7.27.2007 | Confessions of a disloyal Republican

I used to consider myself a stalwart Republican. With rare exceptions over my voting life, I have voted the straight Republican ticket. My confession? I am disgusted with the performance of the Bush administration and with Republicans in Congress. Disgusted.

Not so disgusted that I could bring myself to vote for a Democrat last year. No, I held my nose and voted for George Allen against now-Senator Jim Webb. And I would never, under any circumstance, vote for Jim Moran. For anything. But he won handily without my vote, thank you very much. Idiots in Northern Virginia who think they're New Yorkers.

But my votes for Republicans, now, and in the foreseeable future will be solely because the other guys are worse. Along the lines of parting company with the Republicans, consider this list of points of disappointment if not disgust made recently by CrunchyCon Rod Dreher:

1. Having been absolutely certain that the war was the right thing to have done, and that we would prevail easily, I am no longer confident that I can discern when emotion is affecting my judgment unduly.

2. I no longer implicitly trust governmental institutions, including the military -- neither in their honesty nor their competence.

3. I no longer believe the Republican Party is superior in foreign policy judgment to the Democrats.

4. I no longer have confidence in the ability of our military, or any military, to solve deep cultural and civilizational problems through force alone. I mean, I thought nothing could stand in the way of the strongest military fielded since the days of ancient Rome. No more.

5. I have a far greater appreciation for how rare and fragile liberal democracy is, and a corresponding revulsion at the American assumption that it's the natural state of mankind. Which is to say, the war has made me rethink my ideas about human nature, and I'm far more pessimistic now than I ever was.

A lot of this litany translates into a simple statement: Woodrow Wilson was dangerously naive. George Bush is the new Woodrow Wilson, albeit with ugly ties to the Saudis. Of course, Wilson was a Confederate sympathizer and a stone racist, which Dubya is most certainly not. But in foreign affairs? Both have presided over disastrous presidencies.

There's only one point of Dreher's I would seriously dispute: that Republicans are not superior in judgment to the Democrats. Listening to the likes of Obama and the others, this is not supportable in logic.

The central problem? Neither party, under current leadership, can be trusted to do the right thing. I have high hopes that Rudy, or John McCain, or Fred Thompson would serve true American interests better than Bush.

Let me put this differently: the only Democrat who seems to have a clue is Hillary. And I wouldn't trust her with busfare, let alone as commander-in-chief.

| President Al Gore

Ah, a man can dream, can't he? "President Al Gore" has such a lovely sound to the ears of liberals living near that river in Egypt. As in, living in denial that George Bush was elected in 2000. Apparently, the NutRoots are still in denial.

Just imaging what a President Gore would have done: signed surrender papers with al qaeda; imposed a "carbon tax" that by now would have caused 50% unemployment, making the Great Depression look good; apologized, profusely, to Saddam Hussein for doubting his word on anything, and helping restore the lost Iraq province of Kuwait to his tender mercies. Oh, the list goes on and on of the liberal goodness that Tree Boy could have accomplished.

The Hillary bemoaned the absence of a President Gore during the recent Donk "debate." As cited by Cruella of the VRWC herself, Ann Coulter, Hill said, to applause, "I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but ..."

Ha. Ha. Very funny, Hill. And they said you had no sense of humor. As I wrote, she is pandering to the NutRoots in the Donk primary crowd. But facts can be very pesky things. Consider these from Ms. Coulter:

On Nov. 12, 2001, The New York Times ran a front page article that began: "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward."

Another Times article that day by Richard L. Berke said that the "comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots solidifies George W. Bush's legal claim on the White House because it concludes that he would have won under the ground rules prescribed by the Democrats."

To which Donk activists, very much in a post-modern mode, might say, "Facts? We don't need your stinkin' facts!" Facts, to quote a certain inventor of earth, air, water, fire, and the internet, can lead to an "inconvenient truth."

The more one hears about the leading Donks, the more it becomes evident that they lack what it takes to be president. Or dog catcher.

7.25.2007 | So that's what a president does

Seems as though Obama doesn't quite have a grasp on what the president's duties might be. That's president of the United States, not president of the local meatpacker's union, or whatever.

According to Nothingburger Obama, the duties for the Leader of the Free World, and Commander in Chief of the mightiest armed forces in the world, would feature walking a picket line with some union workers.

From a TownHall story we learn from NBO (NothingBurgerObama):

"I stood on the picket line and marched with workers at the Congress Hotel in Chicago last week," Obama said. "I had marched with them four years earlier and I told them when I left that if they were still fighting four years from now, I'd be back on that picket line as president of the United States and we'll get the Congress Hotel organized."

"I won't just vote the right way with you, I will stand with you," he said.

That's really special, BarackBaby. The more this guy speaks, the less he looks like a credible presidential candidate. Keep talking, 'cause that's all you seem to know how to do.

7.21.2007 | Democrats side with the bad guys

Leave it to the Donks. As reported by the Washington Times, some House Democrats removed protection given to people who report suspicious behavior. The original legislation was put in place, with broad bipartisan support, in response to the obvious provocation of the Fabulous Flying Imams, who rather intentionally acted like...terrorists.

Now, out of some misplaced sense that it is somehow better to allow nuisance lawsuits and thereby discourage reporting of suspicious activities, the Democrats have come down, rock solid as ever, on the side of our enemies.

From the Times, some Republican response:

"That language was put into this bill with broad bipartisan support making it clear that having Americans protected from silly lawsuits if they notice suspicious behavior and report it is just plain common sense," Mr. Boehner said. "And why would they remove that language, and I think they are asking for serious trouble if the language is in fact taken out."

Mr. Pearce said Democrats made a choice as to "whether they are going to side with the American people or with the terrorists."

Florida Rep. Adam H. Putnam, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said failure to enact the provision will hold "the threat of endless litigation over the heads of the American people."

"Democrats are discouraging citizens from reporting suspicious behavior. And that, simply, leaves America vulnerable to terrorist attacks," Mr. Putnam said.

"Just plain common sense." Indeed, it doesn't get any plainer. As for the bizarre notion that, according to the Donk who is chairman (!) of the House Homeland Security Committee, reporting suspicious activities "would lead to racial profiling," well, this is political correctness run amok.

If a group with a distinctive "racial" profile is about to blow up an airplane (golly, I wish I could think of some group, but it's just sooo hard...), would it not serve the national interests, the interests of all of us, black, white, or brown, to...stay alive? In other words, we need to encourage folks to report suspicious behavior, and to err on the side of caution.

Without the threat of a lawsuit from some Johnny Edwards Tort Whore Clone.

| Hope springs eternal

...for the black widow spider from Hope, Arkansas, now a carpetbagging senator from New York: The Hillary. The latest poll conducted by Fox (which I trust much more than any conducted or even touched by the New York Times or CBS News) shows what many would interpret as the inevitability of Hillary as our next president.

In brief, she's in the lead over Obamarama, 39-23 percent, with a 3 percent margin of error. But wait, shrieks the Hillary Infomercial, there's more! Two salients should be noted. The first is that Hill and Obama are much closer when the question is, "Which Democratic candidate would be your second choice?"

This is a pretty good indicator of who has deeper appeal within the Donks, and when one adds first and second choices, the difference between these two shrinks to within striking range of the margin of error: 56 percent for Hillary, 51 percent for Obama.

Translation: it's a horse race. But there is one small detail in this poll that could be telling, and may be the salvation of whoever the Elephants run: Hillary's high negatives. This is reflected by the poll's question, "Is there one candidate you would never vote for under any circumstances?"

Answer for Hillary: 29 percent. The next highest is Rudy Giuliani, with a mere 8 percent. This, and this alone, is what may sink the Donks. Oh, the party elders, still wearing their beads and smoking their bongs, still protesting the Vietnam war over the millions of skulls from the killing fields of communist Southeast Asia, will go with Hillary (Dominoes? We don't want your stinkin' geopolitical theory...)

It's the politically correct thing to do, and Obama may be half-black, but hey, he hasn't paid his dues. Even the Donks have some sense of propriety.

7.20.2007 | The lunatic fringe just got broader

I'm assuming that a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a mainstream media outlet in guess where, would be considered, likewise, "mainstream." But it appears that the NutRoots run deep, and have infected at least one columnist. The newly-annointed NutRoots columnist is one Dan Simpson, and he gives obeisance to the Cindy Sheehan wing of the left wing of the left-wing party in this column.

Simpson's thesis appears to be that Dick Cheney has, somehow, ruined the 2008 election. Not by running -- but by not running. Then the man goes on to insult the Republicans running:

Instead of having an obvious man-in-waiting with bona fide White House experience to put forward with a decent prospect of winning in 2008, they have instead a large collection of flawed, unconvincing characters, three of whom don't believe in evolution, with a television actor who hasn't even declared as their great white hope.

Only a secularist would write that someone like Sam Brownback doesn't "believe" in evolution.

Some fact checking is in order. Here's what Sam Brownback has written recently about evolution:

The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.

Ultimately, on the question of the origins of the universe, I am happy to let the facts speak for themselves. There are aspects of evolutionary biology that reveal a great deal about the nature of the world, like the small changes that take place within a species. Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him. It does not strike me as anti-science or anti-reason to question the philosophical presuppositions behind theories offered by scientists who, in excluding the possibility of design or purpose, venture far beyond their realm of empirical science.

Now, I'm hardly a fundamentalist, but I am a believer in God. And this statement by Senator Brownback is both logical and consistent with science.

But, hey, when you're a newly installed member of NutRoots, logic doesn't count for much. Finally, here's where Simpson joins the conspiracy branch of the NutRoots. Seems that George Bush and Dick Cheney are planning a coup:

There is also the late-at-night, eerie concern that Mr. Bush has in his head some sort of scenario where, for reasons of national security -- real or drummed up -- the '08 elections will have to be postponed and he will get to stay on. My suspicions have at their base the feeling I have that, given their operating style now, this bunch will not leave the White House easily in 2009.

To the barricades! NutRoots, grab your weapons. Oh, that's right. I forgot. You don't have weapons; only us members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, us knuckle-dragging troglodyte believers in God have weapons.

Note to the NutRoots: go away, go someplace where they might appreciate you. Iran, perhaps? Understand that Cuba has some nifty health care if you've got U.S. dollars.

7.19.2007 | vox populi

One must hope that this poll is as biased as the "news" organizations that ran it. Which were the Fake but Accurate CBS News, and the Jayson Blair Times. The latter sometimes referred to as the "We don't need to fact check our precious young staff hired without regard to merit" Times.

Anyway, this poll, whose results are reported here have, no surprise, Hillary Clinton being anointed president. Among the not-too-surprising results, these little tidbits:

On specific issues, a majority of voters thinks Clinton would make good decisions on health care (74 percent) and foreign policy (68 percent), while 58 percent think she'd be effective as commander in chief. But many (52 percent) are "uneasy" about her ability to handle an international crisis.

All of which shows that the people they asked haven't been paying close attention to the HillaryCare fiasco, or perhaps they mostly live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Polls can be entertaining, but I'd like to think they've little bearing on what will happen when Hillary has to face a live opponent. As opposed to Nothingburger Obama and the other dwarves running on the Donk side.

Rudy Giuliani still leads among the Elephants, but Fred Dalton Thompson (love the ring of that name...) is breathing hard down Rudy's neck. And he's not even announced yet. And don't forget the smartest man in the lot, who may or may not toss his fedora in the ring: Newt Gingrich.

Any and all of these gentlemen will not hesitate to tear Hillary a new one. I can't hardly wait until some feminazis complain bitterly that the Republicans are being just beastly against the good gentlewoman from IllinoisArkansasNewYork.

The point? A lot can happen between now and a year from now, when the real campaign can get geared up. And a real campaigner will be tossing live grenades into the Clinton camp.

A little Whitewater Julep, anyone?

7.16.2007 | Nanny on the rampage

This kind of makes me nervous. Nothing that Mitt Romney says is objectionable, precisely. Yet taken as a whole, I get the distinct whiff of goody two-shoeness. Yes, not an actual word, but it's a feeling of having some overbearing nanny peering over your shoulder while you live your life.

Pornography, sex and violence on the tube and silver screen, vile "music" such as rap and hip-hop. the list of depravity to which we are exposed is virtually endless.

Then there's that "war on drugs," which has worked well to enrich the distributors of coke and other products whose impact on health seem far less than tobacco or alcohol.

As for enforcing any kind of public morality, let's make this crystal clear: this is not something our government should be about. Morality is best handled at the local level; the extreme local level: the individual. The sources for right behavior? The Bible is a great place to start.

Any time a public person such as Romney starts to fulminate about morality, watch out -- nanny is on the rampage. It's not just Romney, although as a Mormon he's well-situated to preach about living a clean life. It's just that I'd feel so much better about Romney if I didn't get the creeps whenever I'd go to a Mormon town out west, and see all the jack Mormons drinking, whoring, and, generally, acting just like the rest of us: but maintaining that oh-so-pure façade.

Let me be clear: Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, and many other denominations do very much the same thing. That's because we are all human, and, therefore, sin.

All I ask is that government not get involved in our private lives. Period.