Ass.

Read the linked story if you want to, but the moral turned out to be Please all, and you will please none.

Fred Thompson seems to understand a little bit about the flipside of that moral. Please None, and you might find a way to please all (or at least enough, if not all).

If you read the polls, it seems to be working. Just read the Weekly Standard piece.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Thompson campaign so far is this: Despite his late entry, poor fundraising, and staff disorder, and despite the negative press, the former Tennessee senator, three weeks into his campaign, must be considered not only a top-tier candidate but almost a co-frontrunner for the Republican nomination. The Rasmussen poll at the end of last week actually found him tied with Giuliani; the most recent Gallup poll gives Giuliani an 8-point lead, Reuters/Zogby has Giuliani up 2, and CNN has the former mayor up one.

I can only hope that Dick Morris and Dr. Dobson keep on dissing him. It seems to be working.

Fritz the Terrorist

As I’ve posted various time across this blog, “Secular Humanism” is thin gruel compared to robust Islam or Christianity. Secular Humanists hate such comparisons, but then, they simply refuse to admit that they are as dogmatic and religious as any Christian or Muslim.

Take a child (or a culture) steeped in Secular Humanism, and expose it to a robust religion, and the chances of that person (or culture) embracing the newer, more cohesive thought pattern is quite likely.

Hence, Fritz the Terrorist.

Among the Believers

By the skin of their teeth, German security services, with the help of their U.S. colleagues, prevented earlier this month what might have been the worst terrorist attack in European history. The would-be bombers, though, aren’t some neglected immigrants on the margins of society. No, the danger came directly from its center, from children of good, solid homes. Fritz G.’s father was an engineer in Munich, his mother a doctor. When the two divorced in the 1990s, it’s been reported, the son found support in Islam. In the small Bavarian town of Neu-Ulm, he became a regular of the “Multi-Kulti-Haus,” a German center for fanatical Muslims. Daniel S. from Saarland converted from Catholicism to Islam in 2004, one year after dropping out from high school. German security services believe he visited a terror camp last year in Pakistan. Even the most alarmist German politician could hardly have imagined so much “home grown” terrorism at once.

Note how even the writer, trying to warn us of this phenomenon, says the kid comes from a “solid home” despite the fact that the parents are divorced. Note how he says he converted from “Catholicism” when it is likely that Fritz was a Secular Humanist whose “Catholicism” is merely a label.


In contrast to most post-modern nation states, Islamic fundamentalism offers the kind of warm hearth for which many shaken Western souls might yearn: community instead of individualism. Moral certainty instead of moral arbitrariness. And hasn’t the fulfilling sense of fighting a “cold evil” always held great attraction for young idealists? Take the revolutionary companeros around Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The anti-globalization movement, which never ceases to denounce “unmerciful neo-liberalism,” is another example.

Thank God we aren’t a “post-modern” nation state! If you read the entire article, you will see that our dear German Journalist misses a more than a few points. He rails about the differences between “political Islam” and “cultural Islam”, forgetting that Islam never made a distiction between politics and culture.

Mohammed never said “Render unto Caesar….” Mohammed WAS a Ceasar.

Next, notice how our German friend ignores the glaring error in his own thought system. One can live in a free society and still have “moral certainty”. As a matter of fact, fans of the founding fathers (like me) point out that moral certainty and freedom go hand in hand. Absent a belief in something higher than one’s self, democracy devolves into the war of “all against all” that is becoming the hallmark of the Secular Humanist Welfare State.

Europe is dying. It’s young are foregoing children because living for future (or even creating one) isn’t in their interests. Get Laid, Get paid, get retired, Get a pension, and take an eternal dirt nap. Such a society has no chance against a society that actually wants to accomplish something.

Islam wants to accomplish something. (What that is will be determined by the outcome of it’s current turmoil.) So does the “Christian” United States. (to the extent that we aren’t thoroughly “Secular Humanized, we have been a force for world freedom) Compare those types of goals to a gaggle of whiners seeking to make the world safe for “big pensions” and “free health care.”

Like I said. Secular Humanim = Thin Gruel.

Fritz, meet Johnny Lind, your soul brother.

Fred Thompson Update

Dick Morris doesn’t like Fred Thompson

The onetime ultimate D.C insider, Dick Morris recently brandished the allegation that Fred Thompson is awkward in answering questions. What a hoot coming from the guy that Chris Matthews kicked off the air and out of the Hardball studio — probably the only guy ever to receive such treatment from Matthews — for defaming Catholicism. But aside from the pot calling the kettle black issue, Morris accidentally put his finger on the thing that middle Americans get about Thompson which beltway insiders don’t: substance over image and the difference between the two.

RealClearPolitics – the guys who aggregate all the polls to great predicitive accuracy – show that Thompson is leading in the latest Rasmussen poll, and the latest Harris Poll, which isn’t up on RCP yet.

For a guy who is lazy and “can’t answer” questions (didn’t they say the same thing about Reagan?), he is doing quite well.

Thompson Shrugs Off Dobson Criticism

In a private e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.

“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?” Dobson wrote.

We’ll just have to see who can’t speak on the campaign trail. I have a great deal of respect for Dobson, but again, the e-mail may merely be another example of another power broker/consultant who is miffed that Thompson isn’t engaged in the typical political butt-sniffing.

Dobson sways more people than Dick Morris, but the fact is that Dobson’s dissing may help Thompson among the same people who are glad that Rudy isn’t a slave to the so-called “religious right.” First off, none of the Republican candidates appear to be “slaves to the Religious Right.” Second, the left and the media will paint all of them – including Rudy – as such because it serves their purpose (electing Democrats).

I thought Thompson handled it well.

Thompson, who sounded at times unsure of the e-mail’s authenticity, said he has never had the pleasure of meeting or talking with the Focus on the Family founder.

“If in fact this e-mail … reflects his views, so be it,” Thompson said. “I have a lot of friends who I think are friends of his who have a high regard for me, and I’m very proud of that.”

Should Fred Thompson win the nomination (and I hope he does), Dr. Dobson will take about a week to leak an e-mail explaining that Thompson’s victory proved him wrong, and that all good Focus on the Family voters should support Fred.

And they will.

Up in the polls, out with the powerbrokers and consultants – all in all – a good place to be.

I’m still with Fred!