September 08, 2008
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. The writer has zero grounding in anything approaching reality. It's a collection of unsupported assertions designed to explain away the fact that the Democrats' platform is not supported by even a plurality of citizens, and is slowly losing support.
Thank you for your time.
Show Comments »
Something occurred to me today at work. I wasn't 100% clear in my post about the Democrats unforced error.
See, I don't think the flags getting left behind say anything about Democratic Party patriotism, or Obama's ability to lead.
But while I won't go so far as to say "perception is reality", I will insist that perception matters.
Like it or not, Democrats have a perception problem.
There is a perception that Democrats don't love America for what it is, they love it for what it could be. There is a perception that when America is attacked by terrorists or criticized by Europeans, Democrats (and/or liberals) respond by wondering what we did wrong, rather than thinking maybe we're resented because we're right and a great nation. There is a perception that Democrats think Europe and socialism are just swell, and they want to make the US exactly like Belgium and/or Sweden.
Republicans take advantage of this perception to make Democrats appear less patriotic.
Democrats often make things easier on Republicans who want to do that. Such as refusing to wear a flag lapel pin after 9/11 (or even now) because it might be perceived as too jingoistic. They come up with terms like "flyover country." They make disparaging cracks about non-urban dwellers who "cling" to guns and religion.
Democrats forget two things:
1) Due to the balance between population and geography built into our Constitution (brilliantly, by the way), Montana and Wyoming have just as many Senators as California and New York.
2) There isn't quite enough population in the urban areas like San Francisco, Seattle/Portland, Chicago, New York, and D.C. to get elected President. So Democrats condescend to and disparage the people they need to win elections. They claim to be the party of the "little guy", the worker, the lower income...but only as long as they vote and are not heard.
How else do you explain liberal and/or Democrat disdain (if not hatred) for Wal-Mart? That's the middle-class store of choice.
So the flag thing was an error, plain and simple. Call it an error of not making a smart decision in dealing with unused flags. I think it far more likely that it was an error of someone not paying attention to details, or fulfilling their responsibility.
Because all spin aside, they flags were "in and around" trash dumpsters, and they sat there for one week and one day before anyone even picked them up. There's no possible way that can be considered theft, or dishonest.
Now, is it right that this hurts public perception of Democrats? [shrug]
As was pointed out, one under-emphasized aspect of a political campaign is it demonstrates the organizational and performance skills of your administration.
Like it or not, the American flag (and these were good-quality, cloth flags here) is seen as an extremely important symbol of the United States to a huge number of its citizens. Being careless of it would be like someone tearing up all your family pictures, and then saying, "Eh, it's nothing! I didn't hurt your family! Those pictures don't represent your family in any way, it's just pixels on paper! What, are you some yokel who thinks photographs capture your soul or something?!?!? What a rube!"
But in any case, like it or not (again), perception does matter. This was a blunder. Democrats are attempting to minimize the damage with spin, but I don't think it was very effective. And it was not a blunder that was caused by trying to do anything to Republicans, or prevent Republicans from gaining ground or anything. It was a complete mistake.
Now, for balance, I'll point out something I don't like much:
Misrepresenting truth.
Go read that. I saw the original transcript, and Obama isn't trying to shift the battle to a basketball court. He was asked a question by someone in the audience, and I thought that in that sort of context, his answer was very good, very human, and not arrogant at all.
Look, people, there's enough stupid stuff going on, like Obama and his campaign ignoring Sarah Palin's successes as governor of the largest single geographical space in the US to label her as just being a mayor of a small town. She actually accomplished quite a bit as Alaska's governor, whereas Obama has spent most of his Senate career to date campaigning for President. When he hasn't been campaigning, he's been avoiding taking any stand that could hurt him politically (and that goes back to his Illinois congressional days).
So do we really need to distort what Obama said about basketball? No.
Show Comments »
September 07, 2008
You must understand printing lies about Republican candidates is OK. Its called vetting. Printing the truth about liberals - thats called swift-boating.
Show Comments »
September 06, 2008
Democratic convention flags found in trash:
If this catches on, it will undermine all the work Obama and Democrat politicians have done to try and convince people they love America.
In the comments, Mr Lady points to one possible explanation. Plausible, but not definitive, as I explain in my reaction.
But if you go back to the original link, and follow the links there, you find this:
The person claims the majority of the bags with flags in them were near the trash, on a dock, and would have been thrown away. The person thinks it was probably an oversight by the Democrats rather than any nefarious plot against the flag. But the person doesnt believe anyone was coming to get them: The flags were there for a week and a day and no one came looking for them.
Caution, someone may try to claim these pictures are of the flags. Nope. It's the flags in the picture I posted.
Now, I'm sure it is an oversight, not a planned dis of the nation's symbol.
However, as I say in the comments, my military experience makes me take such symbols very seriously, and there is no more important symbol of the United States than the flag. Seriously.
It probably doesn't matter as much to enough of the rest of the US to make a difference, though.
Again, it will be interesting to see how it plays out...and if it even gets mentioned by Newsweek, CNN, the NYTimes; and if so, what spin gets put on it by them.
My business is making assessments of what is really going on behind foreign govt smokescreens. And in this case, if the Republicans stole the flags, I expect to see theft charges made. Failure to make any charges will be a strong (though not definitive) indication that the flags were going to be thrown out.
Final Update:
From the Hot Air post's comments:
Remember were not just electing one person or two, were choosing an administration. The people that Obama associates with will be giving positions of authority and power over us in the new administration. We have to judge not just Obamas actions, we also have to judge the actions of those around him.
Show Comments »
September 04, 2008
The truth is slowly becoming clear to all:
All Republicans have to do is win the conservative vote to win the Presidential election.
Republicans no longer have to court Democrats to get enough.
We are now pretty much at least a 51% conservative (not Republican, mind you) nation. Maybe higher.
That's what all the churn about Palin is about. McCain got the conservatives on his side, and will win the Presidency now (barring a major miscue that allows the Democrat-supporting media to de-legitimize* either or both Republican nominees, a la Dan Quayle).
Read More "And Another Thing!" »Show Comments »
Someone mentioned Hillary Clinton's, "No way. No How. No McCain."
That reminded me of how horribly wooden Clinton is. I know some say she gave a good speech the other night, but in my opinion, she is a horrible speaker. Atrocious.
That line, for example, sounded like a high school drama class attempt to act. By a freshman.
And, not her fault, but her voice really stinks. It tends to rasp and grate, so you can tell she got a voice coach. But now, when she pitches her voice to carry (like she did in that line), she drones.
Bob Dole was a bad speaker with a bad voice, too. George W. Bush is a bad speaker with a pretty decent voice. The point is, you have to just speak and let the microphone do the work. Clinton can't, or won't (because of how bad her voice sounds when she speaks normally). It sucks that we demand certain aspects from our elected officials that don't have a direct relationship to governance, but Hillary Clinton lacks this key aspect. She'll never be POTUS.
Palin, on the other hand, is a good (not great) natural speaker. She has a nice voice, and she let the microphone work for her.
Here's another good roundup of Palin driving left-leaning pundits nuts.
Two related things have also struck me:
1) Lefties are deriding every Republican speech and ad as attacks and smears and negative.
2) A very, very few lefties are saying they are disgusted with their side's sudden vicious, hypocritical, and apparently sexist attacks on Palin.
Well, as has been said many times, this is nothing new.
It goes back to McCain's military service meaning nothing, but Kerry's making him a better choice for the job than Bush, after Clinton's lack of service meant nothing when Clinton was running against the elder Bush and Dole. It goes back to ignoring Senator Byrd's history as a racist (among many others), yet never relinquishing attacks against Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott as racist (among many others). It goes back to denouncing Rice, Powell, Steele, and Thomas (among many others) as not really being black, simply because they are Republican (-leaning). It goes back to abandoning the self-descriptive of "progressive" for the world "liberal" when people figured out what progressive meant, then abandoning "liberal" when people figured out it meant the same thing as "progressive" (trying to fool people with words). It goes back to playing the same word games over abortion, too.
Simply put, Democrats want power. They don't care how they get it, really. They will use all sorts of concealing terms and word games to hide who they are and what they stand for, they promise all sorts of magic dreams to single issue voters to build support, they make extravagant promises of government assistance and pork to buy votes, all so that they can enact an (elitist) agenda they know that the majority of the US will not, and would not ever, agree to. To be fair, they truly believe that once enacted, a majority of Americans will be pleased with the result...but they have no qualms about using any verbal or political tactic to get the votes to enact it over the current objections of the majority.
So attacking Palin because she is an effective conservative spokesman is par for the course.
Show Comments »
Man, there's just too much to link in order to make my points.
So let me just say this:
Republicans are not as sexist as left-leaning pundits think we are. Palin is popular because she has conservative credentials. It has very little to do with her gender (although some feminist-leaning Republicans are certainly into that aspect). She would have been a great pick, regardless of her gender.
See, I don't know about Democrats, but Republicans I know actually pay pretty close attention to politics. Democrats, in trying to be Big Tent (so as to get more votes, I think), have lots and lots and lots and lots of single-issue voters who don't pay attention to the needs of other single-issue voters. Blacks and Hispanics hate each other politically. We just saw the rift between feminists and blacks play out between Obama and Clinton, right? Abortion on demand is just a silly concept to the gay rights groups. If Democrats have a unifying theme, it is that they represent the assumptions and condescension (although often not the actual needs) of urban, upper-middle class whites.
Here's a good example of the Democrat prejudice at work. He absolutely doesn't get Republicans. That's not really a bad thing for us, of course. We get lots and lots and lots of mileage from left-leaning pundits not understanding how we think and why we vote. Which results in lots of Cargo Cult-like aping of conservative stances like the "Strong and Tough" pretense a few years back, and the Kerry War Hero bid that directly lost the last election.
See, conservatives (and to be honest, there is only an indirect connection between conservative voters and Republican politicians) have a unifying political concept that underlies everything we vote for:
Individualism. We believe in individual responsibility, individual accomplishments, individual failures, getting to enjoy the fruits of your individual successes and paying the price for your individual failures. That means we tend to reject identity politics that looks only at group identifiers like gender or skin color. As a result, even though we do/say things that left-leaning pundits/voters can only understand as racism, we are actually far less racist than Democrats. We see people as people. We reject Obama as being an inexperienced smooth-talker, regardless of his race. We reject Hillary Clinton as a shrill scold, regardless of her gender. We believe things like, if one person can succeed from bad circumstances, anyone can. We believe in teaching to fish, not giving a lifetime of fishes. We do not believe, like Democrats apparently do, that identity is destiny.
Another thing that Palin's performance and reception shows me is that Democrats are in big trouble, politically. Conservativism is growing in power and acceptance. Please note, conservativism, not the Republican Party. Like I said, there is only an indirect connection between the two.
In fact, there wasn't a single conservative in the field for the Republicans this election cycle. The closest was Fred Thompson, who wasn't really a conservative, but adopted the mantle of Champion of Conservative Values, with the intent to use his acting/speaking ability to articulate our political views.
Heck, as much as I like and support him, George W. Bush isn't really a conservative. He is a conservative on foreign policy issues, but doesn't get much credit for it because he can't articulate why he makes the decisions he does.
In any case, Sarah Palin represents a true "pro-life, pro-personal gun ownership, spending cuts, increased energy production, personal-responsibility, self-growth, truly representing your constituents" political philosophy. She's going to be very successful in the Republican party because of it, and it will drive Democrats nuts.
Just like it says here and here.
Show Comments »
July 26, 2008
Some liberals apparently hate it with a passion.
It's not the right type of democracy, you see.
Democracy is only allowed when it affirms liberal tropes, not when it denies them.
Ireland and the working class of Europe has already experienced this with the EU "Constitution".
Sure, it's not all liberal elites who do this, or support this, or even feel this way.
But: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Liberals always lecture conservatives on people we reject who nonetheless claim to be conservatives as if they represent the entire conservative movement. Liberals don't even attempt to denounce this sort of anti-democracy detailed in the link, from what I've seen.
Show Comments »
July 25, 2008
I have believed, for quite some time now, that the driving force behind Democratic Party politicians eagerness for social programs was a thinly-veiled vote-buying scheme.
After some thought, it hit me the other day that for a non-insignificant (although perhaps not even reaching a plurality) portion of Democratic Party elites, the true intention is that if you provide money, you can attach strings. Thus, feeding the populace from the public trough becomes yet another way of controlling the unwashed masses.
For me, from now on, the D stands for Domestication.
Read More "Dems and the Public Trough" »Show Comments »
June 03, 2008
June 02, 2008
...liars.
...basing their national strategy around deception.
...care more about faking appearances than winning on issues.
...believe pretending to be conservative is a winning strategy.
Read Ann Althouse's response to Ezra Klein's rambling, then take your pick of the above ending choices.
"All of the above" is a valid choice, too.
Show Comments »
May 30, 2008
I dunno.
At this point, I don't think I care much anymore.
Democrats have fully and openly demonstrated their complete childishness and lack of integrity as a national party and as national-level politicians. With the rise of the internet, they aren't even hiding it any more. Then again, when caught, they flat-out deny it and are never punished for their prevarications. The fact that so many people still vote for Democrats makes me figuratively ill.
Republicans should win every single election in a landslide.
Sure, congressional Republicans have openly demonstrated they are greedy and willing to compete with Democrats for buying votes.
But the nation and many states clearly become more lawless, more chaotic, and less strong economically whenever Democrats take control.
It's obvious, people!
Then again, even as much as the Democrats willfully ignore the Constitution, I'm confident the pendulum will swing and we will someday have a nation of sensible, rational conservatives once more.
I'm old and crotchety enough to not worry about it anymore. The nation may be going to hell in a handbag, or it might not. In any case, things will come around. It probably felt much like this back in the 1920s, too, if not worse. The nation made it through okay.
Heck, maybe I'll find myself on a political path that will end with me helping bring about the change for a more rational nation, more rational legal code, and more rational voting populace.
In any case, I'm going to keep on doing what I'm supposed to and not get overwrought about stuff.
I think I'm really getting the hang of the Duty/Responsibility stuff.
Show Comments »
May 18, 2008
This is why I'm not that worried about a Dem majority in Congress.
The country is finally coming around to the conservative point of view on most issues (taxation, health care, guns, and the conservative view is even gaining ground on abortion issues).
I don't care which party pushes conservative issues, as long as conservative issues are pushed.
Show Comments »
May 05, 2008
Everyone's blaming President Bush for the economic downturn.
I know it's easier to blame one person than to blame a group, but it seems obvious to me:
We had an excellent economy until the first part of 2007, and then things started to go badly.
What happened in early 2007?
We sat the new members of Congress! To include handing leadership of both the House and Senate to the Democrats.
There's your economic downturn right there.
They did nothing good. They failed to reign in earmarks. They did nothing to improve our energy situation. Had they implemented just half of the energy policy President Bush recommended, we'd be in far better shape than we are now.
The 2008 Economy: When Democratic Party Policies Came Home to Roost.
Show Comments »
April 11, 2008
Hot Air's got a funny cartoon up, but I can't watch it because I'm at work. So I'm posting it here so I won't forget to check it out when I get off work.
Oh, and sharing it with all my non-Hot Air readers, for what it's worth.
UPDATE:
Eh. It really wasn't that funny. This isn't the video you are looking for. Move along.
Show Comments »
March 19, 2008
You know, I don't actually consider it that bad that Obama had an ongoing professional relationship with Pastor Wright even after Wright stirred up anti-white and anti-American anger/hatred.
There are so many people who go to church without letting any of it penetrate, so why should Barack be any different than, say, a President hearing several times a year that he shouldn't commit adultery?
Show Comments »
March 18, 2008
I don't really have anything to say about it, I just want to get in on that sweet, sweet blog traffic.
Show Comments »
March 12, 2008
A Senator will actually win the Presidency this fall.
The last 3 elections, I told people: the one with the most executive experience will win; it's held true since 1984 (if you consider 1 term as Governer to be greater than two terms as VP, and I do; and if you consider Bush I's other executive experience before becoming VP, and I do).
Show Comments »
March 04, 2008
Even though I predicted a McCain-Obama general election, I'd be tickled pink to have Hillary! win the Democratic nomination.
It may not be for the reasons you think.
For me, the bottom line is that Obama is the Messiah to millions of people who plan on voting with emotion rather than logic. I don't want that sort of candidate going up against any Republican candidate, much less McCain. But even more importantly, I want The Political Messiah to be defeated by his own party. If McCain beats Obama, then for the next four years you will see stories of how racist America still is, especially the Neo-Nazi Skinhead Dead White Male Republican Party. If Hillary! beats The Political Messiah, then the Democratic Party should descend into an angst-ridden introspection of their own racism.*
Of course, if Hillary! wins, she'll lose to McCain in a landslide, and then we can look forward to 4 years of stories of how sexist American still is, especially the Male Boorish Pig Patriarchic Phallic Dead White Male Republican Party. But that's okay, because we'll still hold the Presidency, and no one has ever really rioted over sexual tension, unlike racial tensions.
Bonus thought: Is the Democratic Party ever going to get tired of sending people to the Senate who shirk their duties to run for President? Kerry, Obama, Hillary!, and Edwards missed a staggeringly stupid number of votes to run for President, and fail.
Read More "Clinton Resurging?" »Show Comments »
February 27, 2008
The 2006 Congressional election, the Iraq war debate, Hatred of President Bush, the Inevitability of Hillary!, the Obamessiah defeating Hillary! for the Democratic Party nomination, the least conservative GOP candidate winning the nomination for Republicans, the Global Warming craze, etc, all seem to make it look like the US is drifting Leftward.
You know what? I don't think so.
Democratics won control of Congress in 2006, 'tis true. But they haven't done anything with it. Support for Iraq has grown again now that we appear to be winning. The New York Times did its typical slanted, anti-GOP biased reporting, and for once the public was wise to the clumsy attempt. Dan Rather was disgraced (even if many people don't really understand how he disgraced himself). The Republican Party's default stance on immigration may not have popular support...but the Democratic Party's stance has even less, and what little it has is from illegals who are beginning to flee the nation in response to the enforcement of existing laws in response to pressure from public opinion to do so. The Democratic Party is going to find that they cannot get public support to pay for universal health care under any reasonable circumstances.
The Left is being cocooned by Huffington Post, Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, slanted Hollywood dramatizations, The Cossacks, the Rise of Olbermann and MSNBC, the increasingly bold bias of mainstream news, the purported influence of the Kos Kids.
In fact, the tide is turning somewhat. McCain will have his day (and may well end up President), but he won't scratch the itch.
Americans want an individual right to guns acknowledged by the government. Americans want more restrictions on abortion. Americans are getting pretty tired of homosexual activism (although they have no intention of rolling back any current rights, just don't want to elevate Gay Rights above any others), are tired of affirmative action, are tired of illegal immigration going unchecked, are tired of being vilified by "elites" at home and in Europe.
This isn't a projection or personal perspective illusion, folks.
The same groundswell of public opinion demanding the reform of Welfare to get people off the public dole is going to compel a rightward/conservative shift in Congress and the Supreme Court on such issues as gun rights, abortion rights, illegal immigration, taxes, and affirmative action.
Just wait and see.
Show Comments »
One thing that bothers me (and many others, it seems) about Obama's platform is the emphasis on Change (and on Hope, too).
It didn't really strike me until I saw a brief clip of one of his stump speeches. On his podium was CHANGE in white letters on a blue background. Then there were a few other signs in the background, exactly the same.
Change can be good as long as it is Change toward* something. But Change as an End in and of Itself? Lunacy. Change without a clear goal in mind, without a clear understand of what steps you need to take to get there is naught but Chaos.
Chaos can be good. Chaos sweeps out calcification. But I'd have to argue that our federal government is not all that calcified right now...and all Obama really intends to do is expand the calcified part, i.e., the bureaucracy, by vastly expanding universal single-payer health care.
I do not approve.
Further, I don't think anyone really supports Obama for his platform. Further, I don't think Obama's platform is really about Change. And I don't really believe Obama has said all that much about his agenda.
But that's okay. You get what you pay for. Even if Obama ends up being as incompetent as his record would tend to foreshadow, our governmental structures will prevent him from doing any truly irreversible damage.
But I do wish we had a better GOP slate to offer a decent alternative.
Read More "Change for Change's Sake" »Show Comments »
What I said.
What Glennstapundit says:
Anyway, to Hillary's undoubted dismay it seems to be turning into a McCain vs. Obama election already.Read More "Remember, I Called it First*" »
Show Comments »
February 25, 2008
Zombyboy has a good post that raises interesting points about Obama vs Clinton, from a GOP perspective.
Here's my response:
If I may make a football analogy? Thank you.
The Clintons are like a player from University of Miami: you know what you are going to get: a great political player, but a thug. They'll make political decisions exactly in line with what you'd think: triangulating to maximize political and public support, but generally along the Democrat lines. You know you aren't going to get soaring oration. You know you aren't going to get inspired leadership. You know you aren't going to get decisions based on principles. You know that you are going to get a finger (wagging) in the wind to test its direction, and then a frenzied attempt to get in front of public opinion, and ruthless defamation of anyone who criticizes or otherwise takes any action that the Clintons feel may reduce their power. It's all about power, money, and legacy with the Clintons. Just as it is almost always about personal aggrandization from a U of Miami player. (apologies to any U of Miami player who doesn't fit this description).
But Obama is like the Division II (or Division III) standout. He's done some amazing things against amazingly inferior opponents. He has the measurables to dominate in the NFL (or world political stage). But will he? He entered the national stage as a 7th round draft pick (sort of), and in training camp, he's continued to tear it up...but only against other 3rd-stringers. Is he ready to be a pro-bowler? Or will he bust?
We don't know.
With Obama, his ability to be a good President will depend on the quality of people he surrounds himself with. The Clintons were never really good at that. They surrounded themselves with toadies and button-men. George W. Bush surrounded himself with competent advisors and, despite what you hear from the half of the country with BDS, did a fairly decent job in everything except PR. For a non-politico whose only experience was being a governer in Texas, he did a credible job as leader of the most powerful nation on this earth. Far better than Jimmy Carter, at the very least. Obama has that ability to rise above himself...if he surrounds himself with people who don't buy into the Messiah hype and take the pains to actually give him competent, good advice. And as long as Obama himself doesn't buy into the hype, just like a football player gets fat and lazy when he believes his own press...
So the choice is between a brutal, thuggish player whose abilities are well-known (minimum abilities assured, but little upside) and a relative unknown who could be an All-Pro or the next Ryan Leaf (Jimmy Carter).
So I'm not unhappy with Obama vs. McCain. If McCain chews him up and spits him out: great! We've got The Maverick in the office who will at least push some GOP concerns, and should resist the Democratic Party's headlong rush towards a socialist police state. Or we've got Obama, who will highlight the ideological bankruptcy of socialistic government, or will at least (at the very worst) avoid repeating the disgrace the Clintons would bring to the White House along with their other baggage.
Show Comments »
February 20, 2008
...because a plurality of the populace doesn't buy his Hope Hype, the Democratic Party stalwarts are going to go apeshit**.
48% of the country (well, 48% of those that actually vote) will not be able to understand why 49% of the populace that votes weren't stunned by the audacity enough to vote for The Messiah.
They won't be able to handle it. It will be Florida 2000 all over again, multiplied by Ohio 2004 (with a good dash of complete ignoring Congressional 2006), salted with just enough of the 2008 edition of Pauline Kael's "No one I know voted for him" that the Truther squads will be legion.
It will be an orgy of Reality-Based Community delusions claiming "Faux" news lied us into another Republican Presidency so that our gas prices will be low. Which makes no sense, and thus is par for the course.
I have no confidence in any sense of perspective from the American Left these days.
It's going to get ugly, folks.
Read More "When Obama Loses the Presidential Election*..." »Show Comments »
February 15, 2008
By Random Jottings, regarding the likelihood that any criticism of Obama will be seen as a dirty trick by his supporters (including the Mainstream Media).
I don't agree with his final fisk paragraph, by the way, but everything else is good.
What it comes down to, I think, is that the original writer that Random Jottings fisks doesn't really recognize the existence of conservatives among normal people. He apparently believes that all correct-thinking people naturally support the typical Democratic Party platforms. "Conservatives" are a mean-spirited miniscule minority that lead all the average people away from voting for what they really want by disparaging Democratics and their platforms in unfair and negative terms.
The condescension of that world view is breathtaking. But that sort of condescension is also the oxygen within which the Democratics move, each assuming himself to be the elite amid a sea of "sheeple". The idea that people might know what Democratics are all about and still reject them seems like a possibility this writer cannot even imagine. Unless he can push it off on some Democratic "bogeyman", i.e., "The South" and "heartland" residents. The Democratics have lots of perjoratives like that, including "evangelicals", "red states", "flyover country", etc.
Sigh.
Show Comments »
February 11, 2008
While Mr. Smerconish is a conservative who didn't support Mr. McCain, he thinks "the conservative blasting of McCain is good publicity around here." His independence and maverick status are exactly the qualities that could help him carry the tightly contested Philadelphia suburbs that voted to re-elect GOP senator Arlen Specter, a moderate, in 2004 but rejected conservative Rick Santorum in 2006.
The more I complain about him being too liberal, the more moderate Democrat and independent votes he should attract. Theoretically. If anyone ever actually read this blog.
Via here.
Show Comments »
February 06, 2008
Caveat: it's still early, and there's much that could happen to invalidate not only this prediction, but the backing reasons behind it.
But with no further ado, please welcome your next US President:
Read More "Political Prediction" »Show Comments »
February 05, 2008
That's what this article seems like to me.
Summary:
Liberals grow more liberals by controlling thought at universities! If we don't do the same thing, we won't have enough conservatives in the future!
Alarmist crap, IMHO.
People become conservatives when they grow up. Liberalism is about avoiding personal responsibility and letting the govt take care of everything. Being swayed by liberal arguments is a phase that everyone goes through, and usually between the ages of 18-22. Some grow out of it, some don't.
Bottom line: good idea expressed well will gain traction in the minds of a majority of the populace and the politicians. We don't need "conservative" universities any more than the liberals needed their own "talk radio". The internet helps spread both good ideas and liberal talking points. No matter what, there will be people smart enough to realize Big Government doesn't work very well. No matter what, there will be people dumb enough to keep voting more largesse for themselves or their favorite condescension target from the public trough, i.e., consistently vote Democrat.
Let's not waste effort combating university culture that has been set for more than 4 decades. Our poor selection of candidates was not due to university culture, I can tell you. Let's concentrate on developing and disseminating conservative thought. That's how we win.
Show Comments »
Rarely has there been a better example more deftly described than this.
A good read, interesting. You will be better for having read it.
Show Comments »
February 03, 2008
Even for a FredHead like me: (via the Instalanche Guy)
Don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good", especially if it keeps Hillary! out of the White House.
There's more, lots more. I just summed up what I got out of it in that one sentence. Read the whole thing, you'll be better for it.
Show Comments »
January 29, 2008
I think it's going to end up Obama vs McCain, thus proving you can have an election with two Democrats as the top candidates.
Show Comments »
January 22, 2008
In retrospect, it was inevitable.
I'm extremely disappointed, too.
(Yeah, I could have just reacted to David J's thread by leaving a comment there. But this way I might get more attention. And I'm nothing if not an attention-hound.)
There, David J. says:
I--honestly, no bullshit--think that its just an off cycle. Hope.If it isnt just an off cycle, though, then the problem isnt just with the GOP, its with the American political system. Its a problem that encompasses public expectations of government and a fundamental lack of understanding of political principles. I could also make a backhanded swipe at growing populism, but Im at work and only have so much ranting time available to me right now.
Grrr.
My thoughts are that it is not just an off-cycle...and yet I don't see it as the nadir of the GOP, either.
Rather, I see it as a sign of hope that Fred lasted this long, and that he was able to get his message out to so many people.
On the other hand, I think Fred's campaign and ultimate failure does highlight the political bankruptcy of our political system. But here's the thing: Prior to 10 years ago, we would never have heard of Fred. The left-leaning MSM would have suffocated his candidacy and his message before it ever started. The MSM would have continued to push the GOP candidate it wanted (Huckabee) to help propel an easy Democratic Party victory.
This isn't the first time we've had independent access to political, social, governmental, and historical information apart from the MSM gatekeepers. But this is the first time their influence was so clearly displayed.
Sure, we don't have the Presidential candidate we want...but true conservatives are upset and angry. We should have a little more power over whatever candidate wins the nomination, and even more power over the eventual President, even if it is a Democratic. Conservatives and our issues are being taken more seriously (see how illegal immigration laws are being enforced more now, over the objections of leaders of both political parties), and can no longer be dismissed with emotionally-charged denigrating words in MSM reports without the full story percolating up through other channels. Look at how the lawyer keying the Marine's car became publicized.
The Reagan Coalition is in a transformation phase, I think. I think we are applying the marketplace of ideas to our conservative movement, and as we network and organize ourselves further, we will be a force.
In about 8 years, I think.
Goldwater resulted in Reagan. I think Fred (and what we internet-savvy conservatives have learned) will result in a true Conservative movement rising to power in the GOP. We had the Christian right bloc be in power, followed by the socially-liberal, economically conservative moderates dictate to the GOP from 2000 until now...our time is next.
I think.
Show Comments »
January 14, 2008
[Rant]
Bipartisanship is crap.
Our country faces continual challenges, because the nature of life and institutions is to face challenges; life/society rarely goes smoothly without intervention of some sort, and we are competing with other nations. The "problem" is that different political philosphies see different challenges, and even when Dems/Repubs/Libs/Greens see the same challenges, and prioritize them the same way, we all see different solutions.
I want to elect Republicans who act like Republicans.
Actually, Democratics want to elect Democratics who act like Democratics, too. But Democratics like it when elected Republicans act like Democratics, which is why this "Bipartisanship" bugaboo gets brought up. It is a hammer, wielded by opinion-leaders, which is only used to pound Republicans into acting like Democratics.
It's tiresome.
[/rant]
Solution: drop this bipartisan standard, let all sides argue out what their position is, and let the best platform win the support of the people, and act on it. If you got the votes to block it and your constituents demand that you do, go ahead. But let's not bludgeon politicians into becoming RINOs or DINOs for the sake of some "bipartisanship". I, and many other like-minded people, are pleased as punch with "gridlock".
Show Comments »
January 11, 2008
I don't have the knowledge to critique it, but it sounds good to me.
Show Comments »
January 10, 2008
Well, you can catch up here.
If David J. promises to one of these every time, you can deliberately skip the debates and not only not miss anything, you'll probably walk away with a deeper/better understanding of what was said.
One thing that struck me is that pretty much all these Republicans are letting the Democrats set the discussion parameters. Thompson is the only one who isn't harping on "fixing America" or "improving America". They name-drop Reagan, but they miss the essential attitude that made him so popular: "the United States is already pretty dang good!" If a Republican candidate would come out and merely accentuate the positives, and then promise to make sure that his policies will continue to keep things going well, they'd probably do very well.
That's what Fred Thompson should do.
Sure, the mainstream media boycotts, downplays, diminishes, etc, economic and strategic good news because it feels that doing so will help re-elect Democrats, who will do the "right" things for the "right" reasons (which basically means doing the wrong thing for statist/fascist/leftist reasons, but who's quibbling?), but if someone who can articulate as well as Fred would keep repeating how good things are, it would force the mainstream media to back up their assertions...
Here's the thing that Instapundit has pointed out a few times: people's view of the economy is affected as much by how they think other people are doing as they are themselves. So they can have a good job, enough money, plenty of gadgets, and not personally know anyone who has lost their job or in dire straits, but still feel the economy is sagging just because they think the rest of the country is in bad shape.
We need someone to be positive about America again. There is much to be positive about!!!
Show Comments »
January 04, 2008
January 02, 2008
I really want to have a decent chance to vote for him for President of the USA. And I can't if you screw him over.
The same thing goes for New Hampshire, and all the other early primary states.
Show Comments »
December 22, 2007
September 06, 2007
Zogby poll: 42% of Democrats think Bush either caused 9/11 or let it happen.
The Hot Air article points out that believing Bush caused or let 9/11 happen is roughly analagous to Rethuglicans (heehee) thinking that the Clintons had Vince Foster whacked. But an assassination seems to be totally different than a massive attack; on scale if nothing else, but also the difference between murdering someone out of anger and just killing pedestrians by running them over. Does anyone think a Christian could allow the murder of 3k people, especially when any rationale estimate of casualties from a 9/11 attack would be no less than 10k deaths?
So I consulted my Flaming Lefty friend (she's not that flaming, but she Plays One on TV...meaning, she is very good at understanding other peoples' point of view) and she said:
I think it depends on (excuse me for sounding clintonesque) what your definition of "let" is. Some people come from the school of thought that if something *does* happen on your watch, you *let* it happen, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. So, I am going to assume that might be at play with a small percentage. Then there's "did he let it happen because he didn't have enough efforts directed towards Bin Laden?" and so forth.I do believe that a significant number of people
questioned if the Bush administration turned a blind
eye to what they might have perceived to be asmall
potential attack on American soil, to prove the
necessity of going to Iraq. Am I in that percentage?
No. But these are some of the things I hear.
At the very least, I can see how a very small misunderstanding of the phrase "let it happen" can result in huge differences in responses. Just imagine the various ways "responsible" can be misinterpreted.
Sometimes our language sucks.
Show Comments »
September 05, 2007
See what I mean, about karma? Certainly no one of the "true conservatives" who sat out the 1976 election because they thought Ford was "too liberal" thought the result would be the fall of the Shah of Iran and the rise of radical state Islamism but it followed, and there is good reason to think it was a consequence. Nor did conservatives who sat out 1992 plan to see the military decimated, and multiple attacks effectively go unanswered. But the election went to Clinton, and that's the way the balls fell.
Show Comments »
July 19, 2007
In this case, the poster says that the US govt is using the War on Terror as an excuse to crack down on civil liberties.
The obscenity laws are used by the Chinese authorities as a weapon to crack down on the internet, just as in the US the government uses terrorism as an excuse to erode civil liberties.
Yep, that's why Cindy Sheehan is in solitary confinement and Michael Moore has been executed for sedition.
The blogger continues:
As Oiwan herself observes:Another gap through which political censorship can be introduced is pornography. This gap gathers the power of the state as well as the forces of religious people and fake moral politicians. So far, they have focused on gender and gay rights groups, but we must extend our battlelines in light of the court decision two days ago: the police filed charges against a netizen for posting hyperlinks to pornographic websites at a certain forum and the court arrived at a guilty verdict with a fine of HK$5,000. This is a very significant precedent for censorship.
Oiwan might be absolutely correct. But quoting her view that cracking down on pornography is an excuse to shut down political speech as evidence that China is cracking down on pornography as an excuse to shut down political speech is, well, silly.
Which brings up another question:
Why are so many ex-pats and other English-writing bloggers located in Asia afflicted with Bush/Republican Derangement Syndrome?
Show Comments »
July 10, 2007
What should they reveal, indeed?
View #1:
The need for greater disclosure has increased, too: Recent scandals at major news organizations have diminished journalists credibility. The more open a reporter is about her life where she went to school, where she used to work and what her political views are "the less likely that readers will be suspicious of her work and motives..."
View #2:
I dont think reporters should be contributing to political causes related to the issues they cover, writes Mr. Montopoli. But there is something McCarthyesque about the idea that everything a reporter has done over the course of his life should be fodder for discrediting his work.
View #3:
The journalist should disclose to the reader the same level of personal detail that is revealed about article subjects. If they reveal marital status, income, politics, home address whatever the same should be disclosed about the journalist.
Show Comments »
July 05, 2007
TheVanguard
Attempting to create a Conservative version of MoveOn.org
I'm not sure it's a good idea, really. I mean, MoveOn.org was created to whitewash and minimize Bill Clinton's deliberate perjury (which itself was meant to cover his actions that resulted in grave breaches of national security), and then morphed from that into a progressive issues group.
What I'm getting at is that MoveOn.org didn't direct or create a movement, it was the coalescing of people with similar views. Meaning it was largely spur-of-the-moment, I think, rather than a deliberate attempt to focus political force.
Another way of putting it is: Is TheVanguard attempt going to crash and burn the same way as Liberal attempts to replicate Conservative talk radio success?
Dunno.
Here's the link, in any case.
And here's the blog.
Show Comments »
July 02, 2007
Cartoonists are having to adapt, or (have their career) die.
There are about 80 full-time cartoonists employed by leading metro dailies, down from around 200 20 years ago...
Chris Muir's Day By Day finally earned Dead-Tree Journalism syndication; will it be only a temporary move?
Show Comments »
June 06, 2007
I'm doing something I've never done before:
Supporting a political campaign with personal time, my blog, and a political donation.
I did not like any of the Republican candidates this cycle. I don't like Giuliani or Romney, and can't stand McCain. I could, perhaps, support Tom Tancredo, but he's already been labeled a nutcase by the Democratic-controlled mainstream media, so he would be unlikely to win a nomination.
But Fred Thompson is a guy I can get behind.
He's not perfect as a conservative, but he's very good.
He's a member of Hollywood...but an outsider, not brainwashed by the empty-headed, hypocritical liberalism there. He's a former member of the Senate and the Beltway, but an outsider there, too, and doesn't seem brainwashed by the greedy, cynical (and hypocritical) materialism there.
I think what I like best about him, however, is what many people will dismiss and castigate:
He's an actor.
President George W. Bush was correct in his principles. He used terrific strategy to implement the most important platforms of his administration, the Iraq liberation and tax cuts. But he couldn't sell them well enough. He was constantly on the defensive, and thus he hemorrhaged political capital like a fire hydrant. That resulted in having to compromise on too many issues, and surrender or failure on too many others, like social security reform.
Thompson can sell anything. He will put his critics on the defensive, if not on the run. He will be able to acquire political capital and spend it at need.
I think he is highly intelligent, and will be able to meet the demands of conservatives without compromising his integrity on things he doesn't agree with. What I mean is, he will be a servant of the people within the scope of his personal values. I believe he will do what the people need, even when it is not what the people want. He should be able to balance the differing demands of the societal conservatives and fiscal conservatives.
I support him for President in 2008.
Show Comments »
May 02, 2007
I'd love to see these issues addressed squarely and fairly by leading liberal voices. Or even just the "mainstream" news media. But we won't. Anyway, here are some quotes:
...what do you call it when black women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion? What should we make of the fact that 94 percent of all abortion offices are located in metro areas with high black populations? And its not just blacks; Latino women are 2.5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion. Liberals denounce soldiers dying in Iraq as unconscionable and yet consider 1.3 million babies being aborted each year a cause for celebration. Its appalling.
...the black enough foolishness is another gambit liberals have foisted on blacks to ensure electoral obeisance. Its a way to define black authenticity, to keep individuals in predetermined boxes that do not allow for independent thought or action. Sharpton and Jackson are race brokers. Their job is to define black identity and then keep blacks in line to vote to the highest Democratic bidder that serves their purposes. Black enough is just another tool in the bamboozlers toolbox.
Bill Clinton had a black secretary. George W. Bush has a black Secretary of State.I rest my case!
I think Don Imus bowing down to Al Sharpton is the perfect example of just how powerful identity politics have become. No doubt, what Imus said was deplorable. But is it any worse than what hundreds of rappers say day in and day out in their music? Not even close! Worse still: Does firing Imus do anything to address the near fatherless generation of black children 70 percent of them are growing up in out-of-wedlock homes? No. Does it address the racial gap in learning between black and Latino children and their white and Asian counterparts? No. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson dont want to talk about these things, though. Because that would require moral courage to hold people accountable for their actions. So the race-baiters pound away at Imus while turning a blind eye to the rappers, the breakdown of the two-parent family, and public education crumbling under the weight of liberal teachers unions. Thats not keepin it real. Thats keeping it real stupid.
All statements made by Angela McGowan, author of Bamboozled: How Americans Are Being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda.
Show Comments »
April 02, 2007
I understand the points Jane Galt and her readers/commenters make, and they make many good ones:
I'd rather be waterboarded than put in the general population of a high security prison. It is entirely possible that life at Guantanamo is more bearable than life at San Quentin, and no, that is not a defense of Guantanamo.But that hardly constitutes support for torture, which I haven't and don't.
I understand Prof. Reynolds point, and I think it is a good one:
Have you noticed that people who spend a lot of time saying that they're anti-torture often seem to go out of their way to manufacture allegedly pro-torture enemies? It's almost as if it's more about brand differentiation than substance. Fortunately, the sensible anti-torture camp is expanding.
But I think the anti-torture crowd pulled a fast one on everyone when they framed the debate in terms of what each individual would personally allow or do.
I don't think that's the point. We all have our own strengths, our own weaknesses, our own viewpoints, our own principles, our own training, our own experiences, our own tendencies, our own principles.
The principles of a CEO are likely to be different than that of a factory worker, which is different than that of a McDonald's shift supervistor. Each industry has its own ethics, its own value system. And that's okay.
I don't expect a kindergarten teacher to make the same decisions or operate under the same restrictions as a police officer. I don't expect a military officer to see a problem and its solution the same way as an enlisted soldier, or a Dept of Defense civilian.
Most people have never been in the military. Most people have never had to deal with a terrorist actively attempting to continue warfare from inside the prison cell. Most people have never been in a truly life-or-death situation.
Some things, you need to leave to the experts to decide. Delegation is the key to success, because no one can know everything.
At the moment the anti-torture advocates succeeded in opening debate among laymen, the debate became ridiculous.
The U.S. is not a direct democracy, and voters don't have input into every decision. We vote for the people we want on the basis of their stated goals. If we want those goals to be achieved, we accept the methods they use to achieve those goals. If we don't, then we can vote the decisionmakers out.
I want terrorists to be stopped from killing people, not just Americans. If someone is wittingly continuing the battle after surrender and/or capture, then we have the right to kill them immediately. Anything short of immediate execution that doesn't involve maiming or extreme pain is a mercy.
That's the way I see it.
UPDATE:
This isn't to say that torture is right. Or that waterboarding is torture. I'm trying to sidestep that whole issue and point out that amateur oversight is often a bad thing. You have expert opinion for precisely that reason. I can get a second opinion on my brain tumor by seeking consensus from Instapundit, Daily Kos, and my blog readers, but it's unlikely to help me much.
(No, I don't have a brain tumor. It's not a tumor!)
Show Comments »
March 30, 2007
The following is from the Wikipedia entry on Frederic Bastiat. It is a good explanation of why I don't like the protectionist policies/urges of the Democratic Party:
Bastiat's Negative Railroad A famous section of Economic Sophisms concerns the way that tariffs are inherently counterproductive. Bastiat posits a theoretical railway between Spain and France that is built in order to reduce the costs of trade between the two countries. This is achieved, of course, by making goods move to and from the two nations faster and more easily. Bastiat demonstrates that this situation benefits both countries' consumers because it reduces the cost of shipping goods, and therefore reduces the price at market for those goods.However, each country's producers begin to rail at their governments because the other country's producers can now provide certain goods to the domestic market at reduced price. Domestic producers of these goods are afraid of being out-competed by the newly viable industry from the other country. So, these domestic producers demand that tariffs be enacted to artificially raise the cost of the foreign goods back to their pre-railroad levels, so that they can continue to compete.
Bastiat raises two significant points here:
Even if the producers in a society are benefitted by these tariffs (which, Bastiat claims, they are not), the consumers in that society are clearly hurt by the tariffs, as they are now unable to secure the goods they want at the low price they should be able to secure them at.
The tariffs completely negate any gains made by the railroad and therefore make it essentially pointless.
To further demonstrate his points, Bastiat suggests that, rather than enacting tariffs, the government should simply destroy the railroad anywhere that foreign goods can outcompete local goods. Since this would be just about everywhere, he goes on to suggest that that government should simply build a broken or "negative" railroad right from the start, and not waste time with tariffs and rail building. This is an example of Bastiat's consummate skill with the reductio ad absurdum rhetorical technique. Indeed, we can take Bastiat's argument even farther and see that, by examining everything from the perspective of the producer, society would be "best" if we were regressed to a cave-man state where supply of goods was at maximum scarcity. Then people would have to work as hard as possible for as little as possible and never have to fear outside competition.In short, the thrust of Bastiat's negative railroad hinges on two major points:
All economic decisions should be made with the consumer in mind. (This is central to Bastiat's ideas)
Tariffs serve no purpose but to negate the gains provided to society by technology, labor, ingenuity, determination and progress.
An important corollary to these conclusions is that the power that consumers wield with any governing body, while theoretically tremendous, is extremely diffuse. Producers, on the other hand, while not as powerful on the whole as the sum total of consumers, have the ability to consolidate their power in ways that make it much more attractive for governing bodies to service their needs. Thus, while consumers could theoretically shut down an entire industry (or government) by refusing to buy/sell/do something, the likelihood of the great mass of people organizing in this way for any reason whatever is so infinitesimal as to be practically impossible. Producers, on the other hand, are able to threaten or cajole the government with shutting down a single industry, with reductions in political and financial contributions to the government agents who make certain decisions, &c. It is for this reason that governments are much more likely to pander to the desires of producers than to consumers, and it is for this reason, Bastiat concludes, that governments are inherently adversarial to the interests of the people as a whole. Indeed, they are even adversarial, in some way, to the interests of the producers themselves, as the producers of one good or service are still consumers of all the other goods and services.
Show Comments »
March 21, 2007
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: And if George Bush doesnt listen, then were going to make him listen because its time for us to bring our young people home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Senator Obama, you disagree with that. He says it would be devastating to leave now. You say no. Why not?
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I dont know anybody whos been talking about packing up and going home.
Hot Air gives him some top cover (support).
So who says conservatives shills aren't fair to Democrats, huh?!?!
But I think even Hot Air isn't exactly right. I think the salient difference is in the "pack up" part. Obama says, "Bring 'em home", but he doesn't say "pack up and go home", which has more of an air of immediacy, haste, conceding defeat, complete withdrawal. "Bring 'em home" just says they shouldn't be there, it doesn't say when or how.
Show Comments »
August 04, 2005
Someone really isn't paying attention to their mailing lists. I got this email this morning:
..."drag America away from mainstream values and the issues that matter to ordinary Americans."...?
As if.
Read More "John Kerry" »Show Comments »
August 03, 2005
Democrats Heartened by Narrow Loss.
To that, I say: Let's make sure it continues to happen, then! Everyone will be happy.
Show Comments »
August 01, 2005
Not necessarily clearly stated throughout, but certainly well-worth considering.
I've always said that what China needs more than Democracy is Rule of Law. Which is perhaps another way of saying what's in the article.
Three types of rights-based systems... Huh.
Show Comments »
1) Why do Democrats apparently insist on pretending they are still supported by the majority of US citizens?
2) What kind of name is Haley Joel Osment, anyway?
Show Comments »
July 22, 2005
Here I go, breaking another intention. See, I wasn't going to try to do news/commentary/opinion.
But I have to.
Rehnquist is holding on for one reason: to let John Roberts break the trail for Rehnquist's replacement.
The compromise to avoid the nuclear option was widely reviled by people on both sides, after all was said and done. But it did get several people confirmed...and the Senate can always revisit the others later.
But trends matter, sometimes. Inertia can be hard to overcome. The breaking of the filibuster logjam made it harder, I think, to start it up again for Roberts. Despite his fairly innocuous history, if the filibuster had still been in place for the Circuit Court nominees, it would have been far easier to shift it right over to Roberts.
Now, however, the people of the United States are going to see a fairly smooth confirmation process, I think. And every single objection by liberals and/or Democrats is going to be noted, remembered, and addressed in the next nomination. As in, Edith Clements might have faced some resistance, but getting Roberts confirmed will make it harder for someone who called for a "female nominee" to object to Judge Clements. Or even Priscilla Owen or Janice Brown...although, I think those two might be saved for a third possible nomination. Because there are hints that Stevens might go if Rehnquist goes...and several of the Justices are old enough that they could easily weaken enough within the next two years to not want to continue serving.
Looking ahead (and getting into extremely uncertain musings), while the 2006 Senate elections are still up in the air, I do think there is a very good chance Republicans will pick up seats...so a 3rd and possibly even a 4th vacancy on the Supreme Court after 2006 could be extremely interesting. Not to mention, if Republicans win the 2008 Presidential election and maintain a majority in the Senate, there are several justices almost certain to not last another 6 years before retiring.
I'd love to see a few of the seats currently held by more liberal justices go to strict Constitutionalists, and have Democrats be unable to do anything but bleat and whine. But that's probably a pipe dream, alas.
Show Comments »
July 21, 2005
July 17, 2005
Other than a slight mis-characterization of "SCI", I think Hugh Hewitt and Mickey Kaus got it all pretty much correct.
Good stuff there.
Show Comments »
July 15, 2005
Isn't this an obvious point that hasn't been made about Joseph Wilson and the Rove/Plame controversy: If you accept an assignment to investigate possible WMD-related activity in Niger on behalf of the CIA, and your wife works at the CIA, shouldn't you think before you make your CIA mission the subject of a high-profile New York Times op-ed piece that there might be the eensiest weensiest chance that in the course of the ensuing controversy your wife's CIA connection might come out in public?
and
Maybe I've missed something, but as far as I can see the New York Times still hasn't gotten around to giving its readers any taste, in its news pages, of the actual content of Matt Cooper's email in the Rove/Plame case. Isn't that odd? The LAT's done it. WaPo's done it. But if you search for the words "double super secret background" in the NYT, you won't find them. This is four days after Newsweek disclosed the content of the email. ... I know NYT readers live in a cocoon. But I can't quite figure out why Times news editors would want to deny them this juicy information. ... ...According to NEXIS, when it comes to MSM newspaper news stories, the actual, semi-exculpatory text of the email has only been printed in right-of-center outlets (e.g., Washington Times). This is pretty solid evidence of print-MSM balkanization, it seems to me. Here's a puny little email, which could easily be reprinted in its entirety. Everybody's writing about the controversy it generated--but only conservative news editors actually publish one of the key bits of evidence. ...
Read it all to get the parts I left out, and the links Mr. Kaus includes.
Show Comments »
July 14, 2005
I'm getting pretty irritated with politics lately.
Well, not so much politics as the way politics is being covered. I used to be frustrated with politics because I had little opportunity to voice my views, or see my views being given any respect in the left-leaning news media. So, yeah, I was heartened by the rise of Fox News...but even more so by blogging, and being able to share my thoughts.
But lately it seems like bloggers like me are being squeezed out of the debate. And so when someone attacks Sen. Santorum with half-truths and innuendo, and the mainstream news media piles on, and the liberal part of the blogosphere joins in, I'm not all that bothered. Until bunches of moderate conservative bloggers hasten to distance themselves from a conservative...why? Afraid of supporting a Christian? Attempting to burnish "moderate" credentials?
I've been fuming in frustration, wondering if I even have the heart to continue blogging under these circumstances...
...so I think you can imagine my relief to see Ms. Lopez saying what needs to be said:
I just read [the column] quickly, but it doesn’t seem to warrant the outrage Ted Kennedy has belatedly taken to the Senate floor with. If you read liberalism as relativism, as Santorum clearly means it in the piece, what he says makes some sense...
So why is Teddy making such a big deal out of it? Ms. Lopez nails that point, too:
Ted Kennedy had to go back to 2002 to find something? ...I think it's just an indicator of how the Left is going to throw everything at [Sen. Santorum]...
Shouldn't other people have realized this, too? Or is everyone just trying to be like McCain these days?
Show Comments »
Is anyone stupid enough to take Wilson's announcement at face value?
Show Comments »
July 01, 2005
So, Nancy Pelosi sticks her foot in her mouth, and Sandra O'Conner retires, and I've got nothing to say about either of them.
Heck, I don't even have links.
It sucks being out of the news cycle here in Hawaii. Oh, well, I guess I'll just go to the beach.
Show Comments »
So, Nancy Pelosi sticks her foot in her mouth, and Sandra O'Conner retires, and I've got nothing to say about either of them.
Heck, I don't even have links.
It sucks being out of the news cycle here in Hawaii. Oh, well, I guess I'll just go to the beach.
Show Comments »
June 28, 2005
On two levels, no less!
Check out what the least-useful Democrat Senator* has to say.
The best line had to be the closing one:
John F. Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
With the rest of the article adding perspective, of course the person advocating those views would be a Democrat from Massachussetts. The other thing I found funny was that I was expecting it to continue with "who, by the way, served in Viet Nam".
Read More "Unintentional Humor" »Show Comments »
June 27, 2005
[Bumped to the Top]
I'll admit, a good part of my pique is that other than Justice O'Conner, this is the same group that thinks you have no right to your personal property. And so, my first reaction is that anything this "liberal bloc" rules should be viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Thanks, Justice O'Conner. Thanks so much.
UPDATE: I feel a little better reading this. But only a little.
UPDATE II: I feel a little better because they allowed some religious displays. I don't feel very much better because the test they seemed to apply is, bottom line:
You can only express a religion you don't believe in.
Non-adherents to Binky the Space Clown rejoiced worldwide.
Show Comments »
June 25, 2005
I'm not going to my part regarding this, but if you want to, go check this out to find out what you can do to help.
Show Comments »
June 20, 2005
Or maybe they don't.
In any case, I missed this recent stark example of the Laffer Curve in action, which incidentally seems to show that "Trickle-Down/Supply-Side Economics" do work.
If you disagree, you can take it up here or at Gilly's World, you choice. But your arguments are going to have to be better than the traditional example of, "But...but...but supply-side economics don't work because...because...it just can't." Most anti-Supply-Siders would rather credit Astrology than Supply-Side theory...
Show Comments »
June 15, 2005
This article makes me suspect that Taiwan hasn't even become a truly democratic nation even since martial law was lifted and the native Taiwanese were nominally allowed to participate in politics.
A question: if a people don't really have a voice in their governance, but think they do, is it still democracy? Even more importantly, does it matter if it's not?*
Which, I must say, is why I'm not only not overly concerned about a Congressional attempt to amend the US Constitution to ban flag-desecration, I'm also somewhat encouraged by it.
See, I won't support the amendment, and I'll let my state legislature know about it.
But it is time to return some power to the state legislatures. It is time that we don't take the word of a judge as the final word, but act to change things to be more in line with what The People really want...even if that result is that the people don't really want it.
This bill is good for the exercise of Democracy.
UPDATE: Related.
Read More "Illusion (UPDATED)" »Show Comments »
June 13, 2005
Show Comments »
June 11, 2005
...who happen to be politicians in Taiwan.
The writer of the article wants to lay this at the feet of 'democracy' in Taiwan, that incidents like this don't do anything to raise anyone's confidence in Asian democracy. I think that's a stretch.
I do think Taiwan is a weird place. I do think that based on the nature of the wounds, Chen Shuibian faked the assassination attempt right before the last Presidential election to drum up sympathy and win.* It seems to have worked.
But things like this are not why China won't embrace Democracy. It's all about power. And it's the same issue (power) that prevents Taiwan from uniting with China: if Taiwan is absorbed, what happens to all the people in the government? They lose power, and are quite probably blocked from aspirations of being top dawg in Taiwan, without having any chance to hold significant positions on the Mainland.
I know I'm getting off subject, but China won't ever accept democracy unless the current leaders are shielded from any payback, and Taiwan won't ever accept unification unless the current leaders are somehow integrated such that they can continue their ambitions.
Read More "Stupid Criminals..." »Show Comments »
June 08, 2005
Senate Confirms Justice Brown to 2nd Highest Court in the Nation.
That's good news. But let's check out some excerpts*:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said before the vote, "We should reject all nominees who twist the law to their own ideological bent. That's why I'm initiating legislation to impeach Justiced Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens. Otherwise, I might just be dismissed as a hypocritical fool after making such strong and self-serving comments against George Bush's nominees."
"Just as it would be cynical and offensive that Judge Rogers Brown be vilified simply for being a black conservative, it's equally offensive and cynical to suggest that somehow she should get a pass for her outlandish views simply because she's a black woman," Obama said. "Nevertheless, we Democrats will continue to do exactly that. There's nothing more extreme or "out of the mainstream" than being against our interpretation of the US Constitution as a document whose words mean nothing unless interpreted as a right to homosexual marriage and abortion. And there's nothing worse than a black person thinking for himself or herself not echoing the Democrat Party line. Since we can't invent a bogus sexual harassment charge against a woman like we did against Clarence Thomas, vicious slurs and attacks without basis are the only techniques left to us."Read More "My Newsweek/Scrappleface Post O' the Day" »
Show Comments »
June 07, 2005
I'm not happy with any of the political choices I have right now. No, not even Libertarian/libertarian/Neo-libertarian.
If I had any power/credibility, I'd start the Pragmatic Party: Whatever Works.
Of course, defining "works" would be problematic at times.
But here's an example:
I'd be okay with whatever mechanism it took to legalize marijuana, because it seems fairly obvious that most people are in favor of legalization. I'd also make sure that there would be a mechanism in place to re-criminalize if there were unexpected problems.
In fact, that would be the main plank of my party: ALL legislation and adjudication subject to a 5-year review. Legislation would get another 5 years after the review, adjutication would become semi-permanent (maybe a 2nd review after 20 years before permanence? Or: review at 5, 20, and 75 years? I'm open to debate on that.
I can understand that some good ideas must be forced on the people for their own good, like giving medicine to a child, or forcing them to try every kind of food on their plate, because sometimes they find they like something by taste they rejected merely on appearance.
I'd be okay with judicial activism, even on lefty goals, as long as a mechanism is always in place to overturn it by the will of the people. Any imposition by a small group of people should NEVER be permanent. The people should be given their chance to ratify.
For instance: If the Civil Rights Act were ruled UnConstitutional today, an amendment to the Constitution would be passed in a jiffy. But not so with Roe v. Wade. Which is why the Democrats guard it so jealously...but shouldn't the people have a right to review the issue now that we've seen the results for 30 years?
It worked with Prohibition. People aren't as stupid as politicians seem to think.
If my Party were in power, we could have saved Terry Schiavo's life without having to make the whole mess some sort of proxy for the battle between Christians and Secularists, or a fight over governmental landmarks. If it works, you do it, and it doesn't have to be considered a precedent if you don't want it to.
Whatever Works.
Show Comments »
...or maybe you didn't. Because as near as I can figure, except for about a dozen of you with nothing better to do, my traffic seems to be based on "Mentos Bird Commercial" searches. It's a niche, and I've filled it admirably. [grin]
Regardless, I'm going on record as saying that, no matter what the specifics of political acumen or achievement, there will never be a President Gingrich, simply based on the name alone. Likewise, the United States populace will also never vote in sufficient numbers to elect a "Newt" to the office of the President.
Show Comments »
June 06, 2005
Election fraud successful in Washington state.
Democrats seem to have declared war on Democracy. I'm so glad I don't have to live in Washington state anymore.
The judge seems to have said:
Yeah, the vote total is absolutely bogus. But since there's no evidence Gregoire herself stuffed ballots into a box, then there's no reason not to let her keep doing recounts until she gets the total she wants and then refuse to allow any other recounts...or any independent verification of any of the ballots "found". Even if they've been completely out of the control of election officials for more than 48 hours. Because in the US Constitution, I've found a "penumbra" that says "A tie goes to the Democrats" and I've interpreted that to mean in really important races, even a close loss should be given to the Democrats.
The sad thing is, most of the populace doesn't seem to even blink when Democrats demand (and get!) selective recounts to increase vote totals from heavily-Democrat voting districts.
This whole thing is a travesty.
Show Comments »
June 01, 2005
I've been thinking about writing a post on Liberal Democrats emphasis on poverty in the Bible.
I was going to highlight this verse:
"Leave her alone," Jesus replied. "It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me."
Turns out, the previous verses are even better:
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Let's look at that last line again:
He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
Yep, that describes most Democrat politicians just about perfectly.
Many thanks to James Taranto in today's Best of the Web.
Show Comments »
May 27, 2005
My visceral reaction while reading this article was: Okay, even I am ready to stop voting for Republicans now.
Except that, there's not another party out there that's any better. In fact, they're all far worse, much farther from my principles and beliefs.
I guess I'll just have to do what I can to reform the GOP from within, eh?
Show Comments »
May 26, 2005
Good stuff in that article. Along with:
...the Four Gaps: the Dirt Gap, the Mortgage Gap, the Marriage Gap, and the Baby Gap.
It makes sense to me, and is useful for making predictions.
Got it from Mickey Kaus.
Show Comments »
May 24, 2005
Pick any site that even just occasionally does political blogging and you can probably find excellent round-ups. So I won't do one here.
Bottom line: Three nominees are going to get up-or-down votes. That's three more than were getting that chance 2 days ago.
Furthermore, the wording is sufficiently vague that there is little to no agreement by Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, or libertarians as to what will actually happen regarding the other four, and regarding any future Supreme Court nominees.
Musing: I still don't like the filibuster in general. The minority party already had its chance in the general election to win enough seats to gain the majority. Failing that, they can use deals and pressure to win defectors from the majority party to prevent the majority from winning. The minority party can even bottle legislation/nominees up in committee. There is no need for a fake filibuster in which no debate actually occurs. I can see where this might be necessary and/or useful back in the days when Senators were appointed by state legislatures...this is probably just another reason we should go back to that.
Interesting point: all that aside, I still consider the way this played out confirms that Sen. Frist is too weak to be Senate Majority leader, and I still consider Sen. McCain to be a faithless legislature who honors his Republican principles only in the breach. As such, I really hope a strong candidate mounts a strong challenge for his seat the next time he's up for re-election.
Show Comments »
May 22, 2005
As you probably guessed by the title, I saw Star Wars III today.
...so the Jedi are...what? Journalists? Emperor McChimpy got Blair, Raines, Rather in a sneak attack, then left a beacon at the New York Times/Jedi Temple to try and lure any other ones in?
Who, then, is Princess/Senator Amidala? Hmmm...whiny, oxygen-thief useless hysterical woman...either Maureen O'Dowd or Paul Krugman, I'd guess...
And is Jeff Gannon Anakin/Darth Vader? A gay man who thus should be liberal, he betrayed his Jedi/Journalistic training and was turned to the dark (Republican) side...
Hey, this is kinda fun. I guess Captain Cody (K think that was his name) is maybe Colin Powell? Or just any military person who should hate their evil, Republican masters but instead follow orders with relish and respect?
Aside: wouldn't every clone be Captain Cody...? How would they know which one they were talking to...?
Show Comments »
May 20, 2005
...why don't the Democrats just filibuster the vote to change the rules regarding filibusters? Until the rule is changed, can't they just filibuster anything they want, including the attempt to change the rule?
Show Comments »
April 26, 2005
It will be a different Senate. Senators will be at their desks more, on the floor more, in session more. The key legislation for the defense of America and our troops and important appropriations bills will still pass, but the agenda of the Senate and the procedure of the Senate will change.
He says this like it's a bad thing. Why is it unfortunate to have Senators actually present and earning the money they get for being elected? We all remember how many votes Sen. Kerry missed over the last two years, don't we?
Show Comments »
This fits everything I've seen...
Show Comments »
April 22, 2005
Who decides? Who enforces?
If this report is accurate, I have to say I think it is a bad idea.
Let PBS be PBS. Let the public use market forces to punish broadcast/cable news media for manipulating news items for partisan gain, but leave PBS alone. Republicans have functioned fine with PBS doing its thing for decades. Let them continue to do their thing.
...on the other hand, the reactions of the people on the left are also ridiculous:
...an idea that PBS's general counsel described in an internal memo as amounting to "government encroachment on and supervision of program content, potentially in violation of the First Amendment."
"We don't want to be alarmist, but I would be less than honest if I said there wasn't concern here," said one senior executive at PBS, who insisted on anonymity because CPB provides about 10 percent of its annual budget. "When you put it all together, a pattern starts to emerge."A senior FCC official, who would not speak for attribution because he must rule on issues affecting public broadcasting, went further, saying CPB "is engaged in a systematic effort not just to sanitize the truth, but to impose a right-wing agenda on PBS. It's almost like a right-wing coup. It appears to be orchestrated."
They are apparently assuming that "Liberal Truth" is the only Truth, and conservatives are automatically wrong, evil, and dishonest. I'm growing quite tired of that characterization.
Then again, I'm also growing quite tired of the recent open season on religion and religious beliefs and religious believers.
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. All you've seen thus far is "mildly irritated." Nothing that would cause my eyes to go white or my skin to assume any shade of green hue...Yet.
Show Comments »
Who decides? Who enforces?
If this report is accurate, I have to say I think it is a bad idea.
Let PBS be PBS. Let the public use market forces to punish broadcast/cable news media for manipulating news items for partisan gain, but leave PBS alone. Republicans have functioned fine with PBS doing its thing for decades. Let them continue to do their thing.
...on the other hand, the reactions of the people on the left are also ridiculous, apparently assuming that "Liberal Truth" is the only Truth, and conservatives are automatically wrong, evil, and dishonest. I'm growing quite tired of that characterization.
Then again, I'm also growing quite tired of the recent open season on religion and religious beliefs and religious believers.
Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. All you've seen thus far is "mildly irritated." Nothing that would cause my eyes to go white or my skin to assume any shade of green hue...Yet.
Show Comments »
April 15, 2005
My friend Jo sent me an article/editorial commenting on Rep. Sanders' practice of hiring family members, the issue that Democrats are criticizing Rep. Tom DeLay for (covered previously here.
The editorial states (in excerpt):
None of this is illegal. The story did not state, or imply, that Rep. Sanders broke the law by hiring family members. An Associated Press story in Thursday's paper points out that employing relatives is common practice among the nation's lawmakers. It says about four dozen senators and representatives have hired family members for their campaign and political groups.Of course, just because something is common practice and doesn't break the law, doesn't mean it's totally kosher. Watchdog groups are rightly concerned. Even if family members earn their pay, there still remains the appearance of impropriety. Given the power that elected officials wield and the fact that they serve at the pleasure of their taxpaying constituents, there's nothing wrong with holding them to higher standards. We're not talking about a small contractor who hires his son over summer vacation and doesn't mind paying him a little extra.
I think the Banner has it exactly right with Rep. Sanders, and so probably with Rep. DeLay
Not illegal, probably not inethical...but very hard to defend, and probably best if politicians stopped doing it.
...it would have been nice for someone to write such an editorial in defense* of Rep. DeLay, but since Democrats consider him the Anti-Christ, I don't think anyone in a non-conservative publication (which is 99% of them) would dare.
Read More "Congressional Nepotism" »Show Comments »
April 14, 2005
Outside of the war on terrorism, there are few issues that the base of the Republican party deem more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges. It is far more important than tax cutting, far more important than energy policy, far more important than curbing trial lawyers--because the courts ultimately play decisive roles in all of these areas, and more.The postponements of the confrontation are already having a terrible effect on the Republican base. It is time for Senate Republicans to lead, or to stop pretending to.
Show Comments »
April 13, 2005
John Kerry wants to hear about the hardships military members experienced in deploying in the Global War on Terror. Without snark, here's my completely honest reply:
The hardest things I had to deal with were lack of support from home: -people who criticized the war I believed in as being "The wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time". -politicians who refused to authorize funding for petty political reasons -people who insisted that "there never was any WMD in Iraq" meant the invasion was unjustified, when it actually required the invasion to determine the WMD was not present. Everyone believed Iraq had WMD right up until Baghdad fell, no? ...all of which still doesn't mean the WMD wasn't there the month before we went in (destroyed or moved to Syria once the invasion was obvious), or that there wasn't a turnkey program capable of producing tons of WMD within days or weeks (remember the mobile laboratory vans? I never bought the 'weather balloon' nonsensical explanation; only a fool would).Minor hardships, only. And all well worth it in the pursuit of freedom for the world and security for the United States.
If you are in the military, let him know what you experienced.
Show Comments »
April 11, 2005
I should never say I don't have an opinion.
For instance, within minutes I stumbled across this point, made by Mickey Kaus:
In the post-Warren era, judges don't just have tenure, they have almost uncheckable anti-democratic power. The constitution has been durably politicized in a way the Framers didn't anticipate. Practically every legislative issue can be--and is--phrased in constitutional terms (e.g., as a case of "rights").
I think that is essentially correct, and it worries me. It's why the actions of the judicial branch worried me far more than those of the legislative branch in the Terry Schiavo issue.
Show Comments »
April 09, 2005
This article considers it an interesting development that Montana, supposedly a "Red" (or Republican) state, is electing Democrats and passing referendums that aren't typically Republican.
False dichotomy.
Medical marijuana legality is a libertarian issue as much as a Democrat one. While making money is a Republican issue, not being willing to turn your backyard into a cesspool while sending money out of state is a libertarian attitude.
As Americans grow disenchanted with what Republicans have become in the wake of the Democrat implosion, Neo-libertarianism will grow in importance.
In this issue, I'm a follower. I'm not going to sign on to neo-libertarianism, because I don't see how it can work as a political movement. There are too many differing ideas on libertarianism is and should be (which the boys at Q and O Blog are addressing in ongoing discussions), and I just can't get over two basic issues:
1) libertarians and neo-libertarians are both for "maximizing personal freedom", but who can decide when personal freedom begins to impinge on others' freedom except for a large government bureaucracy?
2) Absent the large government bureaucracy, it still seems to me that the logical end of libertarianism is anarchy and 'might makes right'. I can't support that.
However, I support neo-libertarianism as a crucible of excellent ideas and political campaigns. For example, I support the legalization of medical marijuana. I don't support the legalization of drugs in general...but I certainly would support a general govt moratorium on enforcing laws against recreational use (retaining the illegality as an additional charge that can be brought against people who commit crimes while high). Those things aren't going to come about, or be a priority, under Republican leadership.
I think the impetus for sticking to literal interpretations of the US Constitution and a more traditional separation of powers (not allowing legislation from the bench as Democrats currently favor) is going to come from neo-libertarians, as well; not Republicans, because GOP leadership is too accustomed to dealing with and appeasing Democrats and their domesticated MSM attack dog, rather than challenging them.
Here's another discussion of a political development that is probably best viewed as an advancement of neo-libertarianism.
Bonus Extra Point That Probably Deservest To Be A Post Of Its Own So The Point Doesn't Get Buried:
Along with the rise of neo-libertarianism, I have to say that I'm actually glad the issue of Ms. Schiavo came up and was debated. As a society, we learned that not every issue can be easily divided into Left/Right, GOP/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative pairs. The number of traditional alliances that were ruptured over the Schiavo issue is staggering. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton came down on different sides! We saw which liberals truly are compassionate, and which are truly cold-hearted and cold-blooded. We saw different groups gaining a new respect for each other. We learned that you cannot take for granted what someone's socio-political opinion will be on an issue.
Bottom line: as divisive and heated as the arguments were, I think the erasure/redrawing of battle-lines will be good for the future of politics and political parties in the US. Ms. Schiavo is a martyr, but her death will not be in vain.
Show Comments »
March 27, 2005
Yeah, I know I said blogging was suspended. But I did say I might post if I got excited.
Well, I've gotten excited a few times (guess you were right, Rae).
Here's a good argument that liberals are imploding.
If people want a device that actually blocks their household from being able to receive Fox News...well, that doesn't say much for their opinion of free speech or competition of thought. If you have to block out any contrary view of the world, perhaps your ideology is failing...?
Which isn't to say that "blocking Fox" is a wide-spread phenomenon. But the Seattle newpaper blithely repeats every hackneyed accusation of bias about Fox News without bothering to report that several independent media watchdogs have noted Fox News actually is the most fair and balanced of the news stations, that the people who don't think it is centrist are the ones who think their solid-left viewpoints are the mainstream.
...just saying, yanno?
For Randy.
Keep in mind, 'bias' is inherently a viewpoint issue. What Ralph Nader says is "unbiased" is far left to me. What I see as unbiased someone else may denigrate as fundementalist Right-Wing wacko. As one of the linked articles states, when the NY Times complains about bias, it isn't all that concerned about the obvious bias in its own pages. So what follows are discussions of bias in news reporting, because I'm having a hard time finding the article I think I saw in the kausfiles. The point made by the Opinion Journal (an openly pro-Conservative outlet) is that Fox News is considered biased by liberals because it doesn't suppress and discredit the conservative viewpoint, but rather does both sides.
Article 1
The fact remains that on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get television reportage that gives us at least two sides of every important issue. On all the other TV news outlets--and "mainstream" newspapers--we mostly get coverage that is hopelessly biased. The madmen have taken over the asylum and now, dressed in white lab coats, they pronounce the rest of the world insane.Keep in mind that I found these egregious examples of bias in a single issue of a single newspaper, randomly chosen. I could do the same thing with any national news broadcast or with any paper in America except the occasional paper that still has a toehold on reality.
I wrote this essay for a newspaper that is also biased. The only difference--and it's all the difference in the world--is that the Rhinoceros Times admits that it's a conservative paper and reports events through conservative eyes. Likewise for this Web site.
Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias--it is definitely pro-American--and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer. Imagine if these news stories had been written from that perspective. They would be barely recognizable--and some of them would not have been written at all.
What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth.
...a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that five times more journalists at national outlets self-identify as liberal (34%) than conservative (7%). This, in and of itself, is hardly newsworthy. What speaks volumes is the fact that of the media people surveyed, 69% readily labeled the Fox News Channel a ‘conservative’ network, but most were hard-pressed to name one they would consider ‘liberal’. It just goes to show how much blatant liberalism has permeated the mainstream, under the guise of objective journalism. Dan Rather, who regularly passes off political editorial commentary as objective news delivery, is only symptomatic of a much larger mess.
The next one is linked for the comment, actually, quoted verbatim:
actually the 'bias' that is often decried on fox comes from one source--it's opinion shows.now, unless I've gone nuts, the whole point of opinion shows is to put for opinions, which are, by their nature, biased.
the newsbreaks are noticeable lacking in opinionating.
this cannot be said of FOXs' competitors who spin the news unmercifully. I first heard of the initial Basra uprising via the blogosphere--I then, not twenty minutes later, heard a supposedly non-biased CBS reporter tell the world that the uprising was AGAINST coalition forces--in a tone that was almost jubilant. I watch, sometimes amazed that the same story--even the same footage is reported on in widely divergant ways. The 'major' media seems to put out initial reports with an eye towards negativity towards the war effort. FOX, which will fixate and repeat positive news, puts out its initial reports without a discernable bias (their bias becomes visible in which stories they go into depth on).
So, while I agree that Hannity and O'Reilly wear their bias on their sleeves, I maintain that that's what they're there for.
Unlike the iraqi stylings of Peter Arnett, objective journalist.
Finally found it! Er, at least, I finally found an article that links to the study that tagged Fox News as the least biased Cable News Channel. I couldn't get the link to the actual study to open.
"Which of these cable news organizations do you think is least biased and most objective in their reporting?"The results:
FOX News Channel: 31 percent
CNN: 30 percent
MSNBC: 14 percent
None, all the same: 11 percent
No opinion/Don't know: 14 percentThe poll was conducted May 21-22 among 500 likely voters nationwide. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.
My bottom line:
1) You should not confuse Fox News Channel opinion shows from Fox News Channel news programs. The opinion shows are biased, but they're supposed to be.
2) You must consider the viewpoint of the person claiming an outlet is or isn't biased. I'm not going to listen to the NY Times opinion of any perceived bias on FNC
3) We have a decent scientific poll that has FNC as the least biased, and an independent study that shows FNC as the least biased news program. That's good enough for me.
Personally, I don't watch 'em, and I actually prefer CNN for worldwide coverage...I just have learned to read between the lines to filter out CNNs pro-UN, pro-liberal ideology, pro-Communist leanings.
Show Comments »
March 23, 2005
Interesting discussion regarding RINOs and "the Nuclear Option" over at the Q and O Blog.
I agree with one commenter, though: if filibustering is going to be an option, it should at least be required to be a true filibuster, where a person speaks for hours and yields the floor only to someone else who intends to keep speaking, and it goes on 24 hours a day because they can't recess as long as someone is filibustering and that means no business gets done at all until enough votes to break the filibuster are garnered or the speakers collapse from exhaustion. [deep breath]
This pseudo-filibustering is an affront to the Tradition of the Senate.
Show Comments »
March 15, 2005
Humorous, but doesn't really describe any libertarians I know...
Still, I'm sure there's some truth to descriptions like these:
a Democrat who wants to own a gun, or a Republican who wants to smoke pot...Republicans who can't admit it yet, but who don't want to be as noncommittal and bogus-sounding as "independent,"...hedonism combined with the desire to not be made to take account for the needs of others. It's a person who thinks about the public commonweal in terms of how much he has to pay to support it. It's 'I don't give a sh--, and I'm not paying for sh--.'...
There is a general dissatisfaction with both Republican and Democrat parties right now, and it makes sense that many people would find something different to nominally align themselves with.
The biggest problem with libertarianism that I can see is that Independence and Personal Viewpoint are an inherently large part of the self-definition...and thus it is very difficult to find 3 libertarians who agree on any one issue or platform. Which, I assume, is why they tend to find reasons to either vote Republican or Democrat (or not vote at all) rather than attempting to express their will through the designated Libertarian party.
Is it the beginning of a groundswell movement, or will it turn out to be merely a droll side branch in our national political history? Either way, it will be interesting to watch.
Show Comments »
March 11, 2005
I still like the idea that the Bankruptcy Bill before Congress right now tightens up the rules to make it harder to declare bankruptcy, and makes the penalties a little stiffer.
But the more I read, the more I am convinced that since it doesn't address at all the responsibility (or lack thereof) of credit companies in the equation, it really isn't adequate, or worthwhile to pass.
I'm deeply skeptical of the bankruptcy bill in front of Congress now, and this report on credit-card industry practices goes a long way toward explaining why. Credit extended to people who can't handle it, absurd hidden fees, high interest rates, etc.: There's a lot of scamming here. The argument, of course, is that people who sign up for credit card accounts ought to know what they're getting into. But shouldn't the companies that extend credit to people who obviously can't handle it be held to the same standard?
Indeed.
I oppose the Bill. I want another, better one that actually addresses both the supply and demand aspects.
Thanks to Jo for bringing it to my attention.
Show Comments »
March 10, 2005
I've said this before, and no doubt I'll have to repeat it again, many times, but here's today's iteration:
My religious beliefs and faith do not dictate my political views. Rather, my religious beliefs form the basis of my understanding of human nature. That understanding fuels many of my political views.
And so I try to expand on that by pointing out: Religion and faith deal with the afterlife, and personal conduct within this life. Politics, on the other hand, deals with the interactions of people within a society when religion cannot apply. I cannot be upset with an atheist who covets my wife, because that rule is for me, not for me to apply to others; I can, however, ensure that there are laws against rape, or even attempt to overturn the 'no-fault' divorce laws that are currently the norm (so he won't attempt to seduce my wife).
I do not kill, and I attempt to not hurt others because of the 10 Commandments; but I would not depend on those same 10 Commandments to prevent someone else from killing me, and so I support laws, and police, and even the death penalty as a deterrent or ultimate solution for those who have come to enjoy murdering the undeserving.
And so I find people arguing about whether Jesus is a Republican or Democrat to be tiresome. I find people arguing that Jesus would or wouldn't support a specific political agenda to be dead wrong.
Please understand this: This world, this life is largely unimportant. It's only importance is as the precursor to eternal life. There is no pain or misery in this world that is not worth going through to gain eternal life. Conversely, there is no pleasure or comfort or happiness in this life that is worth losing eternal life in paradise.
Jesus didn't even seem to care about whether someone was rich or poor. He certainly didn't advocate governmental wealth distribution. In fact, personal giving to the poor was described as one of the many ways for a Christian to let his faith bear fruit, but the way it is worded, it has always seemed clear that the point was the effect that charitable giving has on the heart of the giver, not on the state of the person who received it.
So I don't really think Jesus would have weighed in progressive vs. regressive taxes. In fact, the last time someone tried to play "Rope A Dope" with Jesus on the issue of taxation, Jesus replied (as found in Luke 20:25), "And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." And while Jesus hung out with the social outcasts of his day, he demanded they turn away from their sin...last time I checked, liberals howl as if tortured when someone asks that homosexuals "turn away from their sin"; heck, liberals scream indignantly if someone even calls the behavior "sin". Jesus made it clear that the actions were wrong, and he was there to speak to the people who were willing to listen and turn away from their wrong behavior.
It's gotta be humiliating to cite Jesus as a source of your political ideology and do so in a manner that makes it clear you have no idea who Jesus really was. (is)
UPDATE: Rae provides a link to a story of other Christians messing up religion and politics. Which is one of the reason I don't really consider myself a member of the Religious Right, even though I'm quite religious and quite conservative. I just see my views represented more by the folks at National Review Online, rather than Falwell and his ilk.
Show Comments »
We conservatives do our fair share of griping about George W. Bush. In truth, I think we do more than our fair share. But there will soon come a day when we deeply lament the absence of a president who would do such things as send John Bolton to the United Nations.
Yes.
From today's Impromptus.
Show Comments »
I was surprised with this issue while on my house-hunting trip.
I see Chris Muir of Day By Day addressed the issue. I've seen it mentioned on a few other blogs, too (can't remember where right now...). It was the subject of the editorial cartoon in my newspaper this morning, too. Here's a Google news search that would help you understand all aspects of the issue.
Here's the thing. I remember nothing about bankruptcy reform in the recent election campaign, on the federal or state level. If this was such an important, vital issue, why did it not get more press beforehand? In fact, this bill was introduced five years ago! How could it sudenly become a huge issue in the 36 hours I wasn't paying attention to the news?!?!?
Granted, the bankruptcy bill that was passed in the Senate apparently does not fix a problem: people are capable of sheltering huge amounts of wealth from creditors. I suppose the passage of the bill without amendments to fix that aspect could result in outrage.
And, sure: I agree that it is wrong for someone to be in bankruptcy and retain wealth. Bankruptcy should be difficult, it should be painful, and it should be an extremely black mark on your record that takes you a few years to rehabilitate.*
So which is a bigger problem? The rich avoiding penalties, or people going bankrupt 6-7 times in a decade because there is no penalty? I guess it depends on the numbers involved. Democrats seem jealousy-based: regardless of what the actual impact is on banks and the national economy, Democrats want to stick it to the rich and protect the little guy...ignoring the fact that (to pull numbers out of a hat), $1 trillion in little-guy bankruptcy funds written off hurt the rest of us little-guys far more than $1 billion in rich-guy bankruptcy funds written off.**
Obviously, Sen. Schumer feels the most important thing is to manage to stick it to wealthy. But in fact, I'm not convinced that Sen. Schumer's amendment would have even done that. I am about 80% convinced that Sen. Schumer's amendment was nothing better than a political ploy so he can claim Republicans don't care about the little guy***, rather than actually trying to make an effective amendment. The best evidence is that while all the Democrats supported the amendment, and one Republican joined in, they weren't able to get Sen. Olympia Snowe to vote for their amendment. If you can't get Sen. Snowe to vote against her fellow Republicans, you don't have a decent Democrat/liberal proposal. It's just that simple.
In all my research on this after the fact, I think I'm in most agreement with this op-ed piece.
First, it describes the proposed amendments as "poison pill". Considering who proposed it and who refused to vote for it, I consider that an accurate assessment. But the article goes on to say:
Few would argue that deadbeats who pile up credit they know they can't pay and then qualify to abandon those debts by filing under Chapter 7 provisions of bankruptcy law need to be made more accountable. But nowhere are there parallel provisions that make credit lenders accept greater responsibility for giving credit cards and loans to just about anyone. Consumers are bombarded with applications for credit cards and easy loans, whether or not they have the means to pay. Credit card companies openly solicit students on college campuses and tell high risk borrowers "no problem" to more credit.
The second problem with the bill is its one-size-fits-all treatment for those filing bankruptcy. The bill's provisions draw no distinction between deadbeats and those unfortunate enough to get caught in financial hell because of catastrophic medical bills or other life-changing events.
Like so many other bills, this one comes down hard on consumers with a lopsided solution to an economic problem that has two sides and needs two solutions. Creditors need to accept some culpability for bad debt from risky loans and credit. We're waiting on that bill.
To summarize: the current Bankruptcy Bill is better than nothing, because it makes bankruptcy a little more difficult than before, rather than an easy out. It is important to get this bill passed without amendments or adjustments because the political will to pass it is present; any attempt to mess with it risks having it languish on the table for another five years. But this bill is only a minor fix. Our bankruptcy laws need to be adjusted so that credit companies are held more accountable for their practices, so that distinctions between deliberate deadbeats and people truly facing impossible circumstances are more easily drawn, and so wealthy people are not able to shield assets from the bankruptcy proceedings.
Write your congressman now!
Read More "Bankruptcy Reform" »Show Comments »
March 04, 2005
"I think [Alan Greenspan]'s one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington," Reid said on CNN's "Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics.
Nothing like that old Sen. Reid charm to help win friends and influence opponents, eh?
Show Comments »
February 16, 2005
From today's Kausfiles:
Lackobama Blues: Kf, its finger on the pulse of the left as always, hears that the talk of progressives these days is incoming senator Barack Obama's vote in favor of the bill limiting class action lawsuits. The worry is that by siding with President Bush on the issue, Obama has signalled his intent to pursue a Hillaryesque centrist strategy instead of providing the left with the the full-throated anti-Bush champion it craves. ... Fingers are pointed at Pete Rouse, the veteran Daschle aide Obama has chosen as his chief of staff. ... But don't you think this is something Obama would make up his own mind about?
Obama has been called brilliant, charismatic, insightful, a young, exciting candidate with lots of potential to attract followers, and many other glowing descriptions...
Yo, Dems: if he is a brilliant and wonderful as you say, why do you automatically assume he must want to drag the party leftward, or automatically oppose anything President Bush does?
President Bush's policies attract nearly 50% of the population in nearly every case, and that resulted in an outright majority of voters. Get that? President Bush might actually be correct in what he proposes. And unless you are going to unleash the bigotry of soft expectations on Obama, it might be wise to realize that Obama is smart enough to realize when President Bush is correct, particularly when you seem unable to do the same thing.
Show Comments »
February 15, 2005
I truly believe Howard Dean may be suffering from a form of Tourette's Syndrome.
UPDATE BELOW THE FOLD
Read More "No Joke (UPDATED" »Show Comments »
February 11, 2005
I particularly like the discussion going on over at Q and O Blog, and I particularly like what I have to say. I know when I'm reaching, and I think I know when I'm on to something, and I think I nail it this time. Go read the discussion, if you want. But my comment does stand on its own, for the most part. (in the extended entry)
Read More "Organizing Philosophies of the Ideologies" »Show Comments »
February 10, 2005
February 09, 2005
James Taranto sums up an item in Today's Best of the Web by saying:
Treating slavery as a peculiarly American evil reflects a weird sort of self-loathing ethnocentrism, an attitude that one's own country can do no right.
As much as I respect Mr. Taranto, I must point out that his sentence is incorrect and not representative of the liberal-progressive viewpoint. He should be ashamed of the vile and underhanded smear.
In reality "Treating slavery as a peculiarly American evil" is a reflection of an attitude that one's own country's conservative/Republicans can do no right.
They like themselves, of course; so of course they approve of their own actions and decisions. Pulling out of Somalia? Ignoring the genocide in Sudan and Rwanda? Being enablers apologists for the evils of communism? Idolizing Che? Lionizing Fidel Castro? Those are just peachy.
Ending slavery? Freeing people from dictatorships? Lowering taxes? Beyond the pale.
Show Comments »
Except, of course, he's usually wrong about everything...
I'm not sure how correct he is about this:
The political fact is that a Rice candidacy would destroy the electoral chances of the Democratic Party by undermining its demographic base. John Kerry got 54 percent of his vote from three groups that, together, account for about a third of the American electorate: African-Americans, Hispanics and single white women. Rice would cut deeply into any Democrat’s margin among these three groups and would, most especially, deny Clinton the strong support she would otherwise receive from each of them.
But I think this part is dead-on, and how history will recorded:
Since Bush’s success in Iraq has laid the basis for negotiation in the Middle East, there is every prospect that Rice may preside over a diplomatic triumph in catalyzing the discussions between Sharon and Abbas. The firm American stand in Iraq will also make more likely success in Korea and Iran, all of which would add to the prestige of Rice.
Here's the whole thing.
Show Comments »
I remember lots of Democrats complaining that President Bush was spending the nation into a deficit. They would show more fiscal responsibility, they promised. Just elect 'em, we'd see!
Good thing most people didn't believe them.
Bush actually starts making cuts*, and they start wailing like babies. Character will always show through.
"You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if you're concerned about the deficit, you either have to raise taxes or cut spending," said Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, Republican of Florida. "What's very interesting for me to hear is the same people that complain about a high deficit then complain about not enough spending by this budget."Read More "Putting Our Money Where Their Mouth Is" »
Show Comments »
Of course, they could probably help themselves on this issue if they weren't so willing to pretend to be the best friend of anyone who will give them scads of cash.
It's a talent, I guess.
Show Comments »
February 08, 2005
I'm actually pleased about his selection to head the DNC. Unlike many bloggers you might see out there, I'm not distressed, gleeful or derisive.
Here's the thing about Dean: I'm convinced he says what he thinks and believes what he says. After more than a decade of "triangulation", "re-invention", and "nuance", I think it could be very healthy for the Democrat Party to have their most prominent leader be open and honest (for the most part) about his stance on political issues.
For quite some time, the President (or most recent Presidential candidate) has been the most prominent leader of the Democrats. But Dr. Dean brings a celebrity to his position that in some ways eclipses all other Democrats right now. Heck, I find it quite significant that Dean's victory dismantles a major part of the Clinton political machine.*
Read More "Howard Dean" »Show Comments »
February 07, 2005
Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya!
And what's with the "But America is turning into a country very different from the one I grew up believing in."...? He didn't believe in a country that helps spread liberty and freedom? He didn't believe in a country that could appoint a black woman to be Secretary of State or a Hispanic to be Attorney General? He grew up believing the United States was a country that would punish you for being successful? He can no longer live in a country where someone criticizes Planned Parenthood for creating an artificial demand for killing babies? What, exactly? Don't leave us hanging, dude?
I think it's actually a bit of misplaced blame. The biggest changes for the worse in the United States are coming directly from the ideology of the Progressives/Liberals, i.e., the elitists who think the highest purpose of government is to protect its citizens from having to grow up (you know: experience difficulty in learning to take care of yourself).
Show Comments »
February 02, 2005
...because they've obviously got that whole Unemployment thing worked out.
And 5.9% was a horrible unemployment rate? For shame, Democrats!
Show Comments »
February 01, 2005
I'm as excited as the next person, and I'm not pooh-poohing the results or the effort.
But it is important to remember that an election is just an election. You don't have "democracy" until one side can lose power and still participate in the electoral process afterward. Or until both sides can win power without dissolving future elections. We had nascent democracies in both Pakistan and Algeria, but both were shut down when Islamic Extremists threatened to impose Sharia and cancel further electiosn after taking power.
It's hard to say at exactly what point Iraq actually "has" democracy. I'd say that Afghanistan already does, despite not having had a series of election cycles...but we'll have to see what Karzai does in the face of losing power before we can know for sure.
And the most important thing will be how Iraq develops the Rule of Law, something already growing entrenched in Afghanistan. Karzai is using the legal mechanisms to help his country, not fiat based on personal power. And that's very important for the future of his country.
Show Comments »
January 26, 2005
I've been an Intelligent Environmentalist COnservative for more than a decade.
That means I'm not into stupid things like carrying aluminum cans to the recycling center in a Lincoln Towncar or anything.
It comes from being a fiscal conservative, i.e. skinflint: why waste money on gas powering a gas-guzzler when a Honda Civic can get the same number of people the same distance for half the price?
Show Comments »
January 24, 2005
Thesis paragraph:
Liberty means choices. One choice is who to vote for...but hardly the most important. The one absolutely necessary component of liberty is a consistent legal framework that allows people to make decisions with a high degree of confidence about future repercussions.
People must be able to know that if they do Action A, Consequence B will or will not result in nearly every case.
People in the US choose to break the speed limit all the time because they make a value judgment based the fact that 99.9% of the time there is no penalty, and even when there is, it isn't that bad.
People in the US choose to express their political opinions because the worst penalty that can ever be assessed for merely expressing an opinion is having someone disagree with them, perhaps vehemently. Sure, someone beating them up is a possibility, but that also breaks rules regarding assault that the speaker can then use to exact retribution.
The point is, there is a system. It usually works, and is often consistent in how it is applied the results thereof.
This all comes from the Rule of Law. We have a Constitution. Great. So does China. We have elections. Great. So does Cuba.
What sets the US apart from those countries (and even other free nations) is that our Constitution establishes the Rule of Law, and we tend to vote in patterns that keep people in office who support the Rule of Law. One of the biggest problems with the Kennedy political machine is that they avoid the consequences normally resulting from certain actions...largely by charisma, but also by status. The scandals of the Kennedy clan undermined the Rule of Law in ways that the Nixon scandals never could, because Nixon paid a price. I tried to reach Mary Jo Kopechne to see what she thought about this idea...
So here's the thing. Alot of people are pinning their hopes on the Iraqi elections. I am, too, to an extent...
The people pinning their hopes on the election seem to think that a successful exercise of democracy will establish liberty there. It can't. My hopes are only that the election gives enough credibility to the existence of the new, sovereign Iraq that it removes the insurgents' will to continue fighting.
Because it still depends on the nature of the govt elected, and what they do with the power. If they establish Sharia or even a Sharia-like legal system, the nation is doomed. Rule by Imam (what the religious leader decides is justice) may work for small communities, but cannot work to give liberty to a modern nation. It is Rule by Man, and thus subject to whims, bad days, inconsistencies, etc.
In fact, turning it around to the United States, the worst assault on liberty and freedom is not fascist, Right-wing neo-Nazis led by John Ashcroft and George W. Bush. Rather, activist judges (the vast majority of which are liberal) erode liberty by using their own conscience as a more important guide than the written law for rulings. Supreme Court Justice Bader-Ginsburg wanting to interpret the US Constitution according to European legal customs undermines the Rule of Law. Considering the US Constitution to be a "living" document in which different meanings can be intepreted in different social times weakens the consistency of Law.
At the very least, to have liberty, people must be able to make decisions with a high degree of confidence that the consequences of taking that action will not change according to the whim of a handful of people sitting in judicial chambers attempting to impose social philosphy (be it liberal or conservative). 2+2 must always equal 4, and not accept a different answer if you are a minority, or need to redress past wrongs due to centuries of male oppression of women, or because society has suddenly decided that it might be okay to make it equal to 5.
The assault on liberty does not come from people attempting to re-establish standards that people can depend on (even if they disagree). No, the assault on liberty comes directly and largely from the liberal socio-political thought process.
Heck, that's not a new thought. I hope I've made you consider it in a new light, however.
Read More "Democracy = Liberty? Not Necessarily (Updated)" »Show Comments »
January 12, 2005
King County, Washington (Seattle area) can't explain where 1,800 votes can from.
Since hand recounts in King County (where the default assumptions include the notion that a vote for "Christine Rossi" was assumed to 'obviously' be a vote for Christine Gregoire!) have resulted in 'discovering' enough votes for Gregoire to give her a mere 129-vote lead, I agree this is clear grounds for a revote. Heck, King County credulously accepted and counted several hundred ballots that were discovered in the back of a warehouse days after the election! Yes, folks, those ballots (which I understand have some suspicious signatures with many being of the same handwriting) were completely out of anyone's control for several days. I don't think I have to tell you that anything can be done with blank ballots in a matter of hours....then left to be 'discovered' later. That doesn't mean these votes are frauds, but it does indicate we can have no confidence in what Democrats are apparently attempting to tout as an "insurmountable lead". I think even the case of "Gregoire's still behind? Okay, let's ask for another recount in only strongly-Democrat counties....she's ahead? Okay, Democracy demands we stop now!!!!" makes the whole Democrat machine in Washington complicit in suppressing voters opportunity to express their will.
If I weren't moving away within mere weeks (12-13), I'd have to do something more concrete...
Show Comments »
January 10, 2005
Just as alliterative and euphonius as Horton Hears a Hoo.
Anyway, I heard it here first.
To be perfectly frank, I actually voted for Gregoire because in their little blurb in the voting guide, he sounded more Democrat than her, and I didn't want a RINO.
But her actions to win the governorship are unconscionable. I feel confident that my votes didn't matter because they would have kept doing recounts until she had a lead no matter what. That's when "count every vote" means that votes no longer matter, know what I mean?
So here's one person who relishes the chance to correct what, in retrospect, was clearly a mistake. Big time.
Show Comments »
January 07, 2005
I've seen a number of articles asserting that Democrats are facing a crisis that may result in the collapse of their party.
I'm beginning to wonder if Republicans are, too.
Here's the issue: should Kid Rock be allowed to play at a concert hosted by President Bush's daughters?
One of the reasons the roll of Republican voters swelled in the last election is because the Democrat Party kind of went nuts. Many of the ones who couldn't take it voted Republican. With no where else to go, they want a party to match their views, and they are trying to change the Republican Party to suit them.
Even before this new influx of Republican voters, there was a movement known loosely as "South Park Republicans" who aligned themselves with the Republicans mainly on the ideals of fiscal conservatism, fighting the War on Terror, and opposing some of the whackier Democrat platforms.
These two factors tend to be more "moderate", it seems. Many are for homosexual marriage, are pro-choice, curse a mean streak, openly enjoy pornography, have no discernable desire to have children or even demonstrate much concern for the health of society. They may vote Republican, but they are much closer to Libertarians in individualism, I think.
And that's okay.
But the GOP is still, first and foremost, a Conservative institution, not moderate. The crisis we are facing now is, should we change.
From Christine Todd Whitman to Arlen Specter to the Log Cabin Republicans to the college "conservatives" who are merely revolting against the entrenched liberal establishment among the faculty without holding any commitment for typical conservative values, we are being told, "It's my party, too!" "Lighten up," we are told. "Lower your standards to be more inclusive!"
Well, how far do we lower our standards? I will not be held hostage on the basis of trying to retain votes. Some things are worth taking a principled stand for, and fighting a losing battle against the erosion of decency standards so that my children don't have to worry about profanity and vulgarity in, say, elementary school is worth it to me.
You don't like to be in a political party that doesn't appreciate someone who gets rich off the use of profanity and obscenity? Fine. Go vote Democrat. You don't care if nudity is shown in prime time so parents should "turn it off if we don't want to see it"? I don't need to ally myself with that to win elections.
I may not be able to do anything to make my children's environment less polluted, but I can and will continue to fight that battle to try to return a more children-friendly society for my grandchildren. If you think because you are an adult that we can stop trying to protect children, I don't really want to discuss politics or society with you. It's easier for an adult to make choices to find the lavicious material they want than it is for a child to avoid it when "adult level" is the default. I'm not trying to turn the clock back to the 50s, but mid-70s or early 80s standards wouldn't be bad.
There's nothing wrong with you holding your view, mind you. But I won't knuckle under to your "let's be reasonable: do it my way" arguments.
Period.
Update:
Lest I leave a wrong impression, I'm not talking about kicking anyone out for holding a view not 100% in-line with mine. I'm saying that if you join a group, you assimilate first, then try to change attitudes from within through debate and discussion. And using arguments that are more rhetoric than substantive is a little childish.
Here's the comment I left over at Gary Cruse's site:
Well, I got a little excited in my writing, perhaps, but my point is simply: moderates may have made the difference in the national election, but you can't use that to blackmail the whole party into accepting your viewpoint. We will discuss and work out our differences of opinion as normal.
Now, it may be that we will become the party of South Park Republicans. If it happens because of reasoned debate, discussion, and simple numbers, no problem.
But when I see moderate Republican voters complaining about Christian conservatives, worrying aloud about the GOP moving toward instituting a 'theocracy', and otherwise trying to change the GOP into a Democrat Party Lite, should I be sanguine about it?
No, I'll debate and argue.
What I won't do is whine and threaten that if the whole party doesn't kowtow to my opinions, I'll take my vote and go home, like I've seen many moderates do.
Show Comments »
» The Owner's Manual links with: Big Tent or Sno-cone?
» Jeff Blogworthy.com links with: Who may support America? Part II
» The LLama Butchers links with: This one's right up there with the Nullification Crisis, Court-Packing, and dare we say the Revolution itself
10. The relief coordinator insists you speak French, the Language of International Diplomacy.
9. The form for charitable donations has some small script at the bottom that says, 15% gratuity added for citizens from the US, UK, Australia, or Poland.
8. "There aren't any Jews or women on the relief team, are there?"
7. All the food packages have the most curious labeling: the "U" appears to be printed right on the package, but the "N" appears to be a hastily applied sticker...
6. When you ask the relief coordinator which activity he wants to observe today, he counters with "which ones are the CNN camera crews going to?"
5. When speaking with the relief coordinator, he keeps getting a glazed look on his face. Roused from his reverie, he says, "I'm sorry, I was just thinking about all that mad donations money I'm going to be in charge of..."
4. The bureaucrats pull you aside and ask you which refugee camps have the most hot 12-year-old girls.
3. The person dropping off supplies keeps muttering something like "...the best powder in three years and I'm pulled from the slopes for this backward, podunk, dirty..."
2. The relief coordinator has more dressing room demands than Van Halen Barbara Streisand.
And the Number One Sign the UN has Gotten Involved in the Clean-Up from a Natural Disaster is:
Read More "Top 10 Signs the UN Has Gotten Involved in the Clean-Up from a Natural Disaster" »Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: No, I'm not literally ROFLMAO, which is good because I need somewhere to sit.
» Multiple Mentality | www.multiplementality.com links with: Items of Interest #3
» The LLama Butchers links with: Top ten signs the UN is involved in your disaster relief effort
January 03, 2005
Then check out this list: The 40 Most Obnoxious Quotes of 2004.
First, set aside for the moment the preponderance of prominent Democrats and liberals. Can you imagine a left-wing version including prominent Democrats on their list as Mr. Hawkins included prominent Republicans? No, me either.
Second, returning to the overwhelming majority of Democrats and liberals making the list, this was written by a self-proclaimed right-winger. If you think that biases him too much against liberals, then I challenge you to make a similar list of obnoxious quotes from equally-prominent Republicans and conservatives. If you can, I'd love to see it.
Read More "Do You Think The Invective On The Left and Right is Equally Bad?" »Show Comments »
December 29, 2004
This article got me thinking:
President Bush has endured a great deal of criticism for some of his decisions and actions. Some of the things he did made it more difficult for him to get elected. So, clearly he is making decisions on the basis of motivations other than his own personal benefit.
So, among all my 200+ daily readers, I'm absolutely certain several of you have expertise in psychology, pathology, and criminal science. Is there a single, valid psychological model that explains how a person could be so strongly motivated by the potential of financial benefit to former business colleagues (or even friends) that he would wage a war resulting in the deaths of hundreds (now thousands)?
I cannot conceive of the possibility. If the field of psychology can be so accomodating to the trauma of Democrats losing a national election, can they not also respond to the mistaken beliefs regarding President Bush's motivations?
Show Comments »
December 21, 2004
In the months leading up to the election, I heard dozens of people express dismay at spending in President Bush's first term. Some were Democrats looking to find anything they could that was negative to justify voting against him...some were Republicans who reasoned that if we had a President who spent like a Democrat, why not just have a Democrat?
I always responded (maybe a total of more than a dozen times) that Bush was allowing increased spending for a number of specific reasons: the safety of the nation (with Homeland Defense spending), the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terror (with military spending), and to offset the recession brought on by the Clinton-era bubble and made worse by 9/11. I predicted that part of his plan was to let people complain about the deficit enough that cutting in spending to rein in the deficit would nearly be mandated. A rope-a-dope strategy for all the people who reflexively criticize everything he does.
When pressed, I admitted I had no proof it was going to happen, but that it was a valid assessment based on his typical strategic moves, character, and political history.
Guess what? I was right:
President Bush said Monday he will submit a federal budget that will cut the deficit in half in five years and maintain strict spending discipline.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think I was the only person saying this. I was the sole individual pushing this view in the comments of several different blogs, but I'm sure there were plenty of other people saying the same thing in places I didn't see. I hope this gets me some 'street cred' in the blogosphere. [grin]
Show Comments »
December 20, 2004
I don't think the GOP should really be in the business of making your wife happy, Arnold.
So I suggest you shift a little to the left, allowing you and your whole dang state to drop off into the ocean. Except for Monterey, of course...I like that town too much to lose it to the fishies.
Show Comments »
December 17, 2004
...if you thought they couldn't be any more of a joke than they already were.
The U.N.'s European headquarters is probably riddled with listening devices.
Show Comments »
December 16, 2004
Peggy Noonan vamping on the Dems' recent commitment to try and fake sincerity.
I know something the Democratic Party can do right now that will improve its standing and increase its popularity. It can be done this week. Its impact will be quick and measurable.It is this: Stop the war on religious expression in America. Have Terry McAuliffe come forward and announce that the Democratic Party knows that a small group of radicals continue to try to "scrub" such holidays as Christmas from the public square. They do this while citing the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say it is wrong or impolite to say "Merry Christmas" or illegal to have a crèche in the public square. The Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not from religion. Have Terry McAuliffe announce that from here on in the Democratic Party is on the side of those who want religion in the public square, and the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall for that matter. Then he should put up a big sign that says "Merry Christmas" on the sidewalk in front of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on South Capitol Street. The Democratic Party should put itself on the side of Christmas, and Hanukkah, and the fact of transcendent faith.
Show Comments »
December 15, 2004
So I'm posting this article bashing John McCain.
How could anyone support a politician who does stuff like this?
McCain threatened to hold up every piece of legislation in the Senate while House leaders refused to go along with McCain’s pet project of establishing a national boxing commission.
Too big for his britches, I say.
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: He knows the way to my heart.
December 09, 2004
Interesting item in yesterday's Best of the Web.
Mr. Taranto talks about Lakoff and his recent re-invention of the wheel in regards to repackaging old Democrat messages.
He makes the good point of:
It's not as if the Dems don't already do what Lakoff is recommending. Indeed, the supposedly groundbreaking insight this professor of linguistics and cognitive sciences is offering is nothing more than a commonplace of political rhetoric: Generally, it is good to describe things you're for in favorable-sounding terms and things you're against in unfavorable-sounding ones.
But the point I'd really like to highlight is this:
By contrast, what do you think of when you hear the phrase "baby tax"? It's hard to imagine an infant writing a check to the IRS, so a "baby tax" would more likely be a levy on new parents, or perhaps a consumption tax on diapers, baby food, cribs and other items for newborns.The national debt isn't even a tax. A tax brings money into the government, while debt obliges the government to make expenditures in the future. Calling the debt a tax makes as much sense as calling a mortgage a salary. Taxpayers provide the funds to service the debt, of course, but babies generally do not become taxpayers until long after they stop being babies.
The emphasis is mine, and my point is this really reveals a basic truth about Democrats, doesn't it?
The reason Lakoff considers it a the tax cut and resulting deficit to be a tax at all is because it takes money away from the "rightful owner". Yes, it's because he considers the money to actually belong to the government, not you. Okay, that's been pointed out before many times by better writers than me. The reason I consider this admission so significant is I'm surprised at such a blatant lapse of a Democrat revealing his basic assumptions so clearly.
Show Comments »
November 23, 2004
I posted this piece on Control vs Opportunity connotations of Choice just yesterday.
In an interesting bit of unscripted synergy, Jeff G. posted this piece based on Michael Crane's email about the US Economic Freedom Index 2004 yesterday as well. I received the same email and was going to post on it this morning, but Jeff G. says it so well, I have nothing to add.
Humorous excerpt that you have to read the whole linked article to be able to understand in context:
Whereas their post-election message, though similar in sentiment, has taken on an increased rhetorical urgency: “Why didn’t you filthy cornpickers listen? Was it because of Jesus? Christ, what a bunch of simple monkeys you people are.”
Show Comments »
November 22, 2004
I was thinking about the word "Choice" this morning.
I was exercising at the gym, and a friend/co-worker was complaining about the Air Force physical fitness test. He said he pretty much liked it, but hated the 'waist measurement' portion, because he was never going to get back down to a 32-inch waist. I murmured something polite and vague to imply agreement, but even though I'll probably never see a 32-inch waist on my body again, either, I recognize that is the result of my choices. From there, I thought of all the arguments I've had about weight. Look, I'm no svelte, sleek athletic type with thin hips and rippling muscles, but at least I recognize that the shape I'm in is the result of choices I've made. Just as everyone is. Sure, there might be a somewhat smaller than 1% portion of the population with actual glandular problems, but the rest of us choose our weight.
We choose it through a complex process of deciding what we put in our mouth, when we eat, what settings we choose in which to eat, what kind of exercise we do, how much physical pain we are willing to endure to lose weight. It may be easier for some, harder for others, but everyone is potentially capable of losing weight.
In the same way, we choose our circumstances. We might not "choose" to be friendless and alone in old age or at a certain crisis point, but we surely chose it by not taking the time to be nice and friendly when needing a friend wasn't so vital, by being impatient with someone who we didn't need, by failing to cultivate bonds of loyalty with people.
I've tried to explain why I am 99% that even sexuality is a choice in most (if not all) of the cases, and I don't really want to get into that again. It has never gone over well, as you may expect.
And I think the problem comes back to the word "choice" again.
I'm now convinced that the word means entirely different things to liberals and conservatives.
Should we blame Abortion Activists who were looking for a nice euphemism so they would have to say "kill babies"?
Because all the arguments I've had on these issues come back to one point: to liberals, "choice" implies control. To them, if you have "a choice", you can control the circumstances. To tell a liberal their circumstance is the result of their "choice", they feel offended, because one can't simply wake up and "choose" to not be gay, or "choose" to not be female, or pregnant, or fat, or rich, and by the process of "choosing" make it happen.
Well, of course not.
To me, "choice" implies opportunity only, not control. You cannot actually control whether or not sexual intercourse results in conception. You can try to limit the chance, but failure is always a possibility. Thus, by having sex, you choose the possible circumstances by allowing an opportunity for you or your partner to get pregnant.
You can't simply "choose" to get rich, no, but you can choose to avoid debt, to save for things that you need, and spend money only on the things you really need, and eliminate wasteful desires like eating out or seeing movies, and investigating to find good careers and inexpensive places to get the education you need and choosing a good partner to help you be successful and applying to the right company and developing your abilities to make yourself an attractive applicant...
See, "choice" implies that you are an active participant in your life, that you are capable of learning from the mistakes and choices of others, and capable of acting to bring about the circumstances you want. That doesn't mean it won't be hard. The one choice that none of us ever have is to make something easy. In fact, the easy way always has lots of competition...if it were truly easy, everyone would be doing it.
And this dichotomy of connotation between the two political ideologies is very revealing, I think.
Liberals do tend to think of everything in terms of "control." They will force people to pay taxes to make the poor have a better life, eliminate racism, enact affirmative action (itself racism) to make up for past inequities, etc, etc, and it will all be imposed from the top down with plenty of safety nets and extra spending and programs to control the whole situation and make sure that no one ever slips through cracks (although they still do).
Conservatives, on the other hand, do tend to think of everything in terms of "opportunity." We will dismantle barriers and limits and let people vote with their feet and dollars whenever possible.
It's an interesting theory, one I will be testing out and probably referring back to often.
One rabbit-hole I'd like to chase down right away, however, is that idea that if each choice we make has consequences (and they do), then there are some that are clearly harmful and others that are clearly helpful. One of the problems with liberal ideology these days in regards to "values" and "morals" leading to losses in the most recent election is that, just like McQ of Q and O blog, I think the majority of Americans are seeing that the choices that liberals encourage tend to be harmful to both the nation and individuals. I don't think we've seen the end of this realization. If I'm correct, even less people will self-identify as or vote Democrat in the 2006 election, and Republicans will win in a landslide in 2008 no matter who the candidates are.
If all this is true, it explains why liberals have stepped up attacks on Christianity over the last few years. Right along with the idea of "choice" meaning "control", liberals want the government to reduce the visibility of Christian faith as a choice to compete with the values of Sexual Freedom (with abortion as a safety net) and Financial Irresponsibility (with welfare as a safety net) they promote.
What I find most inexplicable is the number of Christians that have no problem with it, and often support it.
See, Christianity is not of this world. "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." By quoting this, what I mean is that arguments over whether Jesus would Democrat or Republican or if he'd drive an SUV are ridiculous. "Politics" as a whole are exactly what you turn to when Christianity doesn't apply. Christianity is what I use as my guide for my own actions, "politics" is what I get involved with as a way of promulgating and establishing my views and values as the ground rules for the way people interact on this earth. Get that? If I comport myself within the values of Christianity, it doesn't matter what political system I work under, and the rewards will not be seen in this lifetime. If my values are established in our political system, no one will be forced to be religious or even Christian, because my political opinions are formed, not by my religion, but according to my understanding of human nuture. Which, of course, is influenced by what the Bible and my faith tell me about human nature, but that's already at least one degree removed.
Thus, if we are to maintain a proper separation between Church and State, it is absolutely boneheaded to bring that about by government fiat preventing and imposing rules and guidelines. Government control is about as effective and precise as using a sledgehammer to do brain surgery. Rather, if you are a Christian who believes in separation of Church and State, you should work within your church to make sure that it doesn't get involved in politics. Shame in religious circles is much more likely to bring about the proper detachment than governmental control.
Choices, you know?
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: Today's Top Nine
» Curmudgeonry links with: Choices
» Brain Shavings links with: Meandering thru the Marsupials
The thing that bothers me most about this underhanded and sneaky attempt to violate reasonable privacy standards is that it will be blamed on Republicans as somehow revealing the 'true nature' of the GOP...despite the fact that it seems as if it was Rebublicans who found it and stopped it, Republicans who are issuing the strongest denouncements, Republicans who are vowing punishment for the people involved, and Republicans who are speaking out about how the system that allowed this sort of crap to happen is broken and needs to be fixed.
Heck, this sort of "The Government has more rights than you do" crap is far more typical of Democrats in the first place. But even The Ace of Spades seems willing to tar all Republicans with the brush of blame.
...the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." [...]John D. Scofield, the spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for financing the I.R.S. to have access to that agency's offices around the country and tax records so they could examine how the money was being spent. There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said.
Mr. Scofield said the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices. He said the authority would be similar to that allowed senior members and staff assistants of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, the panels with primary jurisdiction over the activities of the revenue service.
I'm not sure how plausible that explanation is. We'll see how the investigation sorts out. If they are truthful and accurate in their explanation (a problematic question with politicians, to be sure), then it sounds like they were trying to correct a problem in a clumsy fashion using wording that "allowed" more than it "required". That should be easy to determine.
This makes one interesting point more clear: I guess one of the differences between Democrat and Republican voters is that Democrat voters tend to trust their elected officials without suspicion and assume Republican officials are the spawn of Satan; whereas Republican voters seem to assume that the whole bunch is a pit of vipers that needs to be watched closely, except some of the snakes are trainable enough to be useful at times.
Show Comments »
November 17, 2004
I hadn't heard much about the President's New Freedom Initiative. You can bet I'll be doing some research today and reporting back to you on it.
In any case, this is an excellent example of effective compassion.
According to the article, the federal government didn't do anything to bring this about. No contracts were awarded, no money was disbursed from the government...just a person, a few non-profit corporations, and a few businesses contributed their own skills and money and effort and caring in order to improve opportunities for disabled Americans to "fully participate in all aspects of community life, including employment."
I think that's awesome. This is how government can make a huge impact: by providing national recognition to those who help people more effectively and more efficiently than the government can, and without having to tax the crap out of us while doing it.
The federal government tends to use forceful techniques to help. Individuals, non-profits, and businesses can be more flexible, can generate economic activity to support themselves while still helping, waste far less money, and everyone involved is doing so willingly (for the most part).
This is how America should work.
Why is this not below the fold but on the front page of newspapers across the country? Why do I have to hear about this only because of the honorees is a player for the Chiefs? Is "bashing Bush" such an important function that no room can be spared to highlight this?
Show Comments »
November 15, 2004
I hate to say it, but good.
I actually hoped he would resign more than Ashcroft, although I think both departures will help avoid some problems this administration encountered in the past due to the Democrat's Politics of Personality.
Show Comments »
November 13, 2004
Vamping on the theme of the previous post:
You've all heard stories about a person who is dying...maybe he has an obstruction, or maybe she drowned and isn't breathing, or something else. A bystander comes up and starts an inexperienced or partially-understood attempt at CPR. A few mistakes are made, maybe some cracked ribs or other minor damage...but the person is alive to complain about it. So they immediately find a trial lawyer and sue the pants off the person who saved their life. Because, you know, when something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault, and if you can set yourself up for life, why not?
Looking at the Democrat reaction to President Bush being re-elected reminds me of that scenario exactly. Liberals tend to live in cities*, and so it was a liberal enclave that bore the brunt of 9/11. Remember that at that time, no one took the idea of an attack seriously. But while Kerry strongly promised a strong reaction to strongly demonstrate his strength if we were ever attacked, it was President Bush who acknowledged that we have already been attacked, and even though the Islamic Terrorists wanted nothing more than to hit us again, the fact that they haven't been able to is directly attributable to President Bush's decisions and actions. Just like liberals in New York bore the brunt of the 9/11 attacks, liberals in all our major population centers received the disproportionate benefit of President Bush's excellent leadership. Despite their dogged and stubborn refusal to recognize or thank him for it.
Luckily, 60 million people, a majority of the voters, decided not to award the liberal whiners with a windfall for compaining. Thank goodness our future safety was not left in the hands of liberal judges who care more about keeping power in Democrat/liberal hands than in keeping people safe and winning the war on terror. Thank goodness a majority of voters did not elect the man who would outsource or safety to France and the UN.
Read More "Ungrateful Democrat Voters" »Show Comments »
That 56 million people didn't want four more years of tax cuts and dead terrorists.
That 56 million people in this country prefer nice hair, vague references to undescribed plans, and liberal elitism to integrity, straightforward honesty*, and proven determination to keep US civilians safe.**
So if you don't get it, you don't get it. As I said before the election, liberals obviously don't realize just how good they have it under President Bush.*** The entire nation is better off under President Bush than any Democrat politician I can imagine.
New Slogan for President Bush: "He may not be who you want, but he is who we need."
Read More "The Most Surprising Thing About the Election****" »Show Comments »
November 11, 2004
Okay, I admit it: I've got stupid titles, usually.
I have a liberal friend named Jo. You've probably seen her comment here. We've tangled on stuff in the past, and even stopped talking to each other twice over politics. The stronger our friendship grows, the shorter and less intense the political battles are...
They way we've battled has evolved, as well. We used to let it all hang out, and that's how we've hurt each others' feelings, and so learned to try to phrase things inoffensively. Well, as she's stopped blogging and I've been blogging more, I've decided I can't do that. I've urged her to let me have it with both barrels, and we'd use off-line emails to soften the blow, but she doesn't want to. Part of that may be that I have lots of conservative readers who might (and have) respond just as forcefully, and in the past I haven't done much to protect her from that. So in the interest of having good debates, I ask all of you to be respectful of any visiting liberals. I usually let the idiot liberals post unaltered, because it just highlights their stupidity, but Jo is not an idiot, and she usually has very good, thoughtful, justifiable reasons for the opinions she holds. Keep that in mind, and expect that blasting her will result in me having to do something. Don't make me angry, you won't like me when I'm angry.
And there are reasons I want to protect any liberals who stop by:
-it takes great courage to post in your opponents' camp.
-debate and challenge almost always refines ideas and solutions
-Most importantly (and the reason for this post), is that through our debates and arguments, I've found that we can get all angry and hurt, and then for the sake of the friendship keep trying to explain and understand...and end up realizing we are saying the exact same thing.
It makes me wonder: is it possible that the Left and the Right don't even understand the basic terminology we use?
Liberals right now are claiming that if the voters had truly understood their position, they would have voted Democrat. At the same time, their explanations of why people did vote Republican reveal that they have no understanding of Republican voters.
Where is the fundamental disconnect?
Is it possible that a liberal explanation and a conservative explanation of nearly identical opinions will invariably result in misunderstandings? Is the angle of viewpoint more important than the actual position held?
If so, that is a very significant factor that needs to be integrated into future political discussions.
Thoughts?
Show Comments »
November 10, 2004
The big question before the election from my point of view was: if Bush wins, what happens to the angry left? If the people reject liberal Big Government, what happens? People don't just abandon dearly-held beliefs because they are shown to be a slight minority.
We on the right have gloated. Why not? We have the right, because President George Bush won the election on morals and character despite a deliberately slanted coverage from mainstream media, despite lies and exaggerations about his past and his results, despite the mainstream media believing every negative thing about President Bush, no matter how spurrious; and ignoring every negative item about Senator Kerry, no matter how credible.
But if you take a spin around the blogosphere, you'll see a whole bunch of lefties saying they didn't fight dirty enough, they didn't wage a liberal enough campaign; and you see righties disparaging them for it.
It's part of the gloating, sure. But I don't really feel like joining in.
You see, while I think liberals and Democrats are absolutely wrong when they say this election didn't deliver a mandate to George Bush and Republicans, I also disagree with those saying liberals have any reason to change their tactics or ideology.
Here's my thinking: 48% of the population voted for Kerry. Okay, that is far less strong than the 51% that voted for Bush, not just in raw percentage, but also in that a good percentage of Kerry voters would have voted for a half-eaten pot pie if it they thought it would have a chance to defeat George Bush. This Anybody-But-Bush crowd is probably incapable of recognizing or accepting that Bush did anything good, even if it was identical to their stated goals or if they directly benefited. So those people are fools.
But the rest? Well, here's another article that seems to be chortling at those silly liberals who don't realize America doesn't want a liberal agenda inacted. I guess I can understand the ultimate rationale: most conservatives don't agree with Republicans 100%, so we want a valid, reasonable opposition party with a rational platform that allows debate and choice. The farther left the Democrats go, the more they resort to vicious diatribes and ad hominem attacks vice policy debate, the fewer choices remain to thinking voters. However, while I cannot agree with the overall ideology of Hollywood, I actually find it somewhat admirable that they aren't abandoning their principles just because they lost an election. If they did, it would mean that too many people in the country would be voting for stereotypes of Democrats and Republicans rather than the actual beliefs, platforms, and ideology. I would prefer that liberals don't vote Republican because they don't agree that tax cuts stimulate economic activity and governmental regulations slow the same, rather than not voting for a Republican because they think all Republicans are racist, rich white men who are all involved in a plot to exploit women and minorities.
As long as liberals continue to fight for what they believe in, as long as they are able to marshal arguments and struggle to find acceptance for their goals, we are a stronger nation for it. It shouldn't just be about "winning" and "losing" in elections, it should be about debate and discussion. Conservatives should recognize that liberals have some valid and valuable views, and co-opt the best of them. But we aren't going to have the chance to discuss it if liberals "go to ground" and change their message even more just to get elected.*
Update:
If it isn't clear, the point of this post is that I'm a little tired of conservatives taunting liberals, telling them to shut up, implying their agenda has been completely rejected and/or 100% defunct. No.
Then again, my reaction in the comments is because I'm also tired of liberals using their Mainstream Media bully pulpit and celebrity status to try to de-legitimize Bush's clear mandate.
So my point is: Bush won, and he won a mandate. This doesn't mean Democrats should knuckle under and do what Bush says, but it also means Bush should be able to introduce his proposals and his nominations without snide sniping and carping from liberal talking heads. Let the debate happen among the people who face re-election in 2006, because that's how our democracy works. Oppose Bush by writing your representative or writing letters to the editor or blogposts. Support him the same way. But it is absolutely wrong to minimize or exaggerate the impact of the election results: Bush won an outright majority, the GOP expanded their majority in both houses and in governerships, and 11 SSM ban amendments were passed. That does mean something...but on the other hand, it doesn't mean liberals should stop trying to persuade/convince.
And also check out this thinking. I don't agree with his specific views, but I asbolutely agree with his overall point.
Read More "Hand-Wringing and Leftward Shifts (Updated)" »Show Comments »
November 09, 2004
...was I the last to know?
Show Comments »
November 05, 2004
The ideological shift has already come in handy in keeping certain troublemaking members in line. Ask Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania moderate known for giving his party migraines. Having won a tough re-election with fuel from the White House, Mr. Specter, who is due by seniority to take over the Judiciary Committee, chose to repay President Bush by warning him Wednesday not to send any controversial appointments.By yesterday, Mr. Specter had done a 360 and released a contrite communiqué praising Mr. Bush's past nominees and promising any new ones a committee vote in 30 days. It seems his colleagues took him aside to remind him that not only does he need the party to vote him into that job, it can also throw him out. Mr. Specter may also be held in check, as will others, by the fact that 55 seats may give the GOP the right to a two-vote majority on certain committees, isolating party holdouts.
Yeah, baby!
Aside: this is cool, too:
...Mr. Daschle's [political] demise came precisely because his opponent effectively explained to voters that it was Mr. Daschle who stymied the same president's agenda. That's something to chew on if you are the state's junior senator, Tim Johnson, or Max Baucus of Montana (59% for Bush), or Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln (54%).
Show Comments »
November 04, 2004
Someone remind me a few days from now to muse outloud on the idea of why: the more dense the population, the more liberal the vote.
Show Comments »
I think this is fairly accurate:
All of the biggest guns in the left's arsenal - Hollywood, the trial lawyers, the unions, the New York Times, CBS, newly-minted strident liberal talk radio, bombastic and inaccurate "documentaries," all of the skewed members of the MSM... all of them brought their A-game, threw themselves into this fight... and lost to the blogs, talk radio, alternative media, conservative religious groups, and a well-organized GOP ground game.It's over. None of the left's old tools works anymore. They have to scrap it and start over, and that's why you see the weeping and the wailing and the hair being pulled out.
So what happens? Republicans/conservatives are fond of telling Democrats what they should do next, or at least musing over where the anger will go now. A plethora of Democrats are sinking into the mire of Cargo Cult politics*, telling anyone who will listen that they need to figure out the magic formula of faking Republican sincerity so they can be in power again.
But I guess I'm one of the conservatives musing over the outlet for liberal anger now.
And I really have no idea. For all that I insist the highest levels of the Democrat Party are more about having power for powers' sake rather than helping people as they purport to, just getting defeated in several elections doesn't make people abandon their convictions. No ideology has been proven wrong, but liberalism has obviously losing support among the common person, partly because President Johnson's Great Society spent money like water and just made things worse, partly because gun control (a major liberal platform) has been strongly demonstrated to increase violent crime, partly because a majority of the population now wants far more strict restrictions on abortion. But the issues themselves haven't been disproven enough to change anyone's mind.
So whether the Democrat party collapses or not, I still believe a good 1/3 of the nation's voters remain committed to a liberal ideology, and is despairing of ever convincing enough people to adopt their view.
What happens?
To tell the truth, I'm a little scared. Democrats are quick to point out the DU inhabitants, the gunshots through GOP HQ windows', the swastikas burned into lawns, the most rabid "Bush lied" crowd, the domestic terrorists like ELF and PETA are all examples of fringe and fringe activities. But there are a staggering number of events, when you add them all up. Look at how much chaos spread in Italy by the Red Brigades, or in Germany by the Bader-Meinhoff Group. Or in the United States by Bachman-Turner Overdrive.
Do we face the possibility of leftist terrorist groups forming?
Read More "What Do Democrats Do Now?" »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: What's next?
» Ambient Irony links with: Yeah, Like That'll Work
» Ambient Irony links with: Yeah, Like That'll Work
So Specter wins re-election because President Bush demonstrated his typical loyalty in stumping for him rather than the more-ideologically similar Toomey.
How does Sen. Specter repay him?
I tell ya, it doesn't seem to pay to be an honorable Pro-Life politician when Abortion Rights are on the line.
UPDATE: Apparently, I over-reacted on the "betrayal" aspect. Okay, I definitely over-reacted. However, it does mean I agree he shouldn't be Senate Judiciary Chairman.
More stuff on Toomey vs. Specter.
UPDATE: I agree, this statement is better:
Official Statement
Show Comments »
I can't remember if I've said it here before or not, but I'm not worried about Hillary Clinton running for President in 2008 or ever.
First, the character of the nation has changed quite a bit. I think it may be possible for a strong candidate to take her seat in the Senate, frankly. But US citizens won't automatically vote her to the Presidency based on the 90s administration anymore.
Second, I think being a Senator has changed her quite a bit. She's done a fairly good job there, to tell the truth, abstaining from many opportunities to try to grab the limelight. Heck, at least she shows up for Senate votes. She's a complete Democrat Partisan, but I have no problem with that, it's her job to be that way.
Third, the only real experience she can point to is her Senate experience, and we've already discussed and seen that the candidate with executive experience is always the stronger candidate.
Fourth, the mainstream media has been damaged from their behavior in this last election, and bloggers (and the internet in general) are becoming an important source of news, commentary, and authentication/verification for people seeking knowledge about the world and events. If the legacy media continues to shill so much for the Democrat candidate, they will lose even more credibility (see above, re: the character of the nation has changed); but if they want to retain and/or improve their credibility, they will have to start being more balanced in their coverage of election campaigns. Either way, the free pass for Democrats is probably over, and without that edge, I don't think she can get elected.
I don't consider her the Anti-Christ. She's just another Democrat Senator now, and I think Condi Rice, Jeb Bush, or Rudy Giuliani would all make stronger candidates who could trounce her easily.
But it does depend on how the next 3-4 years go.
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: The last east coast blogger left standing
» The LLama Butchers links with: Tongue-Swallowers Watch
November 03, 2004
Good riddance, ya bums. Please keep your promise. Or explain why you are absolutely untrustworthy on something as simple and basic as living under a Republican President but still supposedly trustworthy on items of a socio-politcal nature.
Show Comments »
I'm pointing to his thoughts on the Nutty wing of the Democrat Party.
It’s sad, really, to learn how much the Dem partisans hate America. Oh, sure, they say they love it, but they don’t. What they love is some idealized version of it, where there is no poverty, everybody has free medical care, the general public rejects the hateful politics of the Right, and the UN has become our kind and benevolent overlord. Oh, sure, they love that America. They’d be willing to sacrifice practically anything for it. Just the thought of that America can bring a lump to their throats and tears to their eyes. There’s only one problem: that America doesn’t exist. What they have is the real America, where a majority of the people doesn’t agree with them on practically anything, and where they never can quite achieve enough political power to implement their preferred policies. That’s America as she really is, and that’s the America they hate.Still, there’s a creepy fascination at reading their little screeds decrying their fellow citizens as being either banjo-strumming Deliverance kids, or goose-stepping fascists squareheads, simply because they don’t happen to agree with the "progressive" line. There’s a powerful lot of both hatred and elitism in that formulation, and it’s not just creepy, it’s sad.
Show Comments »
It's about frikken' time!
I'll admit: I am surprised by how close this election was. I understood enough to know that the press was overestimating the Democrat/liberal/anti-Bush vote, but I overestimated the effect of their overestimation, apparently.
...but did you know that I knew that you knew that I knew?
Show Comments »
UPDATED: The article in the following link has changed. It formerly described Kerry's determination to fight in Ohio and refuse to concede. Now it describes Kerry's concession. FWIW.
It's official: The National-level Democrats would rather cut the baby in half. They care more for power than for the good of the nation. There is simply no other way to interpret this action on their part.
Show Comments »
November 02, 2004
If Patty "Total Idiot Whack-Job In Tennis Shoes" Murray wins the Washington State Senate race, I'm going move out of the state, maybe to some tropical state.
Show Comments »
Okay, President Bush has won the Presidential Election.
The voters of several states, at least 10 out of 11, have sent an undeniable message to SSM activists that they ain't buying.
And it looks like they have a truly excellent chance to end up with a filibuster-proof majority of 55 seats in the Senate. That would mean a complete restucturing of higher federal courts toward Strict Constitutionalists. That can only be good for the future of the nation.
It's more than we could have dreamed of before the election.
Oh, yeah: don't forget that this all happened with the mainstream news media doing everything within their power to distort and misrepresent to advance the liberal agenda, including pushing Kerry's candidacy shamelessly. And We Still Won.
The only sad part is that nearly half the nation won't recognize how good they have it now.
Show Comments »
According to Drudge Report, but no evidence given...
Show Comments »
...in fact, nearly as important as the Presidential Election, Voters in 10 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday to ban same-sex marriage, in most cases by overwhelming margins.
When we look back on this election, these votes could end up being more important to the continuation (and health!) of our society. This sends a very strong message to activists, as well, which probably explains the distortions of said activitists who claim a Constitutional Amendment is somehow a betrayal of the Constitution....
...more on this idea tomorrow.
Preview: "A more important divide than GOP vs Dem: The New Manifest Destiny"
Show Comments »
George W. Bush: Because 300 self-absorbed warbloggers can't be wrong.
Show Comments »
Andrew Sullivan will mope for about 29 hours before announcing that Bush's victory was what he really, actually wanted, after all.
Cuz Muslim Extremists aren't that nice to gays and stuff.
Show Comments »
With Bush pulling 53% of the vote, and the GOP currently pulling ahead in the Senate totals, the Representative totals, and the Governor totals, I think Bush won, and we will know tonight.
I've also been drinking.
Make of it what you will.
Show Comments »
...looks like I chose a bad time to stop sniffing glue...!
UPDATE: I have just been informed that I inadvertantly stole this point from the Llama Butchers. Now that this has been pointed out, I must say that I thought of this on my own before I didn't think of it on my own. Or something.
I'm so humiliated.
I die. My shame causes my cheeks to turn red, emitting infrared radiation to the point that the average temperature of all the seas raises 4 degrees, killing 90% of the sea life. Their bloated carcasses wash up on the shores, and the poison gas from their decomposing bodies blights crops, and all those who do not die from tainted atmosphere die in turn from starvation. Oh, the embarassment!
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: LIVE LLAMA BLOGGING--Election Day 2004!
Bush is getting 55% of the national vote. But Ohio is leaning Kerry? Florida is leaning Bush? New Hampshire is leaning Kerry? (all according to Drudge's map...except that they just switched Ohio to 'leaning Bush' in the last 5 minutes).
I don't know what to think.
How can this be close if Bush is pulling 55% nation-wide????
Then again, Ohio is currently strongly Bush, according to NBC News, with 52%.
I don't know what to think.
I don't know what to think.
Have I said I don't know what to think?
Show Comments »
Show Comments »
Four More Years of Dead Terrorists and Lower Taxes!*
Read More "Vote Bush!" »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: LIVE LLAMA BLOGGING--Election Day 2004!
Anyone know a site with constant real-time election result updates?????
I'm going nuts here.
Show Comments »
November 01, 2004
Consider this:
When I hear conservatives — especially young ones — complaining about President Bush, I can't help thinking how they would have hated Reagan. Oh, sure, we all love him now. And I stress "now." He is remembered glowingly, as the Great Conservative who stood against Big Government and won the Cold War. It wasn't like that at the time, I promise you.They did nothing but grouse about him for eight years, these conservatives (and sometimes they were right). He spent like crazy, running up huge deficits — historic deficits. He made bigger deficits than had "all the previous presidents in American history combined, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter," as Senator Moynihan used to say. This was conservatism?
He dealt with Tip O'Neill, raising taxes. (W. hasn't done that, and wouldn't.) Conservatives moaned and moaned. There used to be a joke: "This wouldn't be happening if Ronald Reagan were alive." And they cried, "Let Reagan be Reagan," expressing their belief that some evil moderates around him had brainwashed him, or steered him from the True Path.
And when he started playing with Gorbachev, our conservatives got serious jitters — wondering whether the old man was outright gaga. Howard Phillips, head of the Conservative Caucus, denounced Reagan as "a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda." Gregory Fossedal, a conservative foreign-policy thinker, went into the Oval Office bearing a Darth Vader doll — as a reminder to the president that he was dealing with an evil empire.
But with Reagan out of office, and dead, everyone's all weepy about him. And they will be this way with George W. Bush too, I predict. (I don't know how I got on this prediction jag.) More loudly than they curse him now, they will regret his departure from office, and hail his term, or terms, as a golden age of conservative principle and resolution.
Just you watch.
UPDATE:
In a case of meta-linking, I give you the Llama Butchers account of the Elder Bush's rehabilitation.
Show Comments »
President Bush is going to win a second term.
How do I know?
Easy: W = V (victory) + V
He was predestined to win by his nickname.
You heard it here first.*
Read More "All You Need To Know About The Upcoming Election" »Show Comments »
October 30, 2004
Thanks to NRO's The Corner, I found this article on the Weekly Standard regarding Kerry's reaction to the most recent Osama bin Laden tape.
The Corner post emphasized the article's main point: that in Kerry's unscripted reaction, and through his surrogates, Kerry attempted to score political points. Personally, I find the argument weak. I didn't think Kerry's statement ("I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush.") was unexpected, out of line, or convincing in the least. And surrogates, well, that's what surrogates do: they make more outrageous statements the candidate himself can't make in order to persuade voters. So what?
But to me, they ignored the juiciest statement by Holbrooke. It's also a point the Bush campaign should jump on and hammer right up until all the polls close:
"Now, [Osama bin Laden] is able to send out this vicious threat through al Jazeera and everyone else in the world."
Oooh. I'm scared. He sent out a threat. Oh, pardon me: a vicious threat. I'm trembling. Maybe if President Bush gets re-elected, Osama bin Laden will taunt us, or even attempt to intimidate us.
See, under Bill Clinton, bin Laden was unpursued, and free to do more than sending out threats, he was sending out terrorists, funding, and training to blow up the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, two African Embassies, and even establish a team of hijackers to fly planes into the World Trade Center Towers (although the attack was actually carried out after Bill Clinton left office, the bulk of the planning and training was done long before President Bush took office*). Under Bill Clinton, al-Qaida were considered mere criminals, and pursuit was half-hearted. This is the model Kerry wants to re-establish and follow. It is only because of President Bush and his clearly-stated vision that Islamic Extremist terrorists (not just al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden) have declared war on the United States and we will not rest until their will to destroy us has been eradicated. Kerry apparently would only continue until they captured Osama bin Laden, a mere symbol of the war. Then they would declare victory and quit fighting terrorism, adopting the attitude that terrorism is only a "nuisance" because the "Main Man" of terror has been "brought to justice"**.
We cannot afford to have John Kerry as a President, a man who focuses on Tora Bora and claims it was a failure of "outsourcing", even though the reason we had done so well to that point with a low loss of US life was because we "outsourced" nearly the whole war in Afghanistan, using the Northern Alliance as the main ground troops to defeat the Taliban, with US ground (Special?) forces only providing leadership, guidance, and expertise; and the USAF providing precision air strikes for Close Air Support. Brief Conclusion: Despite being in the Navy more than 30 years ago, Kerry really doesn't understand our current military at all. He is unserious about defeating terrorists, and will say anything he can to get elected without the political or personal will to back it up.
Which is pretty much the diametric opposite of George W. Bush.
So if you prefer to be threatened, taunted, intimidated, and insulted, vote for George W. Bush. If you prefer to have terrorist attacks on US soil killing thousands of civilians, vote for John Kerry.
Read More "Your Choice" »Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Taunted by the French Knight
October 29, 2004
Seriously, is there anything in this article that sounds like reasonable pronouncements from a well man?
Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin says John Kerry has been gaining in the polls every day since Oct. 21, and George Bush has been going down every day. "That's how God wants it to be," Harkin told a group of about 25 people at the Benton County Headquarters in Vinton on Thursday afternoon.
Harkin said that in Iowa, 50,000 new voters registered as Democrats recently, but only 20,000 registered as Independents and even fewer - 9,400 - registered as Republicans.
Harkin didn't remember the name of Pettengill's opponent, but told the group, "he has to go."
Show Comments »
BUSH EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Event workers had been told to fire off confetti pods when Bush said, 'God Bless'... his normal closing line. But 5 minutes before the end of his speech, Bush offered a "God Bless" to Arlene Howard, mother of George Howard a Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Officer killed in the World Trade Center... BLAM!!!!! Everyone first ducked -- hard -- then looked up to see confetti falling. Bush looked momentarily stunned, then plain unhappy, then just went on with his speech as the confetti rained to the floor of the Verizon Wireless Arena... Developing...
From Drudge Report.
Show Comments »
October 28, 2004
White-liberal racism — or racialism — is one of the most ignored, and maddening, phenomena of our time.
Show Comments »
October 26, 2004
The phone just rang, and I answered it, expecting the usual telemarketer.
It was, sort of. The guy asked for me by name and identified himself as being from the "Evergreen Political Something-Or-Other". He asked if I had some time to answer three questions.
I thought, "My first political poll to answer! Okay, listen for bias/leading in the questions or tone of voice!"
He said, "Okay, first question: have you already voted by mail-in ballot?"
I said, "Yes." (Because I have, you know. Not quite a straight ticket, but more on that only if you nosy buggers beg me to tell you)
He started saying something, and in retrospect it seemed like he was just filling up space while he was reaching for the lever to hang up the phone, because a second later I heard the double-clicks followed by the dial tone. I waited, just in case he was accidentally cut off and would call back, but he never did.
So. What was this, exactly? Was it an attempt at voting fraud? Was it truly inadvertant? If the next two questions were obviated by the first, couldn't he at least have told me that before politely ending the conversation? My hackles are rather risen at this point, I'll tell ya.
Show Comments »
...not for me, maybe. But I could see South Park Republicans being down with this:
(Low taxes, security, and fiscal responsibility) + (Choice, civil liberties, and legalizing fun) = Libertarians with a more moderate brand.
See, I'm one who thinks that happiness is best found by making good choices...but looking around the current US society, I'm just about the only one. Luckily, a few of the others who feel the same way have found this site and visit/comment often.
Via Q and O Blog.
Show Comments »
October 25, 2004
From SAAM, on voting techniques.
From Jeff G., on the New York Times' latest non-news attempt to get John Kerry elected.
And the important one, a kicker from Protein Wisdom on the potential Death of a Nation:
I’m feeling queasy. The fact that I can no longer trust the mainstream media to give me any straight news—to the point where it is next to impossible to gauge the outcome of this election beforehand—is frightening enough. But that their abuses may actually lead to a John Kerry presidency -- the wrong man at the wrong place at the wrong time—well, that is giving me the cold sweats....
The fact remains that we are a week away from the biggest presidential election of our generation, and the majority of American people know next to nothing of John Kerry’s record of dovishness and foreign policy “realism,” thanks in large part to an ideological media that has become the single most important wing of the Democratic party. And that’s an outrage.
Show Comments »
Well, as much as I can from an incomplete transcript excerpted on Drudge.
Rosie said the Bush Administration's actions go "against the foundation of what our country was built on," giving example of Administration telling the "United Nations we would ignore their doctrine and their resolutions."
Uh, yeah. Um, Rosie? The nation was in existence for about 170 years before the UN was even formed. We'd been in existence 140 years before the League of Nations was even proposed. Since the nation was formed on the foundation of looking out for our citizens, I don't see how ignoring their doctrine and resolutions violates anything essentially American. Heck, ignoring UN resolutions is a UN hobby, so why should we blame Bush for that?
Rosie continued: "Every single thing this White House has done goes against the foundation of what our country was built on. For us to tell the United Nations we would ignore their doctrine and their resolutions, for us to say that we will not adhere to the Geneva Convention during this war. We are America, we are better than that. We were built on the foundation of freedom and truth and equality for all people.Every single thing?!?! $15 billion for AIDS prevention in Africa goes against our foundations? The Patriot Act goes against our foundations? Freeing people in Iraq from a dicatator goes against our foundations? Establishing a free nation and burgeoning democracy in Afghanistan goes against our foundations? Prosecuting a war to protect our citizens goes against our foundations? Encouraging people to be involved in the process of determining rights through the Amendment process goes against our foundations? Rosie must have taken some Ecstasy or something before she started speaking, because she got some of it right, i.e., "freedom, truth, and equality", but her conclusions don't follow that. It seems to me she obviously doesn't care a rip about "freedom, truth, and equality" for Iraq or Afghanistan, at least, not if it might distract from her convincing activist judges to impose the right of SSM on a largely unwilling populace...
And the rich, corporate, horrible, horrible people who have been destructing and ruining everything this country was made on has been really unbelievably damaging to all of us spiritually, emotionally, monetarily."The Rich, Corporate people being George Soros and the recipients of the Heinz ketchup fortune, right? Or were you referring to Ted Turner?
"Just remember this, don't believe the media in these last nine days. Tell yourself every day when you wake up and every morning when you have a worry or a doubt or whether you believe FOXNEWS: Kerry by a landslide. Because America knows the difference between genuine and junk."Don't believe the media, as in CBS' forged memos? Good advice. But I wonder if she can handle the ramifications of her last assertion if George Bush does win the election...?
That's pretty incomplete, just hitting the main highlights of the excerpts of her speech. If anyone can get me the whole transcript, I'll see if I can respond to every point, one-by-one.
Show Comments »
John Kerry will raise your taxes. If you vote for him, you are voting for higher taxes. Read this. These are John Kerry's friends. They want big government -- government that dictates and coerces, government that subsidizes bad choices and immunizes people from the consequences of their own folly. Note the disingenuous rhetoric. The Times doesn't call for a tax increase. It calls for a rollback of the tax cuts. Nifty, eh? By making the pre-tax-cut situation the baseline, the Times is able to avoid saying that it wants higher taxes on middle-class and working-class Americans. Don't fall for it. Perhaps if liberals such as George Soros would distribute their wealth directly to the needy, there would be no need for big-government programs. It's really very simple. If you want to eliminate or alleviate poverty, work harder and share your wealth. Stop trying to coerce others into promoting your values.Read More "Word." »
Show Comments »
October 22, 2004
Show Comments »
October 21, 2004
 | You preferred Bush's statements 100% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Bush Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now! |
Via Jay.
Read More "Naturally!" »Show Comments »
October 20, 2004
Ace asks How many new registrations are real?
He then goes on to note:
It could be that Republicans -- who, let's face it, do a lot less of this outright criminal crap; this is a product of the old Democratic machine politics -- are doing a lot better in terms of registrations that will actually produce votes than we believe.
Well, isn't that already reflected in the generally-accepted premise that Republicans usually do better in pollings of "likely voters" than "registered voters"?
Show Comments »
October 19, 2004
Have you seen the John Edwards Hairstyling Video yet?
I think that Michelle Malkin has it essentially correct, in that this doesn't reflect badly on Edwards and is rather unfair to promulgate as being substantive in any way. I disagree with her only in the sense that I don't find it icky at all...but then, I was very involved in Drama in high school and college, and so perhaps I am less sensitive about seeing a man primp before an on-camera performance, which this is.
Show Comments »
October 18, 2004
...and I thought this was a no-brainer.
Show Comments »
October 15, 2004
...but by the Air Force.
I just found out that I cannot volunteer to do any work whatsoever in any way, shape, or form for the Republican Party.
The Air Force's regulations are more restrictive than the Army's, which is more restrictive than the Dept of Defense.
My original understanding is that the guiding thought is: the military must remain non-partisan. Thus, you can do anything political that does not damage that impartiality. You may never do engage in political activities while in uniform, you may not identify yourself as a military servicemember, you may not run for office, and you may not hold any significant position in any campaign.
Fair enough. That all makes sense.
You can even have a political sticker on your car, which I still feel is uncomfortably close to lending the weight of military association to a partisan expression.
But I fail to see how volunteering to drop off literature at houses, in civilian clothes, without ever making contact with a single human being could ever harm the military's impartiality. And yet the Air Force Regulations specifically prohibit that activity. This seems so at odds with the spirit of the guiding principles that I don't even know what to think. If anonymously dropping off literature (but not actually soliciting votes) is wrong because there might be too much association with a specific party, isn't actually voting just as bad?
Reading the rules, you cannot have anything at all to do with any party beyond attending a meeting or convention in civilian clothes, voting, or putting a sticker on your car.
I understand that I am in the military 24/7, whether I am wearing the uniform or not. I understand that being in the military means making sacrifices. I realize many of the rights you civilians take for granted were surrendered the day I signed up (like getting to choose where you live, or being able to quit, or to be able to criticize your boss). But I didn't think I had to absolutely separate myself almost entirely from the political process.
If our only allowed political expression is to vote, how can we be a part of the process if we are disenfranchised at the voting booth, like when the Democrat Party actively attempted to discard military votes in Florida in 2000?
I'm a little unhappy today.
Show Comments »
October 14, 2004
One other thing that Kerry said in the last 5 minutes of the debate that struck me as worthy of comment:
When asked about the strong woman he married, he almost immediately launched into an anecdote about his mother. The most interesting aspect of that was that he mentioned her passing away two years ago, just before he was deciding to run. And let's not forget that Al Gore and Howard Dean started running before Kerry did. These people have been campaigning for nearly three years!
Yeah, I knew that, and noticed and noted it at the time, but we could all use a reminder. There are some important ramifications of that when you consider campaign platforms/promises that I will leave up to you do consider.
The other interesting part is that the anecdote seemed too crafted to be "off the cuff." Particularly since it culminated in his "Integrity. Integrity. Integrity." mantra. So you tell me: did he have this "Integrity" anecdote prepared and was just waiting for a half-way appropriate question to trot it out? ...or did he have advanced warning of what the questions might be?* You be the judge.
Read More "Curious Anecdote By Kerry" »Show Comments »
The fact that John F. Kerry feels the need to insist, over and over, again and again, that he will not give any other country a veto regarding our national security, well, it just kinda cements that idea in my mind, y'know? "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" and all that.
Show Comments »
I wish I could say something useful, but I only saw the last five minutes.
So, my take? Kerry can't tell a self-deprecating joke to save his life.
Should we elect a President on the basis of his ability to tell a joke? No. But there are a host of other reasons to elect George W. Bush, and to not elect John F. Kerry, but I'm not going to go into that now.
Oh, and when John F. Kerry says, "God Bless America," he sounds like he doesn't believe it. The way he delivers the line, I can just about hear his internal thought process saying, "Okay, now toss off some pseudo-religious crap for the yokels in flyover country." That's probably unfair, but that's how he comes across to me.
Yeah, I noticed these two things, as well:
Twice in his closing statement, Kerry pronounces "idea" with an "er" at the end. Where the hell did that come from? He has never talked Massachusetts before, that I've noticed.
In his closing statement, Bush says, "I'm asking for your vote." Very important. That is the O'Neill rule. Remember when Tip would talk about that? After an early election, which he lost, O'Neill met an old teacher of his on the street. They lamented the loss, and then Tip said, "Well, at least you voted for me." And the teacher said, "I didn't, Tom." He said, "Why?" She answered, "Because you never asked me." So O'Neill formed this rule: Always ask 'em for your vote.
I didn't like the "idear" much, and I did like that President Bush asked for our vote. Good move.
Show Comments »
October 12, 2004
Only a few days after I stopped by the local GOP campaign headquarters, it was burglarized and/or vandalized.
Workers arriving this morning found a hole smashed through the wall from an adjacent, vacant office. Bush campaign officials say a small amount of petty cash is missing and a computer and television had been moved and left near the hole."They must have gotten spooked because they ultimately left the computer and TV," said Bill Hyslop, the campaign's chairman for the Fifth Congressional District.
The computer and the TV had recently arrived in Spokane and the computer was loaded with information from the Republican get-out-the vote program.
This seems less politically motivated than many of the other events around the country. It probably was just someone trying to steal things they could pawn. It still contributes to the aura of intimidation that Democrats are attempting to force onto Republicans through this "plausible deniability" campaign of violence.
Am I descending into hyperbole? Perhaps. But ask yourself: if this campaign of violence and destruction had been waged against Democrat bastions, do you think Democrats would be mollified by claims that it was being perpetrated by "punks and fringe"? Of course not. Remember when Democrats claimed that a vote for Bush was a vote to burn down black churches? Remember when the NCAA blamed President Bush for the dragging death of James Byrd? Sure, no one has died yet. Yet. But lets not forget the Democrat history of trying to prevent blacks from voting in the South.*
Read More "Hitting A Little Close To Home" »Show Comments »
October 08, 2004
Because Democrats get away with what would be career-killers for Republicans.
Show Comments »
October 06, 2004
Didn't watch it. Lots of commentary all over the place. If you can't find any of it, you are an idiot.
However, my absolute favorite* is this, hands down:
The Democrats have a healthcare plan. Time to put a lock on my wallet. Or hide it. Maybe I can outsource my wallet.Read More "The Vice President Debate" »
Show Comments »
October 05, 2004
No, wait, silly me: the fringe are never a reflection on the Democrats. Heaven's, no!
Show Comments »
From an update of this post by Michelle Malkin.
Ok, Edwards has now said I am crazy, Tere$$$$a has said that I am an idiot, and Maureen Dowd called my security mom-wife dumb. I get it, but I wish they would stop before they start insulting my mother, father, or my beautiful children. Is this the campaign of inclusion and one of bringing people together[?] I think not...
Truedat. Democrats are "uniters" only if they get the chance to euthanize anyone who disagrees with them. For evidence, check out the tolerance found in speech codes at liberal institutions like Berkeley University.
Show Comments »
There's been some heated rhetoric from both sides all over the 'sphere, pretty much making a scandal of the possibility of a scandal surrounding foreign objects on the debate podium. Um, including my own participation here.
This has now reached "Kerfuffle" proportions, as evidenced by the debate-between-friends occuring in the comments and links here.
But the final point(s) I still take away from all of this (and what I would like everyone else to take away from all of this) is (from the comments at the linked INDC post):
With this somewhat silly pen dealie we saw the whole gammut of honesty and lunacy and a bit of gotcha. Jeez that this issues sparked so much debate is amazing. But in the end we arrived at something at least fairly clear. If it hand't been cleared up you can bet some people would be floating around conspiracy theories for quite a bit. And yet attacks came out immediately. And moonbattery ensued. I agree with Allah this wasn't a big deal. But I see no reason to attack someone for trying to establish what the facts were. Whatever the reasons, partisan or curiousity. If someone has a valid point and you attack them for it then, imho, your being a weasel. I dont expect politicians to be honorable, so this pocketgate wasn't a big deal to me, but I was perfectly willing to allow that maybe its a big thing to Bill.
Or to Me. (and the emphasis was added by me).
And a summary/recap:
When Bill and I decided to put together our joint post we were extremely careful not to do it in a shrill manner.I recorded the video, slowed down the section in question where Kerry removed an object from his jacket – and Bill put together some copy that was clear: Bringing any object to the podium was a violation of the agreement outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding.
This morning, I called Fox News and spoke with a producer who was helpful enough to go and review the tape from another angle. Within minutes of the producer describing the object as a pen, both Bill and I had updated our blogs.
Special Report with Brit Hume showed a freeze fame of the pen, and both of our blogs had posted a screenshot before the show was even over.
I would submit that in identifying, pursuing, and solving the nature of Kerry’s violation of the debate agreement in one day, both Daily Recycler and INDC Journal were not only diligent, but in fact demonstrated a journalistic ethic not always seen in the mainstream media.
Criticism seems to come in two forms:
1)It was just a pen.
Great. The reason you know that to be true is because of INDC Journal, Daily Recycler, or Fox News – who ran the clip after we contacted them.2)It’s a stupid issue, who cares?
The idea that bloggers should not pursue an investigation because it doesn’t serve a political advantage seems a bit silly. The amount of attention this received because of the Drudge Report was not in our control. Whether or not it’s a “big deal”, we posted on the violation – investigated – and updated with the result.
Emphasis again added by me.
Show Comments »
October 04, 2004
If so, it was probably George Stephanopolis and George Soros, respectively.
Show Comments »
Teacher "fired" (maybe) for adding President Bush to a row of pictures of US Presidents.
Let me first point out that it is an extremely badly-written article, with tense problems and everything.
However, a few questions:
If it was a row of Presidential pics, why wasn't President Bush's photo up there as of 20 January 2001?
What was the nature of the photograph? If it was merely the standard official photo, then the people who want Kerry's photo added are idiots. But if it was a photo from the campaign trail or convention....well...maybe it was a problem. I hope we see a follow-up on this.
Show Comments »
» Sharp as a Marble links with: Teacher Fired for Exposing Students to the Truth
» Diggers Realm links with: Teacher Walks Out Over Display Of Presidents Picture [Update 6]
October 03, 2004
I didn't watch the video, however, this section of the article,
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract."Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
Considering the track record of word choice and tone by Democrats in general and the Kerry campaign in specific, the quote means that it is just about a dead certainty that Kerry cheated.
That would explain quite a bit...
Show Comments »
I didn't watch the video, however, this section of the article,
A top Kerry campaign source explained to the DRUDGE REPORT late Sunday how Bush supporters were once again trying to distract."Kerry did not cheat," said the Kerry insider. "This is more lies from Republicans, who are hoping for a quick change of subject away from the president's performance, and the new polls."
Considering the track record of word choice and tone by Democrats in general and the Kerry campaign in specific, means that its just about a dead certainty that Kerry cheated.
Show Comments »
October 01, 2004
I still think a couple of bloggers could have done a better job highlighting the differences in the two positions.
However, after thinking about it somewhat, I do believe that the debate did achieve its over-riding goal: to clarify and separate the differences in views between the candidates.
However, Kerry contradicted himself even within the debate. The facts are on Bush's side. Democrats are on losing side of history, it is increasingly clear.
UPDATE: One round-up by Allah, and one by Zomby.
Show Comments »
Via the Corner.
Show Comments »
September 30, 2004
Kerry won the style points.
Bush seemed...tired. Defensive. He had amazingly long pauses at really bad times.
On the substance side, though, I think it was a toss-up, but that was totally from Bush. As in, Bush got in some great shots, but he weakened his case by (as you so aptly put it before) merely repeating the advertising point sound-bytes for most of the debate. But Kerry neither added anything of value to the substance, nor detracted.
To be honest, I'm really disappointed. This is the first debate I've ever watched, and Frank Martin and I have had better political discussions with deeper points.
Jo and I would have held people transfixed with the passion, verve, and great points. Each time someone spoke you'd probably say, "Hmmm...that's a good point."
I saw absolutely none of that here. Nothing new was introduced. Kerry keeps saying Bush had no plan to win the peace; I'd like to have seen Bush directly address that by discussing what the plan was from the beginning and showing, point-by-point, how a hostile counter force has affected those plans. Instead we got an indirect "We're fighting an enemy, and once the people of Iraq stand up for themselves, we can get out." Kerry said several times that Bush has no plan for Iraq other than stay the course. I would love to have seen Bush use 2 minutes to lay out, point-by-point (again!), just what we are trying to do. "125k by year's end" isn't specific enough or long-term enough. Doing so would also have revealed the obvious flaws, omissions, and ambiguities in Kerry's "plan".
Missed opportunity: Why didn't President Bush say even once what the point of the Global War on Terror is? He said several times that he understood it and Kerry didn't. But he never addressed it directly, as in, the point of fighting in places like Afghanistan and Iraq is to literally shrink the geographic area in which terrorists have to operate, and reduce the number of regimes who facilitate, equip, fund, and provide safe locations to terrorists, and to demonstrate that terror is a dead-end and failed ideology.
I'm not that smart: I've seen that on several blogs, so why can't anyone in the Bush Adminstration articulate it that clearly? It's clear, defensible, and explains everything we've done to this point.
I also think Kerry thinks Americans are stupid. He didn't provide much evidence for anything. He repeated three times that the current levels of securing nuclear materials will take 13 years, and promised to do it four (and again didn't begin to explain how.)
But it's no surprise that Kerry thinks Americans are stupid, since he works with and talks to Democrats for the most part....
Okay, I'll have more thoughts tomorrow after I've mused for a while. That should hold you for this evening, eh?
Show Comments »
» Allah Is In The House links with: http://www.allahpundit.com/archives/001037.html
» resurrectionsong links with: Responses to the Debates (Updated)
September 29, 2004
Ms. Streisand, why would you trade the massive respect you had as a singer for the heaping boatload of scorn you deserve as a pundit? Don't think, please. Just shut up and sing.
Show Comments »
Just wondering, but how would it have affected the election in 2000 had blogging been as developed back then and organized to look into the last-second release of President Bush's decades-old DWI?
Or, for that matter, the Iran-Contra affair?
Or Whitewatergate? Me, I'm thinking the Clinton's were incredibly lucky they only had to deal with The Drudge Report.
Show Comments »
September 28, 2004
I've been wrestling with this for a while...I have no wish to kick someone when they're down...
...but I've finally decided that Roger Simon encapsulates Christopher Hitchens point quite well.
Excerpt of Mr. Simon's comment in its entirety.
Well, that's not just politics as usual - that's sick. We've reached an impasse in our society where political victory is more important to some than civilization victory. How crazy is that? I sure hope those polls showing Bush ahead are right. In fact, I hope he even beats that already generous spread, considering Hitchens' point, with which I obviously agree. As for my party affiliation, if any, I'll worry about that later. We have more important things to think about now.
But you should still follow the link because some of the commenters make additional good points.
Show Comments »
Not all the Left. But an impressive and exhaustive list nonetheless. And if you are on the left and haven't taken even the first step toward repudiating these people and what they stand for, you are just as guilty. More so if you have ever shrugged and said/thought, "That's a good point."
Via Allahpundit.
Show Comments »
Excerpt:
The real spectacle here is that some Democrats are only too willing to exploit the painful history of black voter disenfranchisement for some short-term partisan advantage. And it just might backfire. Democrats played up the Florida fiasco in the 2002 midterm elections, repeatedly telling blacks that their votes hadn't been counted in 2000. Rather than being riled up, many black voters believed what they were told and stayed home.
Show Comments »
September 24, 2004
A very interesting revelation....
Via Mickey Kaus, (scroll down to "6:30 PM"), who offers the titular assertion in this summary:
Today's Robert Novak column, if true, offers badly-needed evidence that campaign finance reform might work: Independent campaigns (like Terry McAuliffe's DNC push attacking Bush's National Guard record) often step on the message of the candidate's official campaign. What goes for the DNC goes double for non-party "527s." Soon, big donors to 527s may conclude they've been wasting their money. Nor is a candidate like Kerry likely to feel beholden to the millionaires who finance a media campaign that gets in the way of his comeback. As long as campaigns really can't "coordinate" with independent efforts, some degree of corruption has been eliminated (while preserving the speech rights of anyone who wants to run an independent campaign).
Well, thanks to the link from the Llama Butchers saying I have additional thoughts on this post, I guess I should probably do my part and actually give an additional thought.
Personally, I think it's possible Mr. Kaus is correct. There is nearly always a difference between "policy as written" and "policy as enacted", and it is in that difference that empires rise and fall, if I may be so dramatic. It would be a shame, however, if it took 2-3 elections before this finally shook out and fell into place, and it would be a far, far better thing if we had not passed a law that so obviously honored freedom of speech only in the breach. On the other hand, if we had to have a messy election to let things shake out, at least it was one in which the Democrat candidate was so awful that the liberal media wasn't able to manipulate news enough to defeat an incumbent Republican. But can we depend on being so lucky again?
Show Comments »
» The LLama Butchers links with: Is Soros getting his money's worth?
September 23, 2004
Yet again, conservatives give good advice to liberals.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen a conservative, moderate, or putative Republican explaining exactly what they don't like about a Democrat candidate or proposal, and going to outline exactly how the individual's support could be easily gained. It's almost as if (based on the liberal/Democrat reputation for fairness/equality/rights) most people would like to vote Democrat, but due to the reality of liberal/Democrats selling out integrity and equality in grasping for power, they just can't get past the gag reflex.
And I don't think I've ever seen a Democrat or liberal doing that.
Let me make that more simple: Most Republicans vote Republican because they think Republican policies make the most sense. If Democrats would make proposals that made more sense and actually demonstrated trustworthiness, they could win Republicans away in droves. But Democrats conversely feel that Republicans are evil and irredeemable, and there is no force on earth, no revelation of support or efficacy of Bush's actions that could get them to vote Republican. In fact, if Jesus Christ himself came down and said George Bush was carrying out God's plan, I'd bet the vast majority of Christian Democrats (assuming there are more than 100 or so) would probably take up Satanism.*
But I digress. Here's the obligatory excerpt:
But if you want to be the next president, and the Prime Minister of Iraq comes to Washington to address a joint session of Congress, where should you be?Read More "Listen Up, Dems!" »In the U.S. Capitol chamber!
Not in a Columbus, Ohio firehouse!
Senator, if you win, you're going to have to work with this guy - or his successor. Kerry should have tried to get a meeting with Allawi himself, to try to make the challenger look like Bush's equal (when foreign leaders come to the U.S., they often meet with leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill. It's just common courtesy and protocol).
Show Comments »
The guy who lives and works there doesn't understand the real situation.
Nice one, John.
Show Comments »
September 22, 2004
As evidenced by yet another non-poll indicator:
Kerry abandons campaign ads in four "battleground" states he had previously targeted.
Show Comments »
September 21, 2004
By yet another non-poll tracking method.
Show Comments »
But that's redundant, isn't it?
These people are certifiably insane. They consider Dan Rather humiliating himself by rushing to smear Bush with fake memos to be the equivalent of "KristallNacht" or at least the Beer Hall Putsch. These idiots actually consider themselves to be in the same position as the Jews in 1935 or so.
Pay no attention to the word "Democrat" in the title of their bulletin board. They are fringe.*
Read More "Crazy Talk from the Democrat Underground" »Show Comments »
September 20, 2004
Many Democrats aren't happy with Kerry other than that he's not-Bush. But the Democrat platform includes pro-union and pro-abortion sections whether you like it or not. Many Republicans aren't happy with spending policies under the Bush Administration. I maintain that we will see a far more fiscally-conservative second term, but I admit I have no real evidence to point to other than a gut feeling. As such, many Republicans and conservatives are "holding their nose" and voting for President Bush as they feel the War on Terror is too important to hand over to Kerry, a man they feel will falter badly. The seriousness of the issues confronting our nation today makes the cost of a "protest" vote much more costly than usual.
But the simple fact is, rarely will a Party's platform match exactly with any one voter's preferences. The platforms, being established by the respective National Committees, also often depart significantly from the candidates' platform.
So if you were running for office, or if you could craft your own platform, what would it be? What are the issues most important to you? Most of mine aren't even being debated much today, incidentally. They remain important to me nonetheless.
If you're interested, write down your own platform planks, then link back to this post. Spread the word, and let people know what you stand for.
Read More "My Platform" »Show Comments »
This post asserts that President Bush has betrayed conservative principles in regard to fiscal responsibility, and as such, a significant portion (if not the majority) of Republicans will be voting for President Bush only because of his prosecution of the War on Terror in contrast to a Democrat candidate who shows no evidence of being serious about the threat of Islamofascism.
However, the idea of "Compassionate Conservativism" arose from the fallout of the failure of the "Contract With America". When the GOP-controlled Congress and Bill Clinton's administration were locked in a stare-down, the public blamed the GOP. The message our politicians took away from that was Americans, as a whole, don't want a substantially smaller government. But Americans don't really seem to want a substantially bigger government, either, which is why the Democrats push for universal health care really doesn't gain much traction with the populace.
Personally, I'd favor a smaller government, with correspondingly less control and lower taxes, and I'm voting for President Bush this fall because I think Kerry is unserious about the War on Islamofascism, and I think President Bush is going about it in generally the right way. Nominally, I fit in with Mr. Henke's view. But I'm the main person objecting in the comments to his assertion because I actually feel President Bush is doing a fairly good job on fiscal responsibiility concerning all the actual events that have impacted our nation over the last 8 or so years. I think it is fairly certain, however, that most of America doesn't see it that way.
Thus, if the lesson from the failure of the Contract With America is "Americans really don't want a smaller government", how is that reconciled with the idea that President Bush is the lesser of two evils for President because he didn't really do anything to shrink the size of the government?*
References:
The End of Conservatism.
Google search on "reasons failure Contract With America"
Google search on "origins compassionate conservatism
Show Comments »
September 17, 2004
Back in Dec-Jan or so, I said that if Howard Dean won the nomination, President Bush would win with 60% of the vote. I further blustered my way to a ridiculous assertion that if John F. Kerry (who seemed to be the absolute worst candidate this side of Cynthia McKinney) won the nomination, W would win with 65% of the vote.
I didn't really repeat that ridiculous assertion much after I made it, but I never retracted it, either.
With a little under 6 weeks to go until the election, I figured that as the Old Media support propping up Kerry's candidacy crumbles, this would be a good time to mention it again. It's seeming more and more possible all the time. In fact, if President Bush gets 62.5+% of the vote, I'm claiming prescience.
You heard it here first. Feel free to laugh.*
Read More "Prediction" »Show Comments »
September 15, 2004
Group irresponsibility gets rewarded, but individual irresponsibility gets ignored.
The money aspect of politics is discouraging to say the least. This same sort of question was raised when you compare the compensation made to the families of 9/11 victims to that given to the families of victims of the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, or to that given to families of servicemembers who fall in defense of our nation.
But to make an attempt to answer Michael Demmons basic question, I think the idea behind that tendency is that every individual should be responsible, but if a whole group of people get hit by it, well, then obviously it was something no one could have foreseen. Yeah, that's immediately ridiculous to anyone with common sense, but then the people who have been conditioned to depend on the government through liberal entitlement programs do lack that same common sense, don't they?
Does anyone else have any thoughts?*
Hat tip to Dean Esmay.
Read More "A Good Point" »Show Comments »
So there are approximately 300 million people in the US right now. There are approximately 140 million people working at this time. Yeah, that doesn't include self-employed, but we need a number to work with, so that's the one I'm going with.
Assume, if you will, that the 140 million people thus represent all taxpayers. Consider that a moment. That means that when a candidate proposes a $1.5 billion program, he's proposing taking $10 out of each person's pocket.
Okay, granted, it's an oversimplification. Much of our taxes are on corporations rather than individual income taxes...but the corporations just pass those taxes on to the consumer, right? So for practical purposes, the burden is still on the individual earning the money.
In addition, let's actually take note of the fact that the tax burden is much greater on the wealthy. Let's say the average middle class taxpayer is responsible for 1/10th of that, and "the rich" pay the other $9 for each 1.5 billion dollar expenditure.
That still means that John Kerry's $1.5 trillion health care plan will unavoidably take $1000 per year from your income. I haven't heard him say he'll actually cut anything to pay for it, so a vote for John Kerry is a vote saying, "Please take away an additional $80 from my discretional spending every month." And that's just one program.
Remember the Brainfertilizer Rule of Thumb, kids: for every $1.5 billion, you lose $1. That may not sound like much, but it adds up.
Read More "Taxation Rule of Thumb*" »Show Comments »
In response to this statement by Kerry:
"In fact, this president has created more excuses than jobs. His is the Excuse Presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops -- it's where the blame begins."
...I have two three six questions:
1) What reasons do you have for missing 90% of the Senate votes since you announced your campaign, Senator?
2) Are you seriously asserting that President Bush did not inherit a recession?
3) Are you seriously asserting that 9/11 had no effect on the economy?
4) How, exactly, do you explain the recent growth of the economy, then? If it isn't due to the tax cuts that were first passed, then accelerated by the direct actions of President Bush, surely you won't try to say it was due to your Senate leadership over the last two years...?
5) If you don't credit President Bush for improving the economy, by what logic do you then blame him for the past economic problems?
6) Would you like to retract the assertion that President Bush has made more than 1.7 million excuses?*
Yeah, you got nothin'. Thanks for playing, though.
Read More "Show Comments »
September 13, 2004
On this post over at Q and O Blog, I left the following comment. It might make more sense reading it in context of the post (a fiscal conservative's dissatisfaction with President Bush), but it does stand alone fairly well as a defense of Bush by itself:
I think that most criticisms of Bush's spending policy fail to take into account the context.
1) Bush lost the popular vote and needed the SCOTUS to put a quick end to Dem nonsense...but that strengthened the perception that he didn't win. That left him without any sort of "Mandate of the People" argument to push his agenda. Democrats could and did willfully obstruct the things he wanted to do.
2) Politicians need political capital to get things done. As mentioned above, sometimes that can come from a Mandate of the People (i.e., a landslide), sometimes from your party having control of Congress, but often it comes from making deals. If you need Democrat help to get something passed through the Senate, you have to give something to Senate Democrats. Bush got something for his agenda for every big-spending item he handed to the Democrats. For instance, we really needed to get the tax cuts passed in the recession he inherited, and we really needed the tax cuts accelerated after 9/11 to prevent a depression. The Democrats said they would oppose it, and I really think it took $15 billion for AIDS prevention in Africa, funding the No Child Left Behind Act, and a drug prescription plan for seniors to get enough votes to get the tax cuts accelerated. Why are you so quick to swallow the Old Media line that "(Republican) Presidents don't affect the economy" when this one obviously made a huge difference?
3) Allowing govt growth while simultaneously cutting taxes has resulted in the projection of a deficit, yes. The revenue growth because of the tax cuts has ameliorated that somewhat...but what it does do is set Bush up to make sweeping cuts in his next administration. He'll have a strong Mandate, he'll probably have a Republican-controlled (if not dominated) congress to help him out with it, and he'll have all sorts of quotes from Democrat leaders that "The deficit is a bad thing" to shore up support to make cuts to reduce the deficit.
Now, if that doesn't come to pass, Bush will go down in history as a bad President. But I think there is good reason to believe President Bush's second term of office will be much more conservative than the first. And if by chance he loses...leaving a significantly large deficit prevents Democrats from going hog wild on spending, and maybe even force THEM into spending cuts, since they'd face a hostile Republican congress.
Patience, folks. Help is on the way, just not from the direction Kerry asserts.
In those same comments, Shark said:
...I agree with one thing though- the Reps. are gonna have 1 hell of an intraparty fight after this election.
There will be a fight in the Republican tent very soon, just after the Democrats implode. The thing I like about it is that with the rise of the internet, there will be much more debate going from the grassroots upward, rather than direction and "take it or leave it" coming from the top down. It can't help but improve our two-party system immensely.
Read More "Defending Bush" »Show Comments »
» QandO links with: "Is there any betrayal that we wouldn't support?"
» Winds of Change.NET links with: The 2004 Race: Fits and Splits
September 10, 2004
Absolutely free of charge, I offer some unsolicited advice to the Kerry campaign.
It could also double as a warning for future campaigns for both parties at all levels, I guess.
Service in the military can never, by itself, act as a qualifier for political office. The candidate can attempt to cite specific experiences upon which they will draw that may make them the better official, perhaps, but that is it.
Military service is best used only defensively, as in, "Yes, I voted against those spending proposals for military equipment because my experiences as a fighting man led me to believe that expensive arms programs are fraught with failures, like the M-16s jamming in Viet Nam. Rather, I always preferred to depend on the excellence of American fighting spirit and ingenuity using existing weapons platforms." Or even, "My experiences as a fighting sailor in Viet Nam have convinced me that some issues do not necessarily have a military solution. We won every major battle in Viet Nam but could not win the war because of political decisions and the North Viet Nam will to continue fighting. We face just such an enemy in the Islamic Extremists. George Bush tied his generals' hands with political decisions. For that reason, he should be replaced as Commander-in-Chief!"
Please note, I don't agree with those assertions, but those are the proper uses of his military past. It opens you up to debate on the issue, sure, but at least you can debate the issue, and even if the discussion still results in disagreement you can still win respect for your passion and logic, if not your conclusions.
But John F. Kerry tried to insist, for the first time in decades, that military service should be a prerequisite for being President. He hinged nearly his entire election campaign on the idea that one can approach a Presidency with a flowchart of qualifications with "Active Military Combat Service" at the very top, with "No" meaning an automatic disqualification.
This wouldn't have worked very well if both candidates were running for the first time (like Gore vs. Bush), but it could not do anything but fail against an incumbent.
Note to you political types: Don't ever do it again, okay?
Show Comments »
September 09, 2004
Here's his commentary for today:
Thursday, September 09, 2004 "THE GOVERNMENT'S ASSAULT ON DISSENT"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a moment of theological reflection, Woody Allen once declared: "I believe there is something out there watching us. Unfortunately, it's the government."Woody's little joke has become today's chilling reality as the Bush-Ashcroft regime has imposed measure after measure of new autocratic police power to keep watch over We the People. All of this has been done under the guise of "fighting terrorists" – but the government's focus increasingly is shifting from "them" to "us."
The latest example is the FBI's heavy-handed push to harass, intimidate, and suppress ordinary citizens who seek to protest governmental or corporate policies. Prior to the national conventions of both the Republican and Democratic parties, the so-called "justice" department dispatched federal agents to at least six states to trail and grill potential protesters. As one young protester put it, the government agents were trying "to let us know that, 'hey, we're watching you.'"
This repressive "knock-on-the-door" by authorities is not merely directed at targets known to be plotting criminal activity, but at citizens who were simply planning to attend legitimate protests. Ashcroft himself asserts that these people "might, perhaps, possibly could have the potential to do something criminal – or that they might, perhaps, possibly could know someone who could do so.
The justice department's infamous office of legal policy okayed this vague, Big Brotherish assault on our individual liberty by declaring that any "chilling" of the right to dissent would be outweighed by the need for order.
Of course, throughout our country's history, from the Red Coats forward, bullying autocrats have always donned the dark cloak of "order" to rationalize their repression. The Bush-Ashcroft use of FBI snoops to intimidate today's dissenters is not about preventing crime, but about preventing protest.
To protest their crude attempt to lock down protest, call the ACLU: 212-549-2500.
This is stupid. Really stupid. It reaches "I can't believe anyone gets paid to write this crap" levels of stupidity.
Having someone from the government knock on your door is "repressive"?!??! Is he serious? He must feel horrified every time he uses a credit card and someone asks to see his ID, because the implicit accusation that just maybe he might be engaging in credit card fraud without absolute proof must be impossible for him to take.
Have any of these people been taken into custody? No. So Mr. Hightower demands that the government must wait until it has incontrovertible evidence that someone is going to commit a crime before it can assume anything...but in the absence of any evidence at all, he feels free to assume the government is acting maliciously? It's the sort of logic that is so circular and so steeped in paranoia that it cannot be reasoned with at all, much less disproven.
On a completely different level, these people are worthless. Our forefathers risked death to free the nation from the tyranny of England. Many people in US and world history have undergone torture and abuse and still not been deterred from striving for goals of freedom and democracy and faith. But someone knocks on their door and they feel too scared to even stand on the roadside and chant. I wouldn't want any of these cowardly fools in charge of a lemonade stand, much less anything political or diplomatic.
And I find it amusing and revealing that he feels the need to base an entire screed around this truly minor issue as a significant point in his campaign against the Bush Administration, but can't even find a moment to critique the way Democrats handled protest at their convention: putting all protestors into a walled enclosure, complete with razor wire. Yes, the Democrats made it an implicit threat that if they regain power, all protestors will be put in prison. I think most rational individuals would find such a "free speech zone" to seem so threatening and restrictive as to stifle most free speech.
Show Comments »
September 08, 2004
Over on this post by Zombyboy, I got a chance to ask a Filthie [sic] Commie a question. Of course, the answer is so obvious I didn't wait for him to answer, I provided my own.
But it's worth repeating. Not because it will get wider exposure here, but because I want to draw more attention to my blog and get credit for asking the dang question. I sometimes irk myself in how I feel much of my best work is done in other people's comments...
So here it is: If President Bush is so hated and reviled by all the world, if he has alienated so many nations with his "cowboy antics", would you care to make a list naming any nation so offended? How many nations aren't willing to work with us or turn to us for aid/help in their own domestic and international issues?
I think even the most generous list starts and ends with "France" and that's it. Russia came to Bush's support on some of the terrorism issues...and so did Germany. With France, those are the three nations most opposed to our actions in Iraq. And Mssr. Chirac is still speaking to President Bush, so in reality, you can't even include France on the list.
I look forward to the rationale of anyone who actually tries to make such a list. You won't be derided by me, although you will be asked to provide evidence and challenged with countering evidence, or else be judged as a partisan hack out of touch with reality.
Ready? Go!
Show Comments »
September 03, 2004
The Democrat Party, the one with so much control of its politicians that they discover "lifelong, unswerving" commitments to Women's Choice just so they can run for President, can't seem to do a thing about its fringe members.
This is the party that pushes 'hate crimes' to specifically protect its favorite special interest groups. This is the party that supports "speech codes" on college campuses to prevent young, impressionable minds from being exposed to diversity of thought. This is the party and ideology that criticizes successful conservative minorities as being "too white" and pawns of GOP. This is the party who considers any GOP dissension as evidence the GOP is wrong (as in, citing Ronald Reagan's son speaking at the Democrat convention as somehow weakening what Ronald Reagan stood for), but considers Zell Miller a dirty, filthy, dishonorable traitor because he didn't vote in lock-step with the recent Democrat changes in congressional platforms and techniques. This is the party that dismisses Michael Moore as being a Democrat operative because he's registered as an "independent" in one state...but then invites him to sit next to a former Democrat President at their convention.
And this is a party that is so used to orchestrating and coordinating "fringe" elements that it considers a collection of 250 swiftboat veterans (whose established voting history is all over the entire spectrum) to be nothing more than political prostitues, chosen and assembled by Republicans and paid to lie about John Kerry for no obvious benefit to themselves.
The dichotomy becomes even more clear when you consider that in the wake of 9/11 elected Democrat officials found it easier to praise and support Osama bin Laden's actions than President Bush's, and found it more palatable to trust Saddam al-Hussein than to trust President Bush.
In short, this is a Party that is all about control, and a Party that works in close connection with its more extreme members. Heck, its leading Presidential candidate for most of 2003 insinuated President Bush allowed 9/11 to happen for political gain!*
Jay Nordlinger makes a nice point:
Can you imagine conservatives disrupting a Democratic nominee's acceptance speech? I can't. Am I naïve? Don't think so.
I could highlight a hundred more examples of Democrat officials, elected officials, registered voters and campaign volunteers and staffers saying and doing hateful things. But not easily, since the mainstream news media refuses to report much information on that sort of the thing when it is Democrats. On the other hand, when some people completely unaffiliated with the Republican Party or even any part of the political process in any way decide to drag a black man to death behind their truck, the Democrats immediately assume those people are Republicans and even tie that action to President Bush. Ridiculous!
Are we just better able to control our "fringe" than Democrats? Do we just attract more stable individuals? The GOP rejects David Duke, but the Democrats embrace Cynthia McKinney and Al Sharpton. Some white supremecists do vote Republican (when they aren't voting Libertarian or refusing to vote at all), and to my knowledge they do not vote Democrat...but they are given no role within the Republican Party, no voice at the conventions, no access to the platform, no mechanism with wish to promulgate their views.
Oh, how I wish that were true of the Democrats with Michael Moore and Jesse Jackson.
Even looking at the "entertainment" wings of our parties: Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh announce they are conservative and support the Republican Party. But they rose to prominence on their own efforts and abilities. They are opposed and attacked by such people as Al Franken, Al Gore, James Carville, and others: people directly funded by the Democrat Party or pillars of the Democrat community.
The simple fact is that this is still a free country, and people have the freedom to be idiots and fools up to the point they cross the line of legality. When it comes to our respective "Fringe Elements", the Republicans worst sin seems to be they don't prevent white supremecists and racists from voting for the Republican Party. The Democrats welcome them as spokesmen, staffers, and essential elements of grassroots campaigning.
It is shameful.
Read More "The Democrat Fringe" »Show Comments »
September 02, 2004
I do still maintain that there is nothing wrong with most of the stated goals of the Democrat party. But I think the leadership has absolutely and totally betrayed those principles starting with Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society'. Right idea: trying to make sure everyone has a fair opportunity and try to eliminate poverty. Wrong application: hiring quotas and welfare payments merely set the social problems into concrete. And moving goalposts for the definition of poverty make it impossible to see how good Americans really have it and what progress we've made. Meaning: how can we really say more people are in poverty now than 20 years ago when many of the people currently in 'poverty' have cellphones, cable TV, cars, air conditioning, and internet access? How did the Democrat Party so quickly and easily betray the principle of "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?" Demanding welfare and affirmative action is NOT 'what you can do for you country'...
And in the same manner of "$1 million for defense, not one cent for tribute", I firmly support all sorts of true 'empowerment' programs, like small business loans, education/retraining grants, financial sense classes, free daycare if you work/attend class...but I detest the idea of paying anyone to do nothing all day, PERIOD. Well, unless maybe you are completely bedridden... Even blind and parapalegic individuals can be productive, and should be. They should not be encouraged with federal payments to vegetate and deteriorate. Tax dollars should go toward ensuring an environment conducive toward opening small businesses (so minorities can get rich through their own efforts), rather than wasting it in lawsuits making sure an owner is hiring minorities in the "proper" proportion.
As I've said before, no, the Republican Party is hardly top-notch on that viewpoint. But I can influence the Republican Party, but the Democrat Party is too beholden to its special interests like trial lawyers, NARAL, ACLU, labor unions, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, etc, to listen to me. And if I fail to convince anyone, well, then the Republican Party will, for the most part, stay out of my way and allow me to keep more of my money to be compassionate with as I choose. The Democrats think I'm too dumb/selfish to make decisions how to help with the money I earned by spending precious minutes/hours/days/years of the most healthy and energetic portion of my life.
Show Comments »
Vamping on an idea suggested in today's Impromptus, it seems to me that you can predict the actions of a typical party member based on their party affiliation.
That is, if you were broken down on a back road, a Republican would stop and help, but a Democrat would consider voting for a proposal to raise taxes to provide universal roadside assistance as s/he drove past without stopping.*
Read More "An Analogy" »Show Comments »
August 29, 2004
Because his strategist doesn't seem all that bright.
If you don't feel like reading tripe written by Donna Brazile (and who does?), I'll summarize it for you:
She offers four things Kerry must do well, in addition to avoiding strategic mistakes.
1) Find a message and stick to it
2) Avoid Mistakes
3) Showing humanity in debates is more important than winning the arguments
That's it. Missing at least one...or two if consider that #2 is the exact same thing as the point added to the original four she promised.
And they're pretty darn useless bits of advice, to tell the truth. They don't have much to do with the problems Kerry is having, except incidentally. All she's really doing is offering an explanation of why Al Gore lost when she thought he was obviously the better candidate. She doesn't get it. Kerry doesn't get it. Most of the Democrat Party doesn't get it. They assume their essentially dishonest methods of campaigning are enough to win a majority of the votes. They take it for granted that a majority of the population is ignorant or uneducatd enough to fall for their glittering generalities and pie-in-the-sky promises. And if the mainstream news media were still the gatekeepers of information, they'd probably be correct.
I almost feel sorry for them. They've spent generations making sure that the education system and news media were overwhelmingly staffed by liberals in order to indoctrinate America, and the internet has sent all that effort down the drain.
Then I think of Jimmy Carter and I don't feel sorry for them anymore.
Show Comments »
According to the article linked, ...war itself is in decline, peace researchers report.
In fact, the number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meantime, are growing in number.
So, yeah: Bush's policy of pre-emption and fraudulent coalitions have resulted in less chaos and more peace. Some might say that by serving notice to certain warlike nations and leaders that providing a safe haven for terrorists, exporting terrorism, and even merely slaughtering your own people might result in being invaded and overthrown, Bush has sent a message to all rogue nations across the globe, one that goes in a different direction from the liberals' idea of "We'll Take You to [Internation] Court." And the message he sent is obviously more effective.
But myself, I blame Bush's tax cuts.
Show Comments »
August 27, 2004
Blindspots.
That's the simplest and most fair way I can put it.
I have several Democrat/liberal friends, and I'm sure that they will each think this is about them*, and they will all be partially correct.
Rather than 'blindspots', I could also call it childish petulance, because sometimes that's the way it comes across. But all of them are charming, witty, intelligent, thoughtful, caring people in everything besides politics, so I have to assume something else is at work, and 'blindspots' is the only way I can explain it.
When I'm driving, the thing I hate most is someone sitting in my blindspot. I will always adjust my speed to spend as little time in someone's blindspot as I can. Because when you glance to your left, you see your immediate left, and you also see mostly behind you through your sideview mirror...but there is a 'blindspot' big enough to hide a complete vehicle. If one is there, you can't see it, and so it is as if it doesn't exist at all for you. You can't make decisions based on a vehicle that doesn't exist in your experience...and that's how some horribly tragic accidents develop.
Here are two significant blindspots left unchecked by Democrats I often encounter:
They are upset at how Bush is handling the economy. Most of the time, they cite the economic statistics for their own state lagging behind the national recovery. What they ignore is that the states below the average (including Michigan, California, Washington, Oregon) are among the more liberal of states, with larger-than-average entitlements and tax rates. The states hurt least by the economic downturn and who recovered the most quickly are the conservative, low-tax, low-entitlement states whose state government used the same principles as President Bush. So blaming President Bush for your own liberal state's bad economy is like blaming the aspirin for the hangover. Refusing to vote for Bush because you live in a liberal state with a sagging economy is like trying to stay permanently drunk to avoid said hangover.
The unemployment rate is 5.5%. Experts say this level is pretty much full employment. Bickering about the specific number of jobs lost "during the administration" is silly, since it is based on a number that even the office that produces it says is underestimating the number of people working. Factor in the gainfully employed people not covered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Payroll Survey, and we are already seeing a net gain in jobs. And, in fact, by most major indicators, the economy is doing quite well.
Most experts also say the recent recession was much more shallow than expected, and recovery was quicker than expected. We had the best economic growth in 20 years in 2003! Manufacturing growth is at a 30 year high! The only possible way to criticize President Bush for his handling of the economy is to say that he is merely benefiting from natural economic cycles...but then you can't blame him for an economic downturn that began before he even took office, can you?
But the news media still reports the economic situation as bad, and my Democrat/Liberal friends are negative and critical along with it. Without a single fact to support that view, I might add, except that they are convinced things would be even better with Kerry as President. To which, I repeat: without a single fact to support that view. None of these people are dumb or essentially dishonest, so the only way I can explain it is they simply do not see the situation because their ideological views block out good economic news resulting from President Bush's actions as if they don't exist...
Another "blindspot" is concerning their anger that President Bush did not fulfill his promise to "Be a uniter, not a divider." They ignore that President Bush reached out to Democrat leaders from the very beginning, that he met with one of his most vocal critics in Ted Kennedy and worked civilly with him to produce the Education Bill of their dreams.
Things did get worse after that, yes. As President Bush said himself, "The most disappointing thing about his four years in office has been his inability to change the "harsh environment" in Washington."
But Democrats have used his expressed wish to be a uniter against him, demanding that he bow to their every wish or else be labeled "a divider". The Democrats were dividers in how they criticized every step President Bush took in the wake of 9/11. They demanded he come before Congress to get permission to invade Iraq, so he did. They demanded he go to the UN, so he did. They criticized him for appearing to delay until after the 2002 election for political reasons, and then criticized him even more sharply when he accomodated their wishes and made Iraq an issue earlier, in time for it to be an issue for the election. They used a loophole in the Senate to filibuster the majority of his nominees from a minority status, in flagrant disregard for the lesser obstructions of the Republican party under Clinton.
In every single case, President Bush has extended the hand of cooperation, and the Democrats have not only bitten it, they've blamed him for not preventing the biting.
It is extremely biased, negative, and dishonest to blame President Bush for current atmosphere when Democrats have pioneered harsh, partisan tactics at every stage. Unless it is just a blindspot for their own party's activities. I prefer to think of it so.
Read More "Some Things That Frustrate Me About Democrats/Liberals" »Show Comments »
August 26, 2004
You might want to go to Rasumussen Reports (linked in my sidebar). Today they are showing Bush ahead by a percentage point, and Kerry at his lowest percentage since 4 August. This is only the 2nd time this month he has been this low. I'm thinking he'll slide further as the bandwagon effect kicks in.
Of course, it may not. We are a long way from the election and this is all still in the margin of error.
But I'm thinking that the "Deny Them 1st Amendment Rights" response from the Kerry team to the SBVFT hurt Kerry and it is starting to show now.
Show Comments »
KERRY CHALLENGES BUSH TO WEEKLY DEBATES: In Anoka, MN, John Kerry challenged President Bush to weekly debates on the issues.BUSH CAMP REAX: "There will be a time for debates after the convention, and during the next few weeks, John Kerry should take the time to finish the debates with himself. This election presents a clear choice to the American people between a President who is moving America forward and a Senator who has taken every side of almost every issue and has the most out of the mainstream record in the U.S. Senate," said BC'04 spokesman Steve Schmidt.
From The Note, via Drudge.
The link above does not seem to be permanent, and likely will point to new stories starting on 27 August 2004.
Show Comments »
August 25, 2004
I'm at home eating dinner, and the phone rings at 5:50pm. My wife ignores the phone because we get too many solicitors. For the most part, if it rings, it's someone trying to sell something. They usually leave us alone at dinner, though.
There is the requisite pause of an auto-dialer routine switching to the recording once it found a live line.
Suddenly the warm, dulcet tones of the leading Democrat candidate for Washington state Governer come over the line. She identifies herself, and I hang up.
If it were a person calling me to explain her positions and stances, I might listen. But there is no way I'm going to waste my dinner time listening to a non-interactive robot blather inanities and campaign promises.
Are Democrats really growing that tone deaf? Why would they deliberately use techniques identical to one of the greatest irritants of the 21st century?
She lost any chance to earn my vote.
Read More "Telephone Solicitors of Gore*" »Show Comments »
For those of you who are tired of Swift Boat veteran allegations and Kerry's administration attempting to smear President Bush as being more tied to the SBVFT than Kerry is to MoveOn.org, have patience.
The issues will return to prominence in September, as soon as we have the first debate. Of course, there's always the chance that Kerry won't discuss the issues even then... But at least it will be more clear who* doesn't want to discuss the issues, and maybe even why**...
Personally, I'm really enjoying the discussions of Swift Boat veterans' allegations.
Read More ""Help Is On The Way"" »Show Comments »
Captain's Quarters has the rundown on a recent example of Kerry's foreign policy attitudes.
Kerry should not be President. Heck, John F. Kerry should not be a Senator. Although he votes so rarely, it is arguable whether he actually is a true representative of his constituents.
Show Comments »
August 22, 2004
Both parties like to think they are inclusive. Talk about political parties, and you'll discuss how each party has a moderate wing and an extreme wing. Both parties don't do enough to disavow and marginalize the whackos, perhaps, and Democrats get blamed for PETA and ELF and NARAL as much as Republicans get blamed for Jerry Falwell and white supremacists.
This gets characterized as a "Big Tent"...
Read More "Musings on "The Big Tent"" »Show Comments »
I'm really not sure Karl Rove is earning his paycheck. Then again, I'm just about absolutely certain John Kerry's campaign manager isn't. You can at least make the argument that Karl Rove is waiting until after the Olympics are over and everyone can truly focus on the campaign before he gets things in gear. But Kerry's campaign took the wrong tack from the beginning, and the Democrat Party went right along with it. It will be their undoing.
Here's why I think that way:
Read More "Musings on the Campaign for the Presidency" »Show Comments »
August 18, 2004
Or, for that matter, the Democrat Party who champions him?
Well, here's yet another reason why you shouldn't.
Honestly, there is enough information out there about liberal/Democrat distortions, enough proof about their fundamental dishonesty, that I begin to wonder just how powerful willful ignorance can be.
Excerpt:
Is he going to sue Moore? No he's got a better idea:"If anything, I'd like to see (Moore) throw some money toward a veterans charity,'' Damon said. "He claims to be a champion of soldiers, but I haven't seen him do anything for us.''Unfortunately, its unlikely that Moore will share his windfall from his propaganda film with the unwilling stars of his film.
Damon, showing a wisdom far beyond his years has the final say:
"Just the whole thought of being in this piece of propaganda. It's like a documentary Hitler would have made. You know when you join the military that there's an inherent risk,'' Damon said. "I was doing my job the same as any guy in a foxhole was doing his. I don't blame this on anybody. It was an unfortunate accident.''
How about it, Mr. Moore? You have profited greatly from tragedies like Columbine and 9/11. You have made a fortune on the pain of others. Why can't you let some of the sufferers share in the windfall?
Show Comments »
My friend and part-time bedeviler/ideological sparring partner, Marty, sent me this link to an excellent look back at the campaign in 2000.
Show Comments »
August 16, 2004
protectionist demagoguery — outsourcing, Benedict Arnold CEOs, etc. — rattles foreign governments far more than the war does. If it's a choice between Democratic-party trade barriers or the lunatic Texan overthrowing some tinpot dictatorship once a year, the Europeans will go with the latter.
From the NRO, but it's just an intro to an online article that you need to subscribe to gain access.
Show Comments »
August 13, 2004
Check out this.
And notice that they can't even spell the rank correctly.
I saved a copy of it here.
Oh, and I found it through Dean.
Show Comments »
August 12, 2004
Don't answer that.
But in any case, don't listen to John Kerry, John Edwards, Ron Reagan, or Hillary Rodham (Clinton) when they say there is a ban on stem-cell research, or that President Bush advocated or supported any such ban.
The President's answer was that there ought to be no restrictions on the private sector but that federal subsidies should be limited to lines that had already been harvested and should not be used to encourage the destruction of embryos. In short, it was a reasonable middle ground.
Why do I think the main reason Democrats support stem cell research is because it helps assure support for abortion?
...dont answer that, either.
Show Comments »
The same thing has been noted and described before, maybe even many times.
But it is worth revisiting, if only to read the following excerpt in context:
Crimes committed by bums are covered up by the media, by verbally transforming "the homeless" into "transients" or "drifters" whenever they commit crimes. Thus "the homeless" are the only group you never hear of committing any crimes.
Found via Tac Jammer.
Show Comments »
If you ask me, Kerry's lead has been artificial. As has been pointed out in numerous places, there was almost no bounce from his selection of Edwards as a running mate, there was almost no bounce from the convention, and Bush's numbers really didn't go down in the midst of some really vicious hammering by Democrat-leaning 527 groups and Michael Moore.
Sure, the things that should have pumped up Bush's numbers (like the excellent performance of the economy, the discrediting of Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger, and Richard Clarke, and the ad by the Swift Vote Veterans for Truth) aren't having much impact, either...but I think that is due to the national media downplaying events that might help President Bush or hurt John Kerry and simultaneously highlighting news that hurts Bush or makes him look bad. The information is out there...all it means is that it will probably take more time before the effect shows in opinion polls.
So take a look at this tracking history. For weeks now, Bush has been at either 45 or 46, but 4 days ago he was up to 48% and led over Kerry by 1%. Sure, all within statistical variations...but I still find it hopeful.
...and the Republican convention is still on the way. And the Olympics tends to pump up patriotism and national pride, which is more closely associated with Republicans. And, most importantly, Karl Rove has only just begun to make his presence/advice felt. Like Lance Armstrong and the Tour de France, knowing when to peak is the most important aspect. I see the seeds of Kerry's Disaster in the making. Kerry won't replace McGovern as the mark of futility, but President Bush will win in a landslide.
Show Comments »
August 11, 2004
Well, since it's most likely the truth, considering the Democrat Party's track record on honesty over the last few years, I'd have to vote Inadvertant Error.
Show Comments »
August 10, 2004
...and Kerry's revealed character is quite poor.
I know I wouldn't want someone with Kerry's propensity to lie and distort to be President. And I don't want someone who responds to criticisms with threats of lawsuits to be my Commander-in-Chief.
You support the troops? Vote Bush/Cheney in 2004.
This has been a free advertisement for the Bush/Cheney 2004 re-election campaign. We now return you to your normally scheduled blogcasting.
Show Comments »
August 09, 2004
Show Comments »
I don't usually do these...heck, I don't think I've ever done a blogging round-up before, now that I think of it. I usually link pieces one by one so I can do some value-added commenting or introduction to the linkage.
Well, today's blogging round-up is going to be political. I've run across a few things I must link, and so here they are:
First, Michael Novak explains why Kerry will lose, and why it will drive Democrats even more insane. Then he
sums up and responds to the trends of email reactions to the previous piece, including a point-by-point, backed-up-with-references debunking of untruths Democrats believe about President George W. Bush.
In Zombyboy's absence, Jerry (also known as Stumpjumper) has been doing some excellent writing. He makes a strong case (again, backed up with references) that John Kerry is far less trustworthy than the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth who are attempting to undermine Kerry's candidacy.
Finally, I was a little irritated about the idea of a non-governmental organization coming in to monitor our elections until I read this article by Jay on what the actual details are.
Show Comments »
August 05, 2004
We've got a problem.
Two leaders of a mosque in Albany, NY, are also terrorists plotting to shoot down an aircraft in the United States. Maybe it's not as big of a problem as I assume, since the arrest warrants were executed at the mosque itself...
...but the problem I see here is that in Iraq, terrorists use mosques as places to store weapons. Policies based on political correctness and "cultural sensitivity" dictated that we leave mosques alone, and our opponents quickly took advantage of that. Is there any reason to believe they won't try to exploit our own Constitution against us?
Is there any reason to believe the ACLU and non- liberal news media won't do everything they can to help them get away with it?
Show Comments »
August 04, 2004
This provides an apt explanation of why John Kerry will lose the national election in a landslide.
Show Comments »
» Your Daily Prescott links with: Kerry Digs His Own Hole
So, you see, I've been on vacation. I'm a little behind the power curve, blogging-wise.
Therefore, without further ado:
Show Comments »
July 28, 2004
Well, that's what it takes when the Democrats embrace Michael Moore...
...because, you know, Michael Moore is an independant.
Show Comments »
July 26, 2004
If you don't like any particular thing I've written here today, well, then just remember that Kerry spokesman David Wade said it was an unintentional error by a campaign volunteer and then criticized President Bush’s economic policies.
Show Comments »
Whaddya know...?
The link for both posts is the same because one thing that strikes me about Sean is that he is a whole person. He has interests, passions, ideas, and whole aspects of his life that aren't revolving around being gay. So if you go over there looking for gay posts, you are more likely to find a post about Japanese culture or politics than homosexuality.
As it should be.
Show Comments »
Show Comments »
» Nykola.com links with: The Demise of Andrew Sullivan is Moving Far Too Slow
Well, now...I think I have a good sense of honor in the first place. I would hesitate to make any sort of pledge, however, because I anticipate that were John Kerry to be elected President, Democrats will instantly jump on any criticism by a conservative as a violation of that pledge, and proof that their unconscionable treatment of President Bush was justified.
I will do what I feel is the correct action at the time, and you'll just have to trust me.
Part of the problem with the whole situation is that all the anger and yelling and vitriol is not a fight over/for the Presidency, it is a war being waged to win access/control of the tools of national discourse. It wasn't Clinton that created the GOP anger, it was that the mainstream news media refused to follow scandals with the same persistence they pursued when a Republican was President. It really isn't George W. Bush that has created the Democrat anger, it is that they must convince America that the mainstream media was right about President Bush all along. The more success that Fox News Channel and bloggers have in reaching and affecting the mind of the average citizen, the more shrill Democrats get, because they must destroy the credibility of Fox News Channel and right-wing bloggers as the first step to regaining power in all three branches of the federal government. Sure, they bash Bush, but only to prove that Fox News and warbloggers were so easily duped by such a charlatan as W, so we can all go back to trusting the NY Times and CNN. It ain't gonna work, because you can't stuff the genie back in the bottle...but they have no other choice. This is all they can do.
People grow the most crazy when they feel they have lost the ability to be heard, rather than just not being in power.
So I have to conclude that since conservatives have mroe voice and influence these days than just the AM talk radio we had during the Clinton days, things will automatically calm down if Kerry were to take office.
Show Comments »
July 23, 2004
From the latest flash from Drudge:
According to CNN, some of President Bush's missing records from his time in the Air National Guard were found today. The payroll records that were discovered were initially reported destroyed. In response, Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued the following statement:"The supposed discovery of these records on Friday afternoon, as reporters converge on Boston to cover the Democratic National Convention, is highly questionable. If the Bush Administration continues to search, maybe they'll find answers to the long list of unanswered questions that remain about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard. Bush's military records seem to show up as randomly as he did for duty."
Honestly, can they do anything except question the timing? This is getting to be a freaking joke! Honestly, the DNC is getting so bad and so predictable that satire can't even compete. And our non- liberal media is aiding and abetting this crap.
Mark this down, kiddies: "The timing is questionable" now has all the appropriateness, maturity, and impact of "I know you are, but what am I?", "Oh, yeah?", or "I'm made of rubber, you're made of glue..."
Show Comments »
Q and O catches John Kerry in a whopper.
Please note, the way in which John Kerry answered is clearly misleading. See for yourself:
BW: So you believe that just by rolling back tax cuts for top-end taxpayers, you can fund a health plan and deficit reduction? Kerry: Yes -- absolutely. Let me be very clear: I like low marginal rates. I fought to get low marginal rates. I voted for going down to the 28% and 14% brackets [in 1986]. I am not going to raise marginal rates -- ever -- above the rates we had under Bill Clinton.
He really wants you to think he likes low marginal rates, but he's saying he has no problem raising the highest marginal rate 6.5 percentage points, and the lowest 5 full percentage points...all while trying to make you think he will never, ever actually raise them.
Does this guy really think we're that stupid? Or does he just think he can get enough gullible people to vote for him...?
Show Comments »
July 22, 2004
Edwards Suggests World Leaders Want Bush To Lose Thu Jul 22 2004 10:51:24 ETSen. John Edwards said on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE last night:
"Just a few weeks ago...I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president. ...
"They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them. They believe that in this case our trans-Atlantic relationships are important, should be important to America, are important to them. They want to be treated with some level of respect."They understand, because I made it very clear, at the end of the day, the president of the United States is going to do what's in the best interest of the American people. But the vast majority of the time, our interests are aligned with the interests of our allies around the world."
This is dangerous on many different levels.
First, it leaves Kerry-Edwards wide open to the snarky point that the "foreign leaders" are Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il...
Second, because by law, foreign influence on American elections is illegal.
Third, because it assumes that large numbers of people even care what foreign leaders think. This is the most interesting aspect, to me. Most Americans have a great deal of pride in the United States, in what the United States stands for, in the ways that the United States is different than Europe. I think the reasons Democrats are losing traction with Americans as a whole is because we don't want to be just like Europe. This is, in part, why it is often so easy to sting Democrats with charges of lack of patriotism: if they really love France or Germany or Belgium or Switzerland so much that they want to alter the United States to match, well, then do they really love America? Maybe, but it's much harder to prove. Some people have compared "patriotism" to "loving your spouse". If you spend all your time talking about how much better looking, smarter, more funny, richer another person is, your spouse isn't really going to be easily convinced that you really place much value on your marriage or continued relationship.
Any one of these aspects could end up blowing up in Kerry-Edwards faces.
UPDATE:
Another thought struck me over lunch. Most nations tend to look out for their own self-interests first. To that extent, sometimes you can tell you are doing the right thing by the number of other nations' leaders you piss off. It is quite possible highly possible that a number of foreign leaders want Kerry elected President of the United States because they know they will have a better chance of getting the United States to weaken itself or otherwise stay out of the way while they enrich their own country at the expense of the citizens of others.
Think about it.
Show Comments »
July 21, 2004
Wilson, that is.
QandO does a great (and fair!) fisking of Wilson.
Well worth your time.
Show Comments »
At least, if you are a Republican...
The bad news is that the increasing optimism about the economy, the handling of the Global War on Terrorism, the increasing support for GOP in Congress, and the small lead for Bush in popularity all do not yet translate into an electoral college lead for President Bush. Yet.
Afghanistan will have elections nearly a month before the US elections. We still have more than three months for stability to improve in Iraq. We've found more than 30 artillery shells with various forms of WMD. The Olympics will increase feelings of national pride, patriotism, and optimism...which still works to the advantage of Republicans. Joe Wilson has been shown to be a liar, and President Bush has been shown to be telling the truth*. The GOP convention is later in the year than the Democrat. And people are growing wise to the bias in the news media, so the last-minute "discovery" of some trumped-up issue should have less impact than before.
I still think it's gonna be a landslide for President Bush, and that he'll have fairly long coattails. I'm praying they'll be long enough to help us unseat Sen. Patty Murray here in Washington.
Read More "Some Decently-Good News Over At Rasmussen Reports" »Show Comments »
In the spirit of Chuck's apologies (which were, in turn, inspired by Sandy Berger's "explanation" of how he accidentally removed classified documents and just happened to destroy some of them), I offer my excuse apology:
I really didn't intend to make any of those puns. They were complete accidents. The fact that I put them all in the category of "Puns" was competely inadvertant, and were not intended to help the Bush Administration's campaign for re-election in any way, shape, or form. I will be stepping down as the Unofficial Punster of the Bush Administration as soon as the investigation into my purely unintentional puns reaches the mainstream news media and it no longer seems politically expedient for me to remain in this Unofficial Capacity.
Hat Tip to Jay Solo.
Show Comments »
July 20, 2004
Show Comments »
The Commissar demonstrates the proper way to rewrite unfortunate history.
Show Comments »
Sandy Berger claims it was 'inadvertant'.
Same administration, different day.
Show Comments »
» Backcountry Conservative links with: Sandy Berger Pilfered Classified Docs?
Nicely said by Q and O.
Excerpt:
...the a priori assumption that, in a free market where all transactions are voluntary, no actor will engage in a transaction that is not to his benefit. Therefore, every exchange will increase the overall wealth and well-being of a society.Now, that's a reasonable assumption, except for two things:
1: imperfect information.
2: externalities.These two factors can result in exchanges that reduce the wealth/well-being of a society, even though it was no part of the original intent of the transaction.
Imperfect information can result in transactions that don't benefit one or both sides of the transaction. (ex: I give you $5000 for a used car, thinking it's worth it to me....but, as it turns out, the car is a lemon. With better information about the state of the car, I could have made a better choice)
Externalities (def: "...costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affect somebody other than the people engaged in the economic activity and are not reflected fully in prices.") are perfectly illustrated by pollutants. The pollution given off by a factory is not a factor in the cost of making a product, and--though it has a cost--has no direct reflection in the price of the produced item. In other words, it assigns a cost to people not involved in the transaction.
Even though I've already quoted the bulk of the article, you might as well go read the whole thing. The impact is better that way.
Show Comments »
I wanted to fisk the DNC's 2004 platform, but at points it actually fisks itself!
For instance:
Time and again, this Administration confuses leadership with going it alone and engagement with compromise of principle. They do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you.
But:
But the Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership...
Because he was standing by his principles and rallying others to join us. We did get all of NATO to help in Afghanistan. We did get Great Britain, Australia, Poland, the Netherlands, Turkey, Singapore, Mongolia, Spain, the Philippines (the last two unfortunately reneged on their support), among many others, to join us in Iraq. Just not France. See, that's the same leadership this document just said President Bush lacks: not waiting to get a green light from France and China, but acting when necessary and expecting others to join in, as they did.
And:
With John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake, but we must enlist those whose support we need for ultimate victory.
Ah. President Bush already did this. But they can't admit it, or else they lose an opportunity to criticize the President. They recognize this method is the right way, but they can't support a sitting President for doing exactly what they advocate. This does not say good things about their integrity or willingness to place the good of the nation ahead of their own political advantage.
For instance:
It requires the ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective military action when the capture or destruction of terrorist groups and their leaders is possible;
But since President Bush actually did that, they also have to say:
This Administration disdained the United Nations weapons inspection process and rushed to war without exhausting diplomatic alternatives.
But that was the direction of immediate, effective military action to capture the leader of a terrorist group: Saddam al-Hussein al-Tikriti himself.
For instance:
This war isn't just a manhunt. We cannot rest until Osama bin Laden is captured or killed, but that day will mark only a victory in the war on terror, not its end.
But:
After allowing bin Laden to escape from our grasp at Tora Bora, he diverted crucial resources from the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Hmm...seems like a lot of emphasis on one man. And al Qaeda currently lacks any significant presence in Afghanistan...
With such a target-rich environement, there are still a few other things I can fisk...
That is the America we will build together – one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.Wait, isn't that exclusionary? Isn't that phrase representative of a fundamental Christian theocracy just as bad as the Taliban in attempting to impose its views on this fine nation that has always been atheistic and secular? What happened to the separation between church and state in the Democrat Party? Hmmm...my guess is it didn't play well in polls with "under God" removed.
And we must break down the old communications barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement, taking care to fully preserve our liberties.
Said commication barriers being put in place by the last Democrat administration...
We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system.
But not unilaterally shut out, surely? After all, unilateralism is wrong...
As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence.First, that statement is truly a non-sequitor: the only way we could get more international in Iraq is to call in the UN, just as this platform calls for in various places. But the UN has a horrible track record of creating stable and secure environments. What success did they have in Rwanda? The Danes, wearing UN berets, stood by and watched ethnic cleansing happening in Kosovo. What has the UN done about Sudan? How can the UN do anything in Iraq when they pulled out after the first car-bombing of their offices? Especially since the car-bombing only occurred because they refused to allow the US military to stand guard...
Second, In what way is the military force in Iraq US-only? In fact, the only place you can find a US-only presence is in the United States. Surely, the DNC isn't advocating accepting UN troops on US soil?
Our helicopter pilots have flown battlefield missions without the best antimissile systems. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Too many of our nation's finest troops have died in attacks, because tens of thousands were deployed to Iraq without the best bulletproof vests, and there is a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground. In a Democratic Administration, that will change. Thousands of National Guardsmen and reservists have been forced to leave their families and jobs for more than a year – with no end in ight – because this Administration ignored the pressing need for a true coalition. In a Democratic Administration, that will change.
Actually, our helicopters did not have the best antimissile systems because the last Democrat Administration didn't fund the development. Thousands of troops didn't have the bulletproof vests and there was a shortage of armored vehicles on the ground because the last Democrat Administration gutted the military and cut military spending, forcing the military to choose between training, equipment, and decent housing. Before President Bush took office, the military was funding needs on a priority system: whatever was about to become unusable from wear was replaced/fixed/funded. But we were falling behind, and many Army troops lived in condemned housing because President Clinton wouldn't authorize the funds to allow the military to take care of its people and meet the increased requirements he gave us. President Bush has done much to correct that, but we still need more...having an active war in progress makes it difficult to get all the funding necessary to get caught up after 8 full years of neglect under President Clinton. I am fully stunned that the DNC can even bring this up, since Senator Kerry voted against many of the military modernization programs like the F-15 and F-16, and since he also voted against the $87 billion to fund military actions, including getting modern bulletproof vests to all the soldiers. What evidence do they offer that Kerry might actually change his ways and be willing to expend political capital to fund the military and follow through on this? Right now, I'm seeing "zero".
I could go on, but I won't. I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than this, but I did. I expected to see a step-by-step plan of how the Democrats would do things better. Instead, what I saw was all variations on the theme:
1) President Bush didn't do what President Bush actually did.
2) But we'll do it. And we'll do it better.
3) A miracle happens.
4) As a result of the unspecified miracle, the United States is univerally loved and respected in France, al Qaeda surrenders, all wealth is redistributed equally (although rich Democrats can keep their money), and no one ever votes Republican again.
Nice plan, yanno?
Show Comments »
Heck, who hasn't?
If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.
Show Comments »
» Accidental Verbosity links with: That damned stupid evil genius...
July 19, 2004
Via QandO.
Show Comments »
Not that the president’s opponents in the education establishment and the Democratic Party are likely to give him any credit for these accomplishments. With all of today’s harsh criticism of NCLB, it’s easy to forget that it passed Congress by overwhelming bipartisan majorities (87 to 10 in the Senate; 381 to 41 in the House) and that Ted Kennedy stood beaming with the president at the bill-signing ceremony (above). That era of good feelings lasted only a few months—about as long as it took for the public education industry to realize just how serious Bush was about no longer rewarding failure.
The whole thing should be required reading for anyone who criticizes the No Child Left Behind initiative.
Via Donald Luskin.
Show Comments »
July 16, 2004
"America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal," she said in a statement.
No. Dead wrong. There is nothing in the US Constitution that protects you from the social, political, and economic consequences of acting or speaking irresponsibly.
When will these childish, immature people understand: You can say what you want, but you need to think about who might hear it and what they might think. America's true heart and soul is that, as a society, we try to ensure that all actions and statements are rewarded or punished appropriately.
We ensure that Whoopi won't be fed feet-first into a plastic shredder for insulting President Bush for making sure people like her are no longer fed feet-first into a plastic shredder in Iraq.*
Read More "Whoopi's Misunderstanding" »Show Comments »
» The Owner's Manual links with: Whoopi - not clear on the concept
Remember when I made this pledge/request?
Well, this is why that post was necessary. Please don't forget this, folks. If liberals who claim to "support the troops" can't successfully co-opt you into their political cause when you're alive, they'll manipulate your image and memory when you're dead and unable to speak for yourself.
Show Comments »
Michelle Malkin has the whole article.*
I'd like to call your attention to the lead paragraph, if I may:
The class action lawsuit was originally filed in United States District Court in March of 2000 under the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and is the first of its kind in the U.S. where legal workers have sued agricultural employers about intentional wage depression through the use of illegal labor.
I had just finished this paragraph when it hit me: Illegal immigrants don't pay taxes, and very often, the money they earn is sent home to support family members left behind. Thus, illegal immigrant labor is Outsourcing! The money leaves the United States and can't be taxed and redistributed!** I can't believe Democrats aren't up in arms about this and doing all they can to stop it.
Read More "Decent News for Legal Immigrants, For Once" »Show Comments »
July 15, 2004
Fresh off of identifying and calling out the Puppet Masters, she clearly explains why the liberal Democrat attitude toward minorites in general and blacks in specific is so condescending and racist and disgusting.
Sure, she doesn't say anything I haven't tried to say before. That she can sound so much better and succinct and reasonable doing so is a testimony to her writing talent. If I ever ending up writing Op-Ed for a living, it will be partly due to my success in emulating elements of her ability.
Without further ado, here's the link.
And with only a little further ado, here's the excerpt I like so much (although it's so dang good, I could just quote the whole dang thing). Oh, and: ado, ado, ado, ado:
So when some black people find out that Republicans don’t want to “do anything” for them except to encourage them to take part in the American dream of prosperity, stemming from work and ingenuity, they’re like, “WTF? Where’s my money?”
Genius. Sheer genius.
Show Comments »
Second, if the puppeteer is a skilled one, an actual puppet doesn’t know when he/she is having those strings pulled. One Lyndon B. Johnson was a master string-puller (pun intended). Anticipating that his “Great Society” programs would be widely popular within the black American population, he opined that he would “have them ni**ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years.” The next 170 years remain to be seen, but he was correct at least for the subsequent 30 or so years past his prediction, so correct that many black people managed to forget that the Democrats had been the party of Jim Crow for Jim's entire lifetime. President Johnson gave black people (and others) money and sustenance for their transgressions, where all Republicans wanted to do was to stop standing in the way of black progress.
From this post.
Read More "This is Why Juliette Rocks*" »Show Comments »
It is, of course, your right. I won't blame you for it, if you think your needs and goals are not being met by President Bush.
However, I left this comment on this thread:
The only problem is, when you cast your vote, they don't give you a space to explain "why". Kerry could just as easily assume that by not re-electing President Bush, we want him to roll back the tax cuts, pull out of Iraq, pass an amendment requiring the legalization of gay marriage, and extend the assault weapons ban.Too dangerous.
Show Comments »
Bill Clinton (news - web sites) has warned Senator John Kerry (news - web sites), the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, to counter Republican efforts to turn this year's election into a debate on gay marriage and other "cultural issues" such as gun control and abortion.
The most skilled and facile political weathervane the Democrat party has had in decades advises Kerry to avoid campaigning on 3 of the top 5 Democrat platform planks, because those issues are losing issues for the Democrat Party.
They are all but acknowledging that the majority of citizens don't support them, but are still willing and eager to misrepresent their position in order to gain power to impose their vision on the majority.*
...and the non- biased news media has exactly zero editorial criticism of this. Fascinating.
Show Comments »
Muslim religious overlords have that medieval sense of culture going for them. Were they to burn homosexuals at the stake as they threaten, it would only be an expression of their tradition and ideology and nothing like Bible riled Republicans trying to keep marriage a man-woman thing in our country.
From the comments left here.
Show Comments »
July 14, 2004
The more this sort of thing goes on, the more I think: John Kerry has a viable candidacy only because the un-biased news media wants him to. I never imagined somone so unprepared and incompetent could reach this stage of national politics...
Show Comments »
John Kerry's wife apparently doesn't want a full accounting of her wealth made known for either tax or publicity purposes, or both.
Show Comments »
The SSM Ban Amendment didn't pass in the Senate.
The disappointing part was that it seems to be because Bill Frist failed to make Democrats stand up and be honest about their political commitment to or against this issue. In short, he failed to let the issue become a significant point upon which to discuss the futures of various legislators up for election this year.
But that's not surprising, either, as he was protecting moderate Republicans as much as liberal Democrats.
I'm still not convinced an amendment to the Constitution banning SSM is the best way to prevent judicial activism, anyway, but if it is, then I guess I gotta say it's best to push it through in an administration that has a recent mandate from the people to pursue a more conservative agenda. And if the GOP loses the election, it's not the proper time for an amendment anyway.
I'm not upset about this at all. The time hasn't come yet for this, if ever. Society might need to decline further before enough people recognize it enough to make some constructive changes back toward morality and maturity.
Show Comments »
You know? I think I'm going to have to end up running for a State Legislature position as soon as I get out of the military...
Show Comments »
July 12, 2004
Despite saying they pulled the ad months ago. Is the Left trustworthy on anything?
Bush Haters worldwide are still watching the famed 'Bush is Nazi' add on MOVEON.ORG -- despite repeated claims by the site's founders the short had been removed more than six months ago!As of Monday morning [11 am Eastern] -- the ad was still carried on MOVEON's website -- under the curious file name "renamed.again.renamed.mov.FKbxnT3hzaHCcOR7vWvRYmZpbGUtMTM4OQ--.mpg"
DRUDGE presents a direct current MOVEON link to the ad:
http://www.moveon.org/images/renamed.again.renamed.mov.FKbxnT3hzaHCcOR7vWvRYmZpbGUtMTM4OQ--.mpg
I linked the whole article because I saw it in the Drudge headlines...and those don't stay available, I don't think. But the link is here, just in case.
Show Comments »
July 11, 2004
As accurate and insightful as this article is, it actually has me reconsidering my vote this November.
Show Comments »
July 09, 2004
I find this essentially correct:
The opposition Edwards tries to make between work and wealth doesn't make sense. Why do people work? For wealth. Rewarding wealth means rewarding the fruits of work. For instance, two-thirds of the beneficiaries of Bush's cut in the top marginal tax rate own some form of small business. In America, you work, make a business succeed, then get wealthy (and become the target of demagogic politicians — the American dream!).
Show Comments »
July 08, 2004
Some of the damaging behaviors that Libarls/Left continually encourage/embrace, despite constant unfortunate results:
1) Sexual Immorality, including both homosexuality and non-marital heterosexual activity
2) Substance Abuse
3) Socialism, including national health care and progressive tax schedules
4) Solving social problems at the highest level, i.e., Big Government solutions to every conceivable problem
5) Economic protectionism
6) "soft" racism, including quotas/affirmative action, the "need" for government programs targeting inner cities, and castigation of minority Republicans
7) Idolization of Europe
8) Subservience to the United Nations
9) Resisting attempts to curb illegal immigration
10) Tendency to use judicial activism to achieve goals
11) Disarming the populace
Embracing Liberal/Left policies inevitably bring a society to ruin. You reap what you sow...
Show Comments »
While I'm on the subject of the table of contents of National Journal (didn't know it could be so fruitful, did you?): A nugget describing Jonathan Rauch's column says, "John F. Kerry should take a page from John F. Kennedy's 1960 playbook and run as a hard-liner on national security issues."And this brings up probably my biggest pet peeve of all time, political-campaign division: No he shouldn't. No, Kerry shouldn't. He should campaign on whatever it is he believes. No pretending. He should say what he thinks, how he would govern, and let the electoral chips fall where they may.
This is what I can't stand about Democratic candidates, chiefly. They won't run Honest Injun; they get all artful and calculating and masking. They spend months trying to fool the booboisie, so as to get in and then be themselves.
You won't have this problem with George W. Bush. He can't be other than himself. He couldn't be obscure if he tried. Sure, he's a politician, and not without some political artfulness — but, pretty much, what you see is what you get. No surprises. Take 'im or leave 'im.
Advice like Jonathan Rauch's makes me sick to my stomach, and sours me on the American political system. John Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal who hated Reagan, hated the hawks, and who said — you know this is my favorite quote — that the Grenada invasion "represented a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation."
Let Reagan be Reagan, Let Poland be Poland, Let Kerry be Kerry, Let Rauch be Rauch . . .
My prayer, for this political year, is what it always is: that the candidates will just run honestly, and allow the voters to decide. That's what I would do. I swear. (Not that I'm gettin' elected to anything, believe me.)
If Democrats don't have enough confidence their policies, platforms, and views will garner sufficient support from the populace, then the worst thing in the world would be to let them have power. That's exactly what I hated about Al Gore: he "reinvented" himself, and the non- liberal media never said anything negative about it at all. They enabled it, they abetted it, they encouraged it, they gushed over it. And Democrats, in their hatred of allowing people the freedom to choose for themselves how to spend the money they earn and experience the consequences of their own decisions, will back such fundamentally dishonest politicians if it means wresting power away from Republicans.
Look around the United States right now. Republican policies work. The only things from President Clinton's administration that worked were what he appropriated from the Republican playbook.
It disgusts and disheartens me that approximately 50% of the people in this nation could be so petty, short-sighted, and generally clueless of the way the world works. Sure, it would be great if visualizing world peace could bring it about, if welfare could eliminate poverty instead of sustaining it. But that's not reality, and it's not the way to vote. The supreme irony, to me, is that Democrats in Democrat states are blaming President Bush because their own Democrat policies have resulted in slower recovery than the Republican states with Republican policies. Democrats, as a group, seem to embody that classic definition of insanity: keep doing the same harmful action expecting beneficial results.
Read More "Exactly What Is Wrong With Democrats" »Show Comments »
July 07, 2004
Edwards started off by saying something like, "My [extremely young] son just asked me, 'Why are their so many American flags around?'" This is the extremely contrived introduction into Edwards claim that he will help restore American values, and John Edwards provided his own answer.
But my reaction was: Out of the Mouths of Babes, because this kid already understands the cognitive dissonance of American flags at a Democrat function.
See, read it again: the kid was questioning the presence of American flags...I have to assume that he wouldn't have felt the same level of confusion or perplexity had they been Che posters or USSR flags...
Bonus Democrat Flip-Flop O' the Day:
In this transcript, the following exchange occurs:
WALLACE: Senator, you have made a point in this campaign of not criticizing your opponents. In fact, you resisted a couple of my efforts today. Some people say that that's a pretty good way to run for vice president.Read More "More From the Kerry/Edwards Speech" »Do you have any interest in being the vice presidental nominee? And specifically, would you accept it if offered?
EDWARDS: I'm absolutely not interested in being vice president. No, the answer to that question is no.
Show Comments »
I was flipping through the channels and happened on CSPAN's (re?) broadcast of Kerry announcing Edwards as his running mate.
Both men said something to the effect of, "If elected, we will restore the true American values," but neither of them said what those values are. Now, "restore" indicates that, as a nation, we are not currently embodying American values. That is truly fascinating, because I thought America did stand for justice and freedom and freedom of opportunity, and that's exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and with substantial tax cuts that have given us the hottest economy in 20 years.
In fact, looking at the record of John Kerry and the Democrats as a whole, I guess what they mean is "true American values" include:
1) Being paid to do a job, but avoiding all the major responsibilities of that job. Further, spending "company" hours pursuing a better-paying, more prestigious job but refusing to resign until you know how it turns out.
2) Coddling dictators like Fidel Castro, et al (the list is far too long...suffice to say if a guy is Communist and a ruthless Dictator, Democrats love him)
3) Negotiating with terrorists and madmen like Kim Jong-il and Yassir Arafat without actually doing anything to ensure they keep up their end of the bargain
4) Eroding/ignoring/infringing a specific and clearly worded Constitutional right to bear arms but resisting any attempt to restrict/regulate rights never mentioned in the Constitution, but only tangentially derived from ambiguous clauses.
5) Campaigning for the increasing secularization of America, continually increasing the restrictions on religious displays or expressions...but expanding and guaranteeing the expression and display of vulgarity, profanity, and obscenity.
6) Soliciting and accepting campaign contributions from agents of Communist nations.
7) Raising taxes on the middle class and upper class while simultaneously creating loopholes for the upper class to exploit to avoid paying taxes.
8) Ignoring and/or deliberately sidestepping established procedural norms in direct violation of clearly-worded instructions in the US Constitution in order to prevent a justly-elected majority from carrying out their duty.
I'll add more later, but for a start, those are some interesting values the Democrats adhere to, eh? I can provide specific examples for each of those, if you like.
If any of my liberal/Democrat readers want to provide some serious suggestions of what those values Kerry and Edwards were talking about are, I'd like to hear them. I think they are being deliberately vague because they know there's nothing they can point to that President Bush doesn't already embody, and what President Bush doesn't embody, people don't like, i.e., racism inherent to "affirmative action", welfare-state entitlements, higher taxes, class warfare, socialized medicine. These things simply don't play well to a public that didn't endure the Great Depression, and that's why the Democrat Party is growing increasingly marginalized, owing its existence only to a few "single issue" planks like abortion and SSM.
I won't deride any of the suggestions of what values Kerry wants to bring back brought up by any Democrats, but be prepared to support them. Meaning, "American values means acting multilaterally" or "American values respect the sovereignty of foreign nations" will pretty much get you an automatic failing grade...unless you can argue it well. But bring your "A" game, because I won't hesitate to pick at any flaws I perceive.
Show Comments »
Particularly: F9/11 is a 2-hour campaign ad masquerading as a documentary. I find that essentially dishonest at the most base level.
Show Comments »
July 06, 2004
Two of the greatest tragedies in modern United States history are 9/11 and the shootings at Columbine High School.
Michael Moore has made millions of dollars off of these events.
Has he given a single dime to the families of the wounded and killed at Columbine? Has he contributed a portion of the profits to the families of slain soldiers...or did he just use their name and image to enrich himself at their expense?
Luckily, he's not a Democrat. I mean, he's registered as one, but that doesn't mean anything.
He hired Prominent Republican Chris Lehane to defend criticism of his latest mockumentary. Hmmm...let's see...what campaign did Mr. Lehane recently run...?
He was feted by RNC Chairman Mark Racicot Terry McAuliffe and Senate Majority Minority Leader Bill Frist Tom Daschle, Rep-TX Dem-SD and many other prominent Republicans leading Democrats when the film opened in Washington DC.
But he is, in no way, connected or associated with Democrats or the Democrat Party at all. Because, of course, these are not the droids you are looking for.
Mr. Moore is scum, making money hand over fist manipulating emotions arising from tragedy, and crafting lies designed to play to the prejudices and conspiracy theories of the ideology he himself favors...and in supreme irony, the ideology that supposedly doesn't approve of personal wealth.
Show Comments »
June 28, 2004
Kim du Toit is a polarizing figure. The things he says receive outrage, admiration, outright dismissal, disparagement, applause...depending on your personal political and social view. He's been around the block enough to have a good idea of what he has found to be true, and won't soften his words if he thinks your opinion lacks validity. It's not that he's close-minded, I think, as much as he's already thought things through and seen how things work clearly enough that it would be extremely difficult to get him to budge in his opinions.
I will probably be exactly the same in another 10 years.
In any case, he's got a nice summary of the problems with the ideological left over at his site today. The comments are good, as well, so don't forget to click on those, too.
Excerpts:
...what the Left seems to fail to grasp is the fact that most Left philosophy seems to start off with a premise that sounds like: "Oh, wow! Wouldn't it be cool if...", quite oblivious to the fact that all they have to do is study history to find out that a.) that "cool thing" has been tried before and b.) it failed, with horrible consequences.
Dead on. And unstated, but I think should be understood, is that I agree that it would be cool if [insert ideological left goal] came about. Obviously, it would be cool if no one ever had to worry about going hungry, or suffer discrimination, or die from not being able to afford health care, or have to kill to defend themselves or their freedom...but as Kim pointed out, we've already tried the things they propose, and they didn't work before because of the essential selfishness/short-sightedness of the vast majority of humans.
Sure, If you got the right people, socialism could work. Heck, find the right like-minded people, and even libertarianism could work, or anarchy, or bigamy. Unfortunately, the right people really don't exist, because things always fall apart on misunderstandings of intent or disagreements on how to proceed. A system that depends on people making the right decisions is only as good as the people making the decisions, and that's a poor system indeed.
I've said it before, and I'll repeat now for emphasis: the beauty of the United States Constitution is it took into account that most people act in self-interest, and the framers made sure that the pursuit of self-interest was channeled into and aligned with the common good.
A bonus excerpt:
In the absense of fact, all that's left [sic] are slogans -- government by bumper-sticker -- and reliance on "expert" opinion (again, not fact) to buttress their philosophy.
...which sort of explains Michael Moore and Paul Krugman, no?
Show Comments »
June 27, 2004
June 26, 2004
...and far too long and detailed to be a "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", or any conspiracy at all. I've heard the "where there's smoke, there's fire" applied to troops accused of sexual harassment in Kuwait, that six unproved accusations mean something by their mere frequency/repetition. If so, what does this say about our former President? Remember, most of these accusations were made before he was ever elected. Since the supposedly unbiased news media sat on the Juanita Broderick accusation and were incredibly credulous regarding President Clinton's off-hand dismissals of other accusations, including Kathleen Willey, what does this say about our news media? Since Attorney General Janet Reno actively used her powers to quash some of the attempts to bring justice to some of these accusations, what does this say about AG Reno's willingness to abuse her position for power? And he asked America to pay his legal bills that arose from his own willful actions, despite making millions of dollars since leaving office. What does this say about his greed?
The chapter on President Clinton's administration has not been finalized, not by a longshot. Unfortunately, I fear his reputation is going to drop a lot further, until it reaches equilibrium, and probably somewhat above the level he actually deserves.
Show Comments »
June 25, 2004
The inspiration that guided our forefathers led them to secure above all things the unity of our country. We rest upon government by consent of the governed and the political order of the United States is the expression of a patriotic ideal which welds together all the elements of our national energy promoting the organization that fosters individual initiative. Within this edifice are established agencies that have been created to buttress the life of the people, to clarify their problems and coordinate their resources, seeking to lighten burdens without lessening the responsibility of the citizen. In serving one and all, they are dedicated to the purpose of the founders and other highest hopes of the future with their loyal administration given to the integrity and welfare of the Nation.
-- engraved over the entrance to the Department of Commerce building in Washington D.C.
Why have we strayed so far from this ideal, and what can you do to help the nation return to it?
Send the above to your Congresscritter.
Suggestion courtesty of the du Toit's.
Show Comments »
I wanted to post something talking about how everyone is looking at Al Gore freaking out and saying, "Wow. I'm (doubly) glad he didn't win the election! Can you imagine this wacko as President?"
I wanted to say that don't think he would have been this wacky. I would have pointed out that he is clearly more leftward than President Clinton, but I think being the President would have made a difference. His apparent insanity is his best attempt to retain some sort of presence on the National Stage. He's no longer a Senator, his political career is pretty much over, but he's not ready to ride off into the sunset. It would be nice if he'd do a rightward shift now, but without an election on the line, I guess he just doesn't have the heart for that sort of deception...
But anyway, I'm still a little too depressed/down/tired to write such a post... Just pretend I did write it, okay?
Show Comments »
June 23, 2004
I've mentioned him before as an influential liberal and been told he's nothing more than an entertainer and cannot be considered a Democrat mouthpiece.
Let's lay that fiction to rest, once and for all. He obviously has closer connections to the Democrat Party than Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter have to Republicans.
Excerpt:
...Michael Moore previewed his Bush-bashing documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," before a mostly Democratic audience in the nation's capital Wednesday night.Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he thought [Fahrenheit 9/11] would play an important role in this election year.
Show Comments »
June 20, 2004
"It is memorable television which will give the public a different insight into the President's character. It will leave them wondering whether he is as contrite as he says he is about past events. Dimbleby manages to remain calm and order is eventually restored."
Well, no wondering here...but the whole article, if it doesn't require a subscription (I got there through Matt Drudge).
Show Comments »
June 19, 2004
Perhaps it is just because I don't receive faxes from the DNC, but while this article says people are lined up to be Kerry's Veep, it seems to me like no one is really eager for the slot. The only leading Democrat figures I've seen make the national news are Al Gore and Howard Dean. The rest all seem to be keeping a low profile, at least from my perspective. Maybe they're hoping if they stay rather quiet, Kerry won't pick them? Because despite current opinion polls and smug liberal Op-Eds about President Bush being on the ropes, I think 2004 will be the Kiss of Death of future political hopes for whichever Democrats run. Kerry may linger as an incumbent Senator for a few more decades like Tip did and Teddy has, but he is following directly in Bob Dole's footsteps.
How can I be so sure? Watch Hillary Clinton. She wants to run for President. But more than that, I think she wants a legacy. Being the first female Vice President would do it. Then she could shoot for more to burnish the star further. She's rehabilitated her image somewhat, a Veep position could probably finish it off. If Kerry could win as not-Bush this year, his lack of integrity could probably make for a weak term, leaving him ripe for a takeover from within the party. A sitting President doesn't automatically get the nomination, and being Veep would get Hillary in the news much more. If she thought Kerry was close to winning, I think she'd be taking her shot at getting there through the Vice Presidency. But she's not taking a step in that direction, not even trying. Conclusion? She thinks Kerry's gonna lose.
...and maybe she'll take steps to bring that about. Some people think she's scheming to get a shot at running in 2008, anticipating Kerry will lose and she'll get a free shot at someone like Jeb Bush running without the incumbent advantage. It's possible. But aside from some actions earlier (like possibly encouraging Gen. Clark to run to help derail Howard Dean's candidacy), she's been quiet lately. Conclusion? She thinks Kerry's gonna lose without her help.
I'm just musing aloud. But if Hillary Clinton is really looking for a legacy, she's got to do more than merely make a credible run for President. Liddy Dole already beat her out of that. She can't merely make a credible run for Vice President, because Geraldine Ferraro did that long before Hillary was even a national political figure. Being a Senator probably isn't enough, either, and I don't think her ambitions have subsided at all.
In any case, she seems to think Kerry is going to lose and lose bad. I see no reason to disagree.
Show Comments »
Free speech is for individuals. The press should have free speech when it functions as news media, not when it campaigns for a specific candidate. The resources, reach, and distribution network integral to a newspaper mean that they wield an excessive influence over the way people think, and such blatant campaigning for one candidate or even one party is a breach of free speech. I do not have the resources to compete with such a campaign, nor does anyone in Philedelphia; as such, this is an unfair use of the power of the Press.
I'd be shocked if any Democrats or liberals say one word of criticism for this.
Show Comments »
June 18, 2004
They just don't get it. And, yeah, I think it's even the religious ones, because secularity, humanism and atheism are too heavily emphasized in every single Democrat platform and liberal ideology. To be fair, secular Republicans don't get it, either.
And here it is:
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1:7).
Show Comments »
Andrew McCarthy explains that there are credible links between Iraq and al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission's statement is unclear; it actually says there is no credible evidence of involvement in the attacks on 9/11. Taken literally, there is still a possibility Iraq was connected to the attacks on 9/11, they just didn't uncover the evidence. More likely, however, is that there were mulitple connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, and between Saddam al-Hussein and Osama bin Laden, just not regarding 9/11. People who are emotionally committed to downplaying that link for political purposes will quote the conclusion as if it vindicates them and condemns President Bush. They should read this article.
Excerpt:
As journalist Stephen Hayes reiterated earlier this month, Tenet, on October 7, 2002, wrote a letter to Congress, which asserted:Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.Tenet, as Hayes elaborated, has never backed away from these assessments, reaffirming them in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee as recently as March 9, 2004.
UPDATE:
With all due respect to the professionals, Ace actually does a better job documenting the media's dishonesty in this than Andrew McCarthy did.
UDPATE II:
I'm not trying to do a definitive round-up, and have probably missed some people, but here's Bill INDC's take. And even President Putin backs President Bush more than our own news services.
And the news services? Here's their weak and distortive counter-attack. All they can muster to support the blatantly inaccurate headlines is one lousy blockquote? Even NRO's Andrew McCarthy found three to help support his position. Someone fisk Ed Kaplan, please.
UDPATE III:
And I guess the announcement by President Putin is why Vice President Cheney spoke so confidently. Consider it as a deliberate battle plan: 9/11 Commission makes a weak statement, Cheney eggs on the media by claiming a strong connection, news media predictably distorts the whole deal in an Anti-Bush direction, then Putin slams 'em all to...to wherever people are blown when they set themselves up to look stupid. If so...brilliant, just brilliant.
Show Comments »
» Dean's World links with: Iraq & Al Qaeda
» INDC Journal links with: I'm Filled With Boundless, Visceral Hatred
And it's also that simple that a slim majority of Democrats don't think the US should be emulated by other countries. But heaven forbid anyone question their patriotism.
The blockquote itself is a link, btw.
Show Comments »
This guy really understands economics and wealth.
Excerpt:
...I realised that what this actually means is that the U.S. economy produces so much wealth, is such a great engine of wealth creation, that we can have that much money come back from China as merchandise rather than reciprocal trade, to the benefit (on average; the greater good for the greater number) of the American consumer. It is not that different from saying that I am not suffering from a trade deficit of $4000 a year at the grocery if I can afford to buy the food I prefer for my household.
And this guy gets it, too.
Show Comments »
This just struck me a few minutes ago.
Okay, obviously, the Democrats have already violated the US Constitution-mandated separation of powers by turning "Advise" into "Filibuster to prevent a vote" on the issue of Judicial Branch appointees.
However, it occurred to me that their disregard for the Constitution goes even further than that. A Federal Judge is supposed to bring his understanding of the law into his position. The person should be appointed for their skill, knowledge and ability to interpret the law. But Democrats will not even allow a candidate to run for the Democrat nomination for President unless they promise never to infringe on abortion rights in any way. Now they will do everything in their power, including a minority filibuster, to prevent the Senate from confirming any judge who won't promise to also not infringe on abortion rights in any way. This is not only an undue influence of one specific issue onto an entire party, this represents an attempt to manipulate the the executive and legislative branches to "stack the deck" in the judiciary branch. This is absolutely a blatant disregard for and betrayal of the US Constitution. Why isn't the Free Press alerting us to this base and dishonest tactic?
Show Comments »
The party that claims to represent the interests of the working class wants to shaft taxi drivers. And they can say with a straight face that they can run the nation? If this is a good example of what sort of thing they'll try to do, then I don't think we dare give them another chance. Ever.
Oh, wait. That's right, Democrat politicians don't care about doing the right thing, they only care about sizable voting blocs. How silly of me to forget.
Thanks to Donald Luskin for posting the link.
Show Comments »
Show Comments »
I'm beginning to think that one of the failings of the US Constitution* is that news/press was not treated in the same manner as religion.
The First Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press along with Freedom of Religious Expression. Which one has actually been curtailed over the last 50 years? Which one is actually under assault? We don't allow unfettered Freedom of Religious Expression anymore, alas. An atheist minority has succeeded in enshring its belief system as the default. Shame and scorn are heaped upon anyone who professes a religious belief.
It's gotten so bad that some more extreme critics of religion are saying that it is wrong for a President or other higher official to cite or turn to his religious beliefs to affect public policy.**
I can understand and even agree with the thought behind the separation between Church and State, although the concept was to keep the government from restricting religious freedom by endorsing, supporting, or establishing one specific religion, rather than preventing religion from influencing government. One could argue that by adopting "atheism" as a default viewpoint, that separation has already been fully violated, but that's a different issue. The point is that the separation of church and state is not because religion is wrong, or superstitious, or inherently troublesome, it is merely that the goals and objectives of government and religion are different, and making decisions for one according to the priorities for the other are not good for the nation.
But isn't that true of the Press/news, as well?
It has often been said that a Free Press is vital for the well-being of the nation; I've often said that our Press is anything but free, it's already been bought and paid for. But the original statement is essentially true. Since we cannot be omnipresent to see all things for ourselves, we need a Press that is free enough to tell us what actually is happening in locations and at levels of power that the average individual cannot observe. Freedom of Speech and Press being equally important as Freedom of Religion, shouldn't there also be steps taken to ensure its Freedom? Isn't that vital for the well-being of the nation itself?
For instance, why, exactly should the anonymity of sources be inviolate? I know it isn't in the Constitution... How much harm has been done to the nation when ethically-impaired writers for the Boston Globe, Washington Post, and New York Times make up sources and invent statements for the purpose of advancing a specific ideological view? It wouldn't be an issue if sources were not automatically confidential. And how much harm has been done to the nation through leaks from Unnamed Sources High Within the Administration/Party/Department? If the news these sources are leaking is truly so important, they should be willing to stake their name and/or reputation to the leak, with two layers of anonymity at the most (source on file but only available with a SCOTUS order, or some similar protection). Sources might be less forthcoming, but wouldn't that be better? ...since it would force "reporters" to do actual investigation instead of merely parroting what someone else says and passing it off as "fact".
But that's not the most important aspect that should be considered. The most important is that I am beginning to think we need to establish a wall of separation between Press and State. How many of the Sunday morning pundits are former government bureaucrats? Should President Clinton and the Democrat Party really be able to place George Stephanopolis in a prime slot giving his version of the "news" to a national audience? What "undue influence" comes from having news and commentary from NPR, which gets its funding from the government...but most specifically defended and pushed by the more liberal part of the government? What would the Democrat reaction be if we took an equal amount of money to fund a public radio with hosts like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin?
The role of government is to protect the people. The role of the Press is to expose greed and corruption and falsehood, so that the common person can make his own decisions as to what is really going on. Or maybe a better way to describe it is that the government is supposed to ensure the well-being of the nation directly, and the press was supposed to ensure the well-being of our nation indirectly, mainly by acting as an independent investigative body focused on ferreting out cases when our government was not ensuring the well-being of the nation.
Well, they punted on that obligation. Our Press developed an agenda during the Viet Nam war and found its calling in the Nixon administration by way of the Watergate issue. Howard Raines is no longer the editor of the New York Times because he subordinated news reporting to his political views.
And from an entirely different perspective, how can the news be an effective watchdog if they exist mainly on advertising dollars?
As it stands now, our "Free" Press is all but worthless. I admit I'm somewhat at a loss as to what steps to take to liberate the Press. I have a few suggestions, but I'm not committed to any and am willing to discuss any other ideas.
1) Government policymakers*** may not work in news media after they retire.
2) Is there a term for breaking up all the news conglomerates and forcing them to function only as non-profit organizations? That's kind of what I'd like to do to help break them from their dependence on advertising
3) No anonymous sources. Would "Stephanie Plame" even have been an issue without this anonymity tradition?
4) The New York Times Ombusdman isn't doing much to correct the mistakes/distortions of Raines...can we set up an independent News Ombudsman designed to discover factual distortions and report on biases in the news media? Probably not.
To reiterate: I think the nation would be in far better shape if we were as cautious about intermingling Press and Government as we are about Church and State.
Read More "Separation of Press and State" »Show Comments »
June 16, 2004
...do you ever suspect we'd have gotten more of the extreme left (PETA, ELF, et al) on board for the invasion of Iraq if we'd said Saddam was destroying the habitat of the The Preble's meadow jumping mouse...?
Show Comments »
One of the essential hypocrisies of Liberals/Democrats is that they claim to be more compassionate, said compassion being exercised by voting for politicians who raise taxes to solve all the social ills.
Conservatives/Republicans don't deny that there are social ills, they (we) just believe that raising taxes and increasing government spending/programs is wasteful at best, and in actuality end up harming the relatively poor even worse through inflation and depressed economies.
And the worst of it is that the Liberals/Democrats who believe so much in helping their fellow man don't want to make the giving voluntary; in fact, they aren't satisfied unless everyone pays more. It seems like a personal conviction should really be personal, and not forced onto everyone. The number of rich liberals like John Kerry, Al Gore, George Soros, and the Hollywood elite, et al, who decry the disparity between rich and poor while raking in cash hand over fist is disgusting.
As above, so below, as it is truly ironic to hear Democrats so upset over state funding problems over lattes. If you have the extra money to buy yourself comfort, you have no business advocating forcible redistribution economies.
So how 'bout it? Care to put your money where your mouth is?
Technology has progressed to the point where it would be simplicity itself to cross reference voting records with tax records. What if, from now on, those who vote Democrat double their tax rate, those who vote Republican have their tax rate halved, and those who don't vote see no change. Further, Democrat-vote taxes can go to welfare, education, government-funded health care, etc, whereas Republican-vote taxes can go for college scholarships and defense spending. That way, if you have enough money in your account from your own ideological supporters, you can do what you want without interference from the opposite party.
Oh, yeah: common-use funding like infrastructure and most Department funding would come from both parties off the top.
The details can be hammered out. The generalities are the point:
Democrats pay for Democrat programs with higher taxes, Republicans pay for Republican programs with lower taxes. If we ever enacted this, I'll bet you a dime to a dollar within 4 years the Republican budget dwarfs the Democrat.
Show Comments »
June 14, 2004
Show Comments »
June 11, 2004
Wankette Ace touches on an idea that has been percolating in my brain for the last few days:
Show Comments »
What is Patriotism?
Marty and I had a minor disagreement in the comments forthis post, and I think my final impression was we simply had different views of what was credible. But later I considered that possibly we understood patriotism itself differently.
Read More "Patriotism" »Show Comments »
June 10, 2004
Excerpt:
COLMES (TO RALL): And that's where I have problems with my fellow liberals who can't get over the election of 2000. They should be focusing on winning 2004.But you, by doing this, make those on my side look bad by showing know grace, no compassion, no sense of humanity for a man who served this country, whether or not you agree with the things he stood for.
Show Comments »
June 09, 2004
From Kausfiles (Scroll down to Reagan Catch-up)
5. I don't defend Reagan's tax cuts, but his 1986 tax reform--cutting rates while closing loopholes--probably played an underestimated role in enabling the prosperity of the '90s by ending the waste of talent and money in unproductive tax shelters that was common in the '70s and early '80s. Too bad Bill Clinton had no feel for the virtues of loophole-closing, preferring to create loopholes (by calling them "targeted" tax cuts).
Underestimated?!??!! Not by me, at least, nor by any flat-tax proponent (hmmm: what's the difference between an "advocate" and a "proponent"?). I've said for years that the creation of loopholes is the main Democrat tactic of claiming to raise taxes for the rich while still giving themselves and their rich friends lower actual tax burdens. I'm happy President Reagan lowered taxes...but I've always insisted the only reason it worked is because he simultaneously simplified taxes. At the end of President Reagan's term of office, the average person took about 40 minutes to calculate their taxes (if I remember correctly). By the time President Clinton left office, that had jumped to something like 2 or 4 hours. Again, I don't remember for sure, and I don't feel like googling for the specific numbers...the point being that under President Clinton, the tax code became far more complicated, and rich people with clever tax lawyers love complicated tax codes, because it helps them pay less taxes than the higher bracket rates the Democrats trumpet.
If we can't have flat tax, at least simplify it back to President Reagan's level of complexity, as well as the marginal rates. Okay?
6. Reagan's 1981 breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike also seems a crucial part of the late-twentieth century boom. Union power was the mainspring of the 1970s wage-price spiral, as unions leapfrogged each other trying to stay a step ahead of the rising prices their hefty wage hikes then helped ensure. The air controllers provided the cautionary example of a labor organization that went on an ill-advised strike, was defeated, and ceased to exist. With the public's support! Big Labor hasn't been the same since--and, not coincidentally, neither has inflation.
Yes. Labor Unions served their purpose, I don't deny that. That purpose has long since been served, and they waste money, ruin lives, and are more responsible for overseas outsourcing than any other factor in the United States. It's a shame Democrats are so in bed with labor unions that they can't see it.
Show Comments »
Like when I link this post that many other people are linking.
One thing struck me. Some people have accused President Bush of failing to follow through on his promise to "be a Uniter, not a Divider".
Normally, my response to that is 9/11 changed the circumstances of his administration. He was no longer a peacetime President with a focus on domestic issues, he was now a wartime President trying to bring the fight to enemies abroad while maintaining safety back home. Under circumstances like that, you cannot always accede to the demands of your opponents...
In any case, one question and answer that was edited out of the transcript with Tom Brokaw is this:
Brokaw: “Do you think that there is too much disagreeable in American politics today?”Bush: “I'm trying to elevate the debate as best I can. But it's pretty rough right now. And I've read a lot of history… that American politics has been rough. I remember the year of the pamphleteering, when people would write all kinds of stuff, without any without any sense of propriety.
“And seems like we may be-- some of that may be happening these days. People just write down whatever they want, whether it's truthful or not… And, you know, look, politics is a rough business. But my job is to-- I think my job as the president, is to try to elevate the debate out of the muck, focus our country's attention on where we need to go and what we need to do as a nation to make ourselves more secure and make the world more peaceful and free.”
...and it hit me: Without a shred of evidence, Howard Dean insinuated President Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand. John Kerry claims President Bush misled him and the entire Congress to get authorization for war. Democrats of all stripes and all levels, from pundits and spokespeople and elected officials down to common people writing letters into newspapers, all have accused President Bush of lying, of invading Iraq to steal oil, to enrich Halliburton, to satisfy his vanity, etc. He's been called stupid, ignorant, a pawn/puppet of Dick Cheney and/or Karl Rove.
And through it all, have you seen President Bush make one cutting remark about his opponents? Has he insinuated Howard Dean is helping terrorists? Has he called anyone unpatriotic?
Nope. He has authorized campaign ads providing factual evidence of Kerry's congressional and campaign-platform flip-flops and lack of support to the military as a Senator, and that's about the worst. As a President, he has largely confined himself to repeating his vision, rather than attacking others for theirs. He has never accused his opponents for being greedy, for lying, or for being opportunistic. He has merely repeated the reasons why we are fighting the war on terror: to make the US (and as a nice side bonus, the world) more safe, and we invaded Iraq as the best place to send a message to states supporting terror, to establish a free and democratic ideal in the Middle East, and to remove one of the most destabilizing regimes in the Middle East before it could join with the recent Islamist Extremist movement to attack the United States at a level on par with 9/11.
It takes two to tango, Dems. If you want a Uniter, you have to be willing to give something, too...and not just a butt-covering, self-serving vote to authorize war right before national congressional elections, either. I'll be surprised if it ever happens.
Show Comments »
June 08, 2004
June 04, 2004
If you can only vote against, and not for, then you deserve all the frustration you encounter.
Show Comments »
June 03, 2004
Yanno? I'm just not sure what to make of this:
"If you go back and read what (Bush) said in the campaign, he's just doing what he'd said he'd do. You've got to give him credit for that... No one has the whole truth," Clinton said.Read More "Former President Clinton" »
Show Comments »
That's one down and two to go on people I actively want out of the administration: Powell and Mineta are the others.
Show Comments »
June 02, 2004
It is my impression that:
Show Comments »
May 27, 2004
...how come we never hear about Wesley Clark anymore?
Show Comments »
Show Comments »
» blogoSFERICS links with: Helmsman: Three Points to Starboard, if You Please!
May 25, 2004
So what's wrong with our nation?
Read More "Fixing Our Nation" »Show Comments »
May 24, 2004
Here's how it's all going to come down in the end. There'll be some sort of "October Racial Surprise," something like the Trent Lott remark perhaps, and so the turnout campaign in African-American neighborhoods, well greased with campaign cash and supported by ads in African-American newspapers (the grateful publishers of which are most assuredly in a position to do many favors for their Representatives in Congress), will be able to scream and yell about what awful racists the Republicans are, and convince apathetic base voters to go to the polls after all.
We'll have to see if it comes true. If it does, how will it affect your political views?
Visually digest all the stuff.
Link via Dodd at Ipse Dixit
Update:
Evidence.
Show Comments »
May 21, 2004
A pole poll of the strippers indicated they'd already had all the Bush the current President they could bare bear. They seemed to feel that the President was a pasty patsy for (massage) oil interests lubrication production the petroleum industry. Interestingly, their feigned arousal responses did indicate a strong interest in Dick Vice President Cheney.
Show Comments »
May 20, 2004
That seems to be a common refrain as I trip lightly through the blogosphere.
"I like President Bush, but..."
...but I don't like some of his spending proposals.
...but I don't like his stance on SSM marriage.
...but I don't like his restraint in Iraq.
...but whatever.
See, I don't feel that way. At this point, I haven't seen a single decision he's made that I didn't like. About the only differences I've had with him are based on information that has come to light long after the fact, i.e., I really wish he'd chosen someone with more integrity and leadership ability than Colin Powell for Secretary of State.
I look at the Justice Department, and despite some pointless whining from people who are reacting to the idea of John Ashcroft as A.G., I see a department in far better shape and far more effective than under Janet Reno. He's made some blunders and mistakes, but no major ones, and no one's perfect.
I didn't really like Bush saying he'd sign an extension to the Assault Weapons Ban if it were put in front of him, but I can't say that really bothers me that much. First, I figure the extension has less than a 10% chance of making it to him. Second, I've still been able to buy any gun I've wanted; the only appreciable difference the assault weapon ban makes is the price of high-cap magazines. Not worth getting my panties in a wad.
I would really prefer that Bush would replace Paul Bremer, personally. Paul was an improvement, but certain trends have become problematic, as can happen when someone is in place too long. Put someone in with a fresh perspective who can correct some of the things that have gone off the wire, I say. But then, I don't think that rises to the level of a "criticism", because I recognize that President Bush is at the top of perhaps the most extensive and richest information flow in the world, something I am a part of and yet not fully privy to. I'm willing to express my opinion but not to the point of asserting I know more on any issue of national security than he does. I'm willing to be patient and see how it turns out.
Bluntly: there is not another person in the world who could get my vote for President this November. Sure, maybe he wasn't the perfect man for the circumstances in which we find ourselves...but it would be impossible to determine who that mythical "perfect" person might be. In my opinion, President Bush has done an excellent job of approximating the ideal President. I approve of and support everything he has done and said, wholeheartedly.
If that qualifies me as an idiot, so be it.
Show Comments »
May 18, 2004
The Democrat Party, the Party of "Yeargh!" and Al Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney and Michael Moore, have a new embarassment:
The Ohio Democratic Party has named raunchy former talk show host Jerry Springer as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, the Associated Press reports:"He's made 50 appearances at Democratic events this year. He's been an outspoken advocate for the party," said Dan Trevas, spokesman for the Ohio Democratic Party.
The party also named Springer "Democrat of the Year." Imagine how humiliating this was to the runner-up.
From Monday's Best of the Web
Show Comments »
May 07, 2004
There are some people to whom "Supporting the Troops" means the US Military can do no wrong. Others to whom Bill Clinton can do no wrong. Some people think Rush Limbaugh is entertaining. Other people don't recognize Washington's Senators (Murray and Cantwell) are absolutely useless idiots. Heck, some people actually trust what Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton say, and Dan Quayle actually got support in his campaign for President in the 1996 primaries. For that matter, some people still defend communism as a good idea.
America: Freedom to be an idiot.
Show Comments »
April 29, 2004
States hit hardest with unemployment:
1. Massachusetts
2. Illinois
3. Ohio
4. Indiana
5. South Carolina
6. New York
7. Michegan
8. Oregon
9. Colorado
10. Kentucky
Five States Hit Hardest By Recession
1. Michegan
2. Florida
3. Hawaii
4. Illinois
5. Mississippi
Show Comments »
April 28, 2004
From Bureaucrash, via Some Protest Coverage page.
COMMUNISM / SOCIALISM
» Communism is Dead, Get Over It
» If Government Is So Great, Why Isn't North Korea a Paradise?
» Real Rebels Don't Support Centralized State Authority
» If expanding government were the solution, Russia would be paradise
» Socialism: 100 million dead and counting [harker]
(more)
Read More "Some Good Slogans" »Show Comments »
See? I warn of "light posting", which automatically means I'm going to post more than usual today.
Here's the first offering. You've heard of Moonbats...now you can actually see some.
Via Jeff G.
Show Comments »
April 23, 2004
Again.
It seems like all the embarassing things originate from the Seattle area, like Patty Murray and such...
Show Comments »
I don't usually like to bring faith into arguments regarding politics. To me, politics is a human creation designed to deal with issues on earth when not everyone has the same belief. To put it another way, Faith deals with matters of the heart, Politics rules in the realm of the head. I let my Faith influence my Politics, in the same way my heart influences my head. I don't let either one, though, have absolute control of the other.
Still, this makes a lot of sense to me:
I do recall the Bible saying that we should help the poor and so forth. However, I don't recall Jesus stipulating that we use other people's money to do so. In fact, it would be more moral -- and a genuine act of generosity -- to use your own money and time to help the poor. Voting to use other peoples' money wouldn't qualify as an act of Christian charity, as I see it.
From
Show Comments »
Don't Click Here if you think President Bush lied about reasons for invading Iraq
Read More "Because, You Know, Iraq Was Only About Oil" »Show Comments »
April 21, 2004
The quote is the important part, but the whole article is good. [hint: the entire block quote is a clickable link-- ed.]
Show Comments »
April 16, 2004
I probably try too hard to define the differences between us. I just know there is a very clear disconnect between what I see Democrats saying and what I feel. There must be some core values that are absolutely different.
I've seen various explanations...but people are so diverse and perverse, it's difficult to draw any straight line and divide the camps neatly.
Read More "Conservatives vs Liberals" »Show Comments »
April 13, 2004
Check out this (link via Drudge):
CAMPAIGN RAGE: FLORIDA DEMOCRATS PLACE NEWSPAPER AD CALLING FOR RUMSFELD HIT; FUNDRAISING FOR KERRYCampaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!
"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.
Then there's the flap over Kos' derisive comments about the contractors killed in Iraq.
And let's not forget the verbally violent troll Annika encountered in her comments here. Excerpt:
You know, I used to think that all Americans were arrogant, narcissistic pricks. Then a couple of years ago I got on the internet newsgroups and discovered that it was the Reich Whingers who were the arrogant, narcissistic pricks. After a year of arguing with these rubes over the Iraq war and subsequent occupation, I really began to despise you. Now, after spending the past half year roaming through the right whinge blahgosphere, I just wish you Reich Whingers could be exterminated like vermin. Fortunately, the valiant Iraqi insurgents will do just that.
Her reaction has already been linked, but I'll link it again, because the question she raises is quite valid:
So when an idiot like this morning's troll says that he thinks conservatives should be "exterminated like vermin" and "need to be snuffed out of existence," how am i supposed to take that? Is it rhetorical hyperbole, or is the guy a real nutjob who needs to be monitored closely?My point is this: in the cultural war that's been going on in this country for the last forty years, one side always seems to be more violent than the other, if not in deed then in rhetoric. i'm sure there's some psychological or sociological reason for that phenomenon, but i have no clue what it might be, nor at this point do i give a shit. i just think it's worth noting.
And then the left deliberately organized an attempt to intimidate Karl Rove, who isn't even elected.
The more radical left (which includes the Dem Underground and LOTS of lefty blogs) is increasingly advocating violence toward people with whom they disagree. Should this be taken as overblown rhetoric by people who don't really understand the literal meaning of the words they use? Or should Democrat violence on Republicans now be considered a Hate Crime?
Read More "Violent Peaceniks?" »Show Comments »
April 12, 2004
How can you not see the wisdom in this?
Those are the ones you have to watch out for. Yah, maybe just as much as the far right wackos. They're both liable to blow something up, but only the left wing crazies will have the ACLU and the newspaper op-ed pages on their side after they get caught.
She makes a strong case for her point of view. I find it all the more interesting because it is something I've experienced without particularly noting it. Not only are the ACLU and Newspaper Op-Ed pages on their side, but the overwhelmingly prevalent voice in our society refuses to condemn them. That's why Trent Lott is criticized by his own party for being a dumb-ass until he must lose some power, but very, very, very few on the left will bother to even acknowledge that venomous nonsense/hate-spouters like Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Gary Trudeau actually influence people with their one-sided distortions, much less denounce them or distance themselves from them.
Let's get it on record, again: I specifcally went out and bought several guns and am in the process of getting acquainted with them because I dislike and detest the views and intent of the wacko fringe on the right. I will shoot and kill anyone who tries to lynch a minority or establish a white supremacist nation. But liberals still defend the Rosenburgs and Communism and haven't given up defending Socialism. It's like they don't mind the Democrat Underground, they just want them to conceal it better.
Sheesh!
Show Comments »
April 10, 2004
So it seems to me...
That there are people who want to make sure that no one ever starves, that no one ever dies for lack of money for medicine, that the gap between the successful and the not-so-successful should be minimized. After all, they say, if a CEO works 40 hours and a janitor works 40 hours, why should the CEO make 3000 times as much? After all, they say, there are people who could spend their whole lives working as hard as they can and never be able to earn enough to buy a house, or to retire, or to stop living hand-to-mouth.
Show Comments »
» Read My Lips links with: When you put it that way, it seems so clear
» Read My Lips links with: When you put it that way, it seems so clear
» The Original Musings links with: Recommended Reading
» The Original Musings links with: Recommended Reading
HammerHead
