H/T: Fake Steve, via Vodkapundit.
Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category
Hillary’s Downfall
Saturday, May 10th, 2008Another Obama Terrorist Connection
Saturday, May 10th, 2008Are you starting to lose track of all these Obama buddies who are connected to America-hating scumbags? I’m at the point where I could use a road atlas, or org chart, or something…
One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.
Robert Malley told The Times that he had been in regular contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza and is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think-tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.
“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Mr Obama, responded swiftly: “Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.”
If you love me like democrats love America, stay the hell away from me.
Their Presumptive Nominee
Friday, May 9th, 2008FrankJ gives a rundown of Obama’s strengths and weaknesses:
CONS
* Little experience.
* No accomplishments.
* Poor judgment.
* A history of hanging out with anti-American scumbags.
* Lies when politically convenient.
* Wherever he isn’t exceptionally bad, he’s just a typical politician.
* Liberal.PROS
* He’s black, so his election will be historic.
This is part of something much bigger than Barack Obama. Have you ever noticed that when left-wingers “want to be a part of this,” the “this” under discussion is seldom-to-never something that actually needs their support in order to succeed? They don’t seem to want to actually change the outcome of anything when they “want to be a part of” something. You can grow old waiting for liberals “want[ing] to be a part of” something that needs a tie-breaker vote; I don’t recall hearing of any liberals “want[ing] to be a part of” a Gore victory in 2000 or a Kerry victory in ’04.
Maybe it’s their inherent hostility to the individual. It seems they wait for the letters to be carved into the tablet of history, and after that’s been done, they want to have their hands on the chisel so they can claim to be “part of” it.
Another thing I notice is they have a propensity to support unbelievably mediocre candidates for high office, with negative claims to greatness. In other words, candidates who only can claim to not be something else. Carter wasn’t Nixon, and Kerry wasn’t Bush. When the democrat candidate for President is a Senator, it’s a Senator who can plow through a lot of years without doing much of anything. When the democrat candidate for President is a Governor of a state, there’s a curious dearth of conversation or news about how that state is doing.
Conservatives are excited about their candidates when their candidates demonstrate the ability to represent true and effective conservatism. Liberals are excited about their candidates when their candidates demonstrate the ability to lie convincingly. Gosh…it just seems that when you’re looking for entirely mediocre candidates, it should be a simple matter to find one or two with some remarkable, positive competencies — as a garnish on the dish, if nothing else — and, furthermore, free or nearly-free of “baggage.”
How come, across whole generations, they never quite seem to be able to get that done?
Begin, It Has
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008H/T: Ace.
Voter ID Laws: Constitutional
Tuesday, April 29th, 2008Bush the Multilateralist
Saturday, March 29th, 2008This one is required reading, too.
[John McCain] spoke of the need for a “new global compact” based on “mutual respect and trust,” of adding “luster to America’s image in the world,” and of “paying a ‘decent respect to the opinions of mankind.'” The media played it all up as an attempt to distance himself from the “unilateral” President Bush, although the Arizona Republican never used that word.
We fully understand why Mr. McCain feels the need to show that his Administration would not simply be a third Bush term. But with Mr. Bush’s days in office nearing an end, it’s worth blowing apart the myth of the “go it alone” Presidency. The truth is that, with a couple of exceptions, he’s been the model of a modern multilateralist.
Identity Politics Heavyweight Bout
Thursday, March 13th, 2008Via new sidebar addition Pigilito, we learn about a priceless smackdown blow-by-blow narrative from Just One Minute…
Geraldine Ferraro states the obvious – being black is helping Barack – and is getting pummeled for it. Of course, Ms. Ferraro is a bit of a flawed messenger here, since one might suspect her claim to history is based entirely on her gender, but then again, few things can rival a Dem Party tussle over identity politics for sheer comedic value.
Don’t wait for the democrat party to be honest here, you’ll just get older.
They are not having a fight about which class of oppressed-person is more “due” to be handed the keys to the White House. That would be silly…but insufficiently so, and not nearly as dangerous as reality.
They’re arguing amongst themselves about something nearly identical to that, but with entirely different ramifications. They are arguing about which class has a better card. Yes, card. Because they figured out years ago that when someone is elevated to a high office with a membership in some kind of oppressed class, whether the historic oppression was real or apocryphal, that person can make intemperate decisions. What a wonderful asset. Stupid, extremist, poorly-advised decisions emanating from a high authoritarian office…a wonderful thing, as long as they’re in your favor.
And legends of historic oppression are great for bulldozing through the resistance that normally rises up in the face of stupid decisions. President Hillary wants to outlaw war, President Obama wants to outlaw money. You see a downside to those? You must be an ist of some kind.
“As you can see, my Jedi power far exceeds yours. Now…back down.” — Count Dooku
The Benefits of Experience
Monday, March 10th, 2008H/T: Gerard.
Hillary Does Well
Wednesday, March 5th, 2008Wow…
With 97 percent of precincts reporting in Ohio, Clinton had 54 percent of the vote compared to 44 percent for Sen. Barack Obama. CNN made the projection based on those results and exit polling data.
Wish I could work up some excitement about it.
I guess Hillary would kill more terrorists than Barack, and she’s more likely to be defeated by McCain, who in turn might kill more than her. So that’s good. But I dunno.
Liberals don’t like us killing terrorists, and McCain & Hillary both are well-versed in doing exactly what liberals want, after offering lots of bullshit lip-service toward the opposite.
The freakin’ media just loves all three of them. “Real” people aren’t that excited about any of ’em.
You won’t be able to criticize a President Obama, because he’ll be black, and you won’t be able to criticize a President Hillary because she’ll be a woman. But I have the impression the air will be much thicker with the “Who Are You To Say Otherwise” fumes under a Hillary administration. People are elevated to positions of power, and they learn you have to be very careful about criticizing anyone non-white, especially if they’re serving in an office previously filled only by white guys. That’s universal. But “Don’t Pick On The Girl” goes all the way back to the schoolyard.
And so now that our media has picked our candidates for us, I find it quite interesting. The Republican front-runner became the front-runner by stabbing the backs of Republicans. That is the product John McCain has to sell: “I”m not really a Republican.” The democrats, on the other hand, became front-runners because they have cheap gimmicks to suddenly halt any discussion about their ideas, when their ideas are bad. “You’re picking on me.”
I once said somewhere that a good definition of growing-up, is acquiring the ability to make a beneficial and actionable decision that doesn’t really make you or anyone else feel very good. I have the impression that the American people, overall, are ready to grow up. But our media won’t let us do it.
Update: Neal’s pretty excited about it.
Maybe He’d Better Stick to Hope Change Hope Change Hope Change
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008
When Are We Gonna Learn?
Sunday, March 2nd, 2008Last month I had observed…
…political scientists would do well to come up with a name for election cycles like this one, in which one of the candidates manages to plow ahead by being the youngest — therefore, culminating in the inauguration of a new generation. The ramifications are huge…substantial debate, the one thing everybody says they really want, will lose out every time.
It happens on a sixteen year cycle, pretty reliably.
Because they are the political party of feeling-over-thinking, the democrats are the constant beneficiaries of this — also pretty reliably. This has strong appeal for people when you’re in the middle of one of these sixteen-year cycles. You’re young; those old guys are in charge, and they don’t care about you. And here’s some new guy who, while still a little older than you, is much closer to you in age therefore he knows all about your problems.
Put him in. And we’ll have “change.”
It seems to make a lot of sense during one cycle. It looks laughable and silly when you observe a succession of multiple cycles. Well, I happen to like making things look silly when they really are silly, so let’s go.
Obama, 2008. He’s going to change things (H/T: Rick).
Clinton, 1992. He’s going to change things too.
Carter, 1976. A southernor for change.
Kennedy, 1960. He understands the problems of these young West Virginians, and he stands for change.
I honestly don’t know how to explain this thing about people. I don’t completely understand it myself. When we go shopping for houses and cars, we’re so determined to avoid getting ripped off. Salesmen have to be friendly, but they have to be friendly in the right way, because if we think they’re friendly and they resemble us well, but we don’t pick up the right “vibe,” we just get more suspicious.
Then we select someone for the most powerful office on the planet and we’re all just ooh…bright shiny object.
All these issues we say we care about. But every sixteen years the guy who can pull off this “I’m young like you and I can feel your pain” nonsense, is the consistently the guy who discusses those issues the least.
All four of these guys campaigned to end war. All four of them campaigned this way without directly coming out and saying that’s what they would do. Just kind of implying it.
And of the three who have already served, all three of them made war by emboldening our enemies. All three of them, it can be plausibly argued, caused wars to happen that didn’t have to.
And here’s George Bush, the incumbent President, the exterminator, being blamed for the infestation problem in the first place. When we know for a fact the infestation predates his presidency by a good stretch. We know it. Suddenly, millions upon millions of us seriously wonder if the problem isn’t caused by government interference in the first place. Would that we had that hyper-popular spirit of skepticism with some of our social programs!
When are we gonna learn?
Diebold Accidentally Leaks the Results
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008Vote For –ism
Tuesday, February 26th, 2008The 2008 presidential election now has a clear front-runner. And that front-runner is the suffix “ism.”
Nobody else is having nearly as big an effect…
Top Republican strategists are working on plans to protect the GOP from charges of racism or sexism in the general election, as they prepare for a presidential campaign against the first ever African-American or female Democratic nominee.
The Republican National Committee has commissioned polling and focus groups to determine the boundaries of attacking a minority or female candidate, according to people involved. The secretive effort underscores the enormous risk senior GOP operatives see for a party often criticized for its insensitivity to minorities in campaigns dating back to the 1960s.
The RNC project is viewed as so sensitive that those involved in the work were reluctant to discuss the findings in detail. But one Republican strategist, who asked that his name be withheld to speak candidly, said the research shows the daunting and delicate task ahead.
Republicans will be told to “be sensitive to tone and stick to the substance of the discussion” and that “the key is that you have to be sensitive to the fact that you are running against historic firsts,” the strategist explained.
Wow. Is it racist or sexist to infer from this that, when you’re a candidate to become the nation’s next President, it’s an enormous advantage to you to have dark skin or be female? Because if your opponent has to be sensitive when pointing out your faults, but you don’t have to be sensitive when you point out his…gosh, ya know, I think anybody who’s successfully graduated from the seventh grade should be able to say “I think that might be a tactical advantage.”
GOP operatives have already coined a term for clumsy rhetoric: “undisciplined messaging.” It appears as a bullet point in a Power Point presentation making the rounds among major donors, party leaders and surrogates. The presentation outlines five main strategic attacks against an Obama candidacy, with one of them stating how “undisciplined messaging carries great risk.”
“Republicans will need to exercise less deafness and more deftness in dealing with a different looking candidate, whether it is a woman or a black man,” Republican strategist Kellyanne Conway said. “But at the same time, really charge back at any insinuation or accusation of sexism or racism.”
But since we’re talking about campaign-land and not about the planet I call home, which is Earth…I guess really charging back at these insinuations will have something to do with bluster, bravado and bumper sticker slogans. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with saying “nice name-calling now will you please address my question” or something favorable to finding the truth about things.
I wonder how much per hour these strategerists are pulling down for cobbling together these Power Point presentations.
Managing the Economy
Saturday, February 23rd, 2008An annoying platitude commented-upon by Michelle. And Stossel.
We’re losing our republic because the people who ask candidates questions have the real power right now; they demand detail where there is no detail to be demanded, and let things slide right on by when a little bit o’digging would be most appropriate. Their spotlight is vertical when it should be horizontal, and vice-versa.
Pull a Lieberman, or Throw It In
Thursday, February 21st, 2008At this point, that’s my advice to the Republican party for this year.
How important is it that the guy in the White House has the letter “R” after his name, really? If he’s just going to do a bunch of democrat stuff. If there’s no advantage to what he’s going to do in the War on Terror. Even if he says the right stuff, when you know he isn’t going to deliver on it any better than Ted Kennedy himself. What’s the point?
Better Supreme Court appointments? Feh. As I’ve said before, our liberal Supreme Court justices appointed by actual democrats, have been relatively harmless. It’s the ones who were nominated by Republicans, and then turned around and fooled everybody, who’ve been responsible for the real damage.
Don’t miss Pam’s article in Pajamas Media about this problem we’re having…
Despite his impressive speech at CPAC and equally impressive roster of endorsements, John McCain still has to convince core conservatives in the Republican Party of his sincerity and willingness to work with them. This includes Newt Gingrich, who told Laura Ingraham on Fox’s O’Reilly Factor last Friday, “I don’t think we should have this leader principle that whoever gets to be the head of the Republican Party, we should all salute. … I’ll reserve the right to oppose [McCain] on issues where I think he’s fundamentally wrong.”
What’s interesting is that while intra-party rivalries are to be expected in any primary campaign, the rift in the Republican Party goes much deeper than “vote for the guy I prefer to win the nomination.” Democrats, while they side with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, are focused on winning the White House in November, no matter who goes on to run against the Republican.
The name of their game is often party over principle. In fact, back in 2004, Kerry was not the first choice for many Democrats, but they considered a vote for him to be a vote against George W. Bush — holding your nose at the ballot box and all that.
Will Republicans en masse put principle over party in November? It’s a valid question, seeing as on Super Tuesday there were 14 million votes cast by Democrats, compared to only 8 million by Republicans, indicating a crisis of conscience among the GOP. And core Republicans pride themselves on their support of certain principles, including limited government, pro-life, strong national defense, and the Second Amendment. While John McCain falls into line with many of these, a good number of conservatives think his willingness to “reach across the aisle” means more than simply working with Democrats on key issues — it’s working against Republicans. Charges of RINO (Republican in Name Only) are frequently uttered in the same sentence as McCain’s name. The old “maverick” meme rears its ugly head yet again.
The resounding examples that come up frequently are McCain-Feingold, (failed) McCain-Kennedy, and McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts several years ago.
Newt certainly speaks for me, and for common sense as well. Think about it. There is NO down-side to this.
Whatever we stand to lose policy-wise by opposing McCain…the War on Terror…the Supreme Court…we’ve lost it anyway. It’s already long-gone. And we’ve deserved to lose it, because this cultural climate has been allowed to continue for too long, unopposed, where bumper-sticker slogans are more important than upholding beliefs and principles, where agreement is more valuable than clarity, and people get mired down into a “my side versus the other side” mindset.
Well now there’s even a positive aspect to this. If conservatives were all about my side versus the other side, there wouldn’t be a split, would there? How to explain this? Well, I’m sure that as long as there’s a perceptible split, the “Republicans are racists” card will be played a lot because it’s unavoidable that there are deeply held principles at work…and there are people out there with big cameras and microphones whose job it is (as they see it) to make sure any principles they call out on the conservatives, are dark and ugly ones — even if such observations clash with truth.
A principle, on this subject, is a value system you keep in place even if a bunch of people disagree with you about it.
And one thing about the conservative movement that has never stopped being appealing, is that the conservative principles are, by nature, positive. People are capable of great and wonderful things. And before people actually do the great and wonderful things, most of them are worthy of trust.
They don’t need some phony re-interpretation of Christianity to do right by each other. They don’t even need altruism. Pure and naked self interest will do fine. Support your neighbor’s right to keep his own property, and you will end up better off. In short, conservatism is all about…friendship. It’s about the stuff that was beaten into our heads when people my age were children: Don’t worry about sex or skin color, all the kids on the playground are your friends, or can be.
Some of those kids grew up and decided in adulthood, they should go back to paying attention to skin color. And now they go by the name “liberals.” Must have forty-percent this…must have twenty-five-percent that.
I’m sorry to notice in 2008, we wouldn’t know what a “Constitution” was if it walked up and kicked most of us square in the ass. I’ve heard the words “trample the Constitution” used so many times in the last seven years. Near as I can figure, the phrase has something to do with finding out someone is doing something that’s against the law and/or could hurt thousands of people, by methods and techniques that would not be approved-of by the person who got busted.
Folks, that isn’t what a Constitution is. You don’t have a right to do illegal things. From conspiring to set off dirty bombs, to smoking pot. You don’t have a right to ’em, and that’s why we make them illegal.
What the Constitution really is, is something we’re losing. Within the last hundred years, we had a right to keep all our money. And then the Constitution got amended. And then we had a right to transact intrastate commerce free of interference by Congress. That one got changed through shenanigans and skullduggery on the Supreme Court. And now a bunch of people want to “change” what’s left. We’re already perilously close to losing our rights to the thoughts in our own heads, with the hate crime legislation that’s popping up like dandelions. What else do we own, if we don’t own that?
Once we’ve paid our taxes, in theory we get to keep what’s left. Maybe that’s what these changers want to change. Our feds, or our state or county or municipal governments decide there’s a crisis of some kind…and people are on foot patrol, knocking on doors, asking “citizens” how much cash they have in their wallets, bank accounts, stock portfolios. That kind of change?
The conservatism I know is all about protecting people from that. People — own the government. What little of it there is supposed to be. Not the other way around.
And John McCain will not support that. John McCain has a new friend in the beltway…or a potential new friend…and whatever he said the day before, changes. He’s become the very picture of a politician who shouldn’t be trusted.
If the United States isn’t ready to become just another Europe-Lite nation full of “subjects” and not citizens, where we have to pay global-warming taxes to drive anywhere and let inspectors into our houses to make sure we’ve paid usury taxes on our television sets — it’s not to late to pull a Lieberman, and nominate a real “maverick.”
The message behind a vote for McCain is that nobody on the conservative side cares about anything beside that letter “R”.
The message behind a vote for someone else is there are, as Sean Hannty calls them, “core beliefs.” The conservative split has become painful and awkward for a lot of people who aren’t conservatives. They don’t think we should be having them, and yet if we didn’t have them, a McCain nomination would not be an issue.
January 17, 1982
Thursday, February 21st, 2008That’s the answer to the question on the minds of so many this week.
That question being…
…when exactly did Michelle Obama become a legal adult?
For the uninitiated, the rest of us began to mull that one over when we heard this.
What a wonderful world in which we’d be living if, right up until election day, every time someone asked Michelle’s husband a question, they’d immiedately follow with “by the way Senator, I’ve been proud of America all my adult life and then some.” Do it until he starts squirming, and then keep right on doing it.
Our nation’s next President issued a statement about this thing his boneheaded wife trotted out to embarrass the bejeezus out of him on Monday…
What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America…Because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone. But she has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.
Michelle herself made sure her own explanation was properly synchronized on this point…
What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process…For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I was talking about.
One problem, though: This is not consistent with Ms. Obama’s remark.
I’ve noticed there is this tendency for the last four years or so on both sides of the fence, although democrats have been specializing in this somewhat because they’ve been forced to. Embarrassing things are qualified, subsequently, as having been taken out of “context” when if you actually take the time and trouble to look up the context, you’ll see that they were not.
And furthermore, when the invevitable “what he/she/I meant to say” statement comes out, you’ll see it isn’t a more careful phrasing of an innocuous statement that was worded a little bit unfortunately. No, you’ll see the backpedaling is something that says a completely different thing, often about a completely different subject.
And then you’ll see this snotty derision directed at anyone who might have taken those original remarks at face value. Not just political opponents. Anybody who took the words seriously.
There’s something else going on, something I first noticed when Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife’s so-called husband first began running for President sixteen years ago. Although it had been going on since before that. It’s that name “America,” and it concerns other political figures, people who have good things to say about it. The word itself requires more specificity, it seems to me. Too many people are allowed to shower great-feeling platitudes upon what they call “America,” such as “greatest country in the history of the world” or some such. And if you analyze that all-important “context” you see they’re talking about a vision of something that exists, today, only between their ears. They’re proud of that. They see this opportunity to change the country into something that will make them proud — their pride has nothing to do with anything that presently exists.
But if you listen to their remarks casually, you might be tempted to think they’re talking about pride in the country now. The pride that comes with love. The pride a mother has for a newborn baby. And that’s not what’s being said there…what’s under discussion is the pride a football fan has for his team which he is sure is about to win a game. But if it doesn’t happen, forget it.
A very critical delineation which is not being made. This is a bad thing. A lot of us who are genuinely proud of the country and think at least some of what the country does, should remain unchanged…are being fooled into supporting candidates who want to change exactly that.
But that doesn’t have much to do with Michelle Obama — who is not proud, up until now, and is not afraid to say so. Unless there are some actual consequnces involved, and then she’ll play John Kerry’s patented “you’re such a drooling clueless idiot for hearing what I said and making me actually responsible for it” card.
I’m tempted to say more, but there’s no way I can take our future First Lady down any more pegs than another woman of diverse racial background named Michelle did yesterday.
One Second Questions
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008This morning, I had asked something that gave me cause to think about things later in the day. My query was…
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it became impossible to moderate a presidential debate in 2008 without asking “Senator, this next question is for you: Should Americans be proud?” And…a simple yes or no will be just fine. You have one second for this one.
For the same situation to exist in all the elections from here on out, would be even better. Might not change anything. But it couldn’t hurt.
And here’s what I was thinking: The whole one-second-for-the-response, yes-or-no thing.
We’re already doing that, you know. The thing is, we’re being selective about which questions to ask. Actually we aren’t being selective about it. Granola-eating schoolmarm twits like Carolyn Washburn are doing exactly this…with Republicans…except one second for the response, is exactly one second longer than what Washburn will allow. The lady wanted a “show of hands.”
And so I must disclaim any copyright I would have to this concept. But in exchange for that, I’m able to note there is precedent for what I’ve proposed above.
So since this trail is already blazed…
…let’s get some more things going. They’re all fair questions. They can all be answered with yes or no. Or a hand raising, if you prefer.
And in all cases, for the same question to be asked in all debates “from here on out, would be even better. Might not change anything. But it couldn’t hurt.” And so I propose that we allow one second — if that — for each of the following. From here on out. In 2008, and beyond…seriously, now.
Here we go.
Senator, did we have it coming on 9/11/01?
Senator, should people be punished for being rich?
Senator, after we pay our taxes, should the government be concerned about how much money we have left over?
Senator, is atheism a religion?
Senator, should “In God We Trust” stay on our money?
Senator, is An Inconvenient Truth a “documentary”?
Senator, is the Boy Scouts a hate group?
Senator, do you believe in the Laffer Curve?
Senator, should we confront evil?
Senator, should we repeal the death tax?
Senator, does the United States have an interest in extending aid to Israel?
Senator, does the minimum wage work?
Senator, do you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — since 1981?
Senator, do you support capitalism and free enterprise?
Senator, is war ever necessary?
Senator, should the military recruit — in places like Berkeley?
Senator, should we even have a military?
Senator, should the government regulate talk radio?
Senator, is the moral authority of bereaved parents absolute?
Senator, is George W. Bush an idiot?
Senator, do you believe 650,000 Iraqis have lost their lives as a direct result of our invasion?
Senator, should we abolish the death penalty?
Senator, if we don’t take opportunities to educate ourselves are we going to get stuck in Iraq?
Senator, would the planet be better off if humans were extinct?
Senator, would humanity be better off if America went away?
Senator, would America be better off if we got rid of money?
Senator, are all your political opponents evil?
Senator, if I have five persons of color working for me, and one of them quits and I replace him with a white guy, have I increased the diversity of my workforce?
Senator, do the people of our country have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms?
Senator, is Fahrenheit 9/11 a “documentary”?
Senator, are you concerned about the Gini Coefficient and the “wealth gap”?
Senator, should the government commit to providing jobs to anyone who can’t find any, for whatever reason?
Senator, should the citizens try to exist in such a way that it’s easy for the government to manage them?
Senator, does the Constitution guarantee us a right to vote?
Senator, is anyone anywhere making a profit off our recent concerns about global warming?
Senator, should the military ever do any fighting?
Senator, is there a difference between men and women?
Senator, should we ever instigate military action on a pre-emptive basis?
Senator, do you think a vote from a single foreign nation on the United Nations Security Council should nullify America’s ability to protect her interests?
Senator, does Bill Cosby have a point with his pound cake speech?
Senator, do Supreme Court justices have any business looking to foreign law to justify their decisions?
Finally Proud, Hungry for Change
Tuesday, February 19th, 2008
I thought it was great when blogger friend Phil highlighted the model American stump speech as retold by Mark Steyn:
My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.
Barack Obama’s wife Michelle seems to agree with the last part of the model speech:
“Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change,” she said during a rally in downtown Milwaukee.
“I have seen people who are hungry to be unified around some basic common issues and it has made me proud,” she told supporters.
Okay, so she’s not talking about 1994 when we put Republicans in charge of Congress and she’s not talking about 1980 when we elected Reagan. Michelle Obama was an adult during those times, so we can pretty well establish she doesn’t mean any ol’ “basic common issues.”
She’s talking about the “issues” embraced by people who are supportive of her husband. You know, that whittles the field down a great big bunch, or not at all, depending on your point of view. What are Barack’s issues? Well, I know he wants to pull out of Iraq. Beyond that all I’ve heard about the guy is that it’s so wonderful he’s serving as a Senator even though he isn’t a big ol’ fat corrupt drunk white guy from a privileged family who thinks himself above the law (and I note with interest it’s one of Obama’s most fervent supporters who is most responsible for starting that stereotype). And that he has a really warm personality and makes people feel good…which aren’t “common issues.”
So for the first time in her life, Michelle Obama feels proud of her country because it’s about to retreat. Surrender fast or we just might win, and all that.
Perhaps she misspoke. Perhaps she meant to say she’s always been proud of her country and is just extra-extra proud now. But that isn’t what she said, and Occam’s Razor does not smile favorably on this — instead, it leans toward the Fifth Column.
If we can make a big ol’ election fight out of this, the country stands a good chance to make some lemonade out of these three sour lemons with which we’ve been saddled as we try to put a decent butt in the chair behind the most powerful desk in the world. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if it became impossible to moderate a presidential debate in 2008 without asking “Senator, this next question is for you: Should Americans be proud?” And…a simple yes or no will be just fine. You have one second for this one.
For the same situation to exist in all the elections from here on out, would be even better. Might not change anything. But it couldn’t hurt.
Hopeful
Monday, February 18th, 2008
H/T: Neo-Neocon, via Rain in the Doorway.
Sixteen Years
Saturday, February 16th, 2008Hillary is going negative on Obamamania.
Mrs. Clinton’s new TV spot accuses Mr. Obama of putting out “false attack ads” in response to her original TV spot that criticized him for not agreeing to debate her in Milwaukee. Mr. Obama’s ad, put out Thursday, said that the 18 past debates and two upcoming forums in Ohio and Texas were enough.
The new ad not only calls out Mr. Obama for refusing the debate invitation, but it also reiterates her contention that his health care plan would leave 15 million Americans without coverage.
And then it goes on, far beyond their debate over universal vs. not-so-universal health care, mandate vs. no mandated health care.
:
The Clinton ad also slams Mr. Obama for his vote in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which the ad says provided “billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies.”Finally, the ad cites a May 2007 ABC News story suggesting Mr. Obama “might raise the retirement age and cut benefits for Social Security.”
Sniff…sniff…smells like…desperation.
I’ve been waiting for sixteen years for people to get tired of her nastiness, and now that it’s happened I’m not very happy about it. It seems the Camelot of Clinton has finally crumbled into the ground, not because people got tired of smoothly-recited snake-oil nonsense, but because of a natural displacement theorem. Young people like to be told lies from other young people instead of from old people.
And so this new voting faction, which selects candidates according to how they make people feel instead of what they have to say, will elect a kind of “revolving” leadership class. Those who prosper from this wedge being driven between the actual issues, and the voters who are supposed to be indirectly deciding them, will only encourage this. In the end, we’re voting on something quite useless: Whether or not Barack Obama is younger than Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Which he is.
But what about the issues?
Nevermind. This is done. Might as well swear Obama in right now.
Well, that might not happen. But political scientists would do well to come up with a name for election cycles like this one, in which one of the candidates manages to plow ahead by being the youngest — therefore, culminating in the inauguration of a new generation. The ramifications are huge, and it doesn’t happen very often: 1960, 1992, and now 2008. Truly substantial debate, the one thing everybody says they really want, will lose out every time.
I guess from here on out it’ll be going on every sixteen years. This is the real weakness of Barack Obama. Someday, he’s going to be a foolish-looking buffoon of an old guy too.
And this year, in addition to substantial debate, there’s another big loser. And that’s the idea that President Bush’s policies combine to form an endless parade of disasters, inspiring resentment and division at home and abroad. It’s hard to see when you’re too close to the timeline, but that has all bit the mat pretty hard. It won’t become obvious until later.
If you’ve spent seven or eight years helplessly watching the incumbent make one decision after another you consider to be wrong, growing more resentful with each passing month, the last thing you’re going to do is support some charismatic young stud who refuses to discuss how his decisions are going to be any better.
And yet here we are.
The Fifth Most Important Issue
Friday, February 15th, 2008As I noted toward the end of last year, before the field really started getting narrowed down, the four most important issues of the election are these:
One, and this still takes the cake over everything: Who is going to kill the most terrorists?
Two: Are the democrats afflicted with short memories or are they full-blown crazy?
Three: Is it even possible that twelve million illegal aliens all coming over here to do one thing? And even if you accept that, how is it that the extremely affluent Americans who are in a position to run for high political office, are in a position to say what that one thing is?
Four: Is it absolutely impossible for public servants to represent constituents who aren’t of the same race, gender, sexual preference and creed? And if it is, how on earth did we get to this point? And how many more gazillions of public service positions should we make in our federal, state, county and municipal governments to accommodate this, so that everybody can get what we all seem to be demanding now — officials that resemble us in every conceivable way?
And the fifth most important issue is inspired by yesterday’s item in James Taranto’s Best of the Web, which concerns a nationwide epidemic of women fainting at Barack Obama’s speeches, presentations and rallies. It is much more common than you might think. That, and the purely right-brain comments resonating throughout this article, one of many that are popping out lately about Obamamania…
“He’s very charismatic. It was a ‘you-had-to-be-there’ kind of experience,” said Lolita Breckenridge, 37, after hearing Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama address a packed rally at the University of Maryland on Monday.
A dedicated supporter, she brought two of her friends to hear the Illinois senator deliver one of his much-talked-about speeches.
“Not too much of the speech was new to me,” she admitted. “But hearing him live…” she trailed off, shaking her head and grinning.”
When Obama addressed the crowd of 16,000 on the eve of primaries which he is tipped to win in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC, he carried himself with his habitual worldly confidence, interspersed talk of foreign policy with recollections of his childhood and even poked political fun at his Republican adversaries.
He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female’s cry of “I love you Obama!” with a reassuring: “I love you back.”
No doubt about it, the man has charisma, and it’s far from a purely-female appeal. People who don’t even agree with his positions on the issues, feel an almost supernatural urge to vote for him…to go wherever he is…to be near him…to be like him. And as for the people who do agree with him on the issues, most of them can’t even qualify it. They just love the feeling they get when he’s speaking.
Hmmm…as Darth Vader said, I sense something…something I’ve not felt since…
It’s that word charisma. People are so eager to admit that they’re influenced by it. Nobody wants to have a discussion about whether that is a good thing or not. Maybe that’s a good debate to have right about now.
People love to show off the new family car when they’ve made a little bit larger-than-normal sacrifice in acquiring it. Trust me on this, I’m in a position to know. But nobody ever, ever, ever says “Oh and that salesman who sold us this car had such charisma. He could’ve gotten us to sign anything!” You wouldn’t say that about the guy who got you to buy a car, because it would make you look like a schmuck.
Why do people say this about the guy who’s about to get their vote, to occupy the most powerful office in the civilized world?
Fifth most important issue: With what kinds of responsibilities should people be entrusted, simply because they’re charismatic? This seems to be one of many questions in life where the heart gives one answer, and the head gives a directly opposite answer. So many among us seem to think charisma is the “skeleton key” that unlocks any doorway imaginable, that there’s no limit to how much authority, power and confidence that can be invested in someone just because they’re sociable, their personality is polished, and they got that gift-o-gab thing going on.
But of course if you were to string the actual words together, “a smooth-talking man is a trustworthy man,” you’d look like a fool. And rightly so.
Which is not to say that everybody who jibber-jabbers so eloquently is automatically a liar. But that isn’t necessarily a trustworthy person, either. And let’s not forget — that isn’t even necessarily a competent person. Perhaps the relationship among all these attributes is purely non-correlative. Or not…? Maybe being a compulsive liar would generate a need to have a slick personality?
It seems that might very well be a good question to ponder right about now. Do we want charismatic people running anything?
Suppose that was a hard-and-fast rule — everyone in power must have oodles and oodles of charisma. How good would we expect things to get, really? How much money would we be willing to bet that life would get wonderful? Or let’s go the other way. Suppose the hard-and-fast rule was charisma automatically disqualified you from having authority over people who didn’t have it. Every single boss has to be like Bueller’s math teacher…or at least…toward that extreme. Let the Guy Smileys take up the positions in the lower trenches while the decisions are made by grown-ups, who aren’t necessarily all that much fun to watch.
Would things really suck that bad? Really? How so? Is anybody with a reputation worth defending, willing to step up and say decisions are made and made well, only when there’s some entertainment value in watching them being made?
In fact, the best way to summarize the fifth most important issue, it seems to me, is this: Is being led by those among us who are the most personally captivating, even a good idea? So many seem to be ready to answer in the affirmative. But if you were to write a thesis explaining this, what could you toss in after the preamble to support it — if anything at all?
In 2008, all this could be way too much work for some of us. Maybe the way we’re doing it, is right after all. Maybe a presidential election shouldn’t be anything more than a marathon rock concert.
H/T to Allah for the movie clip, via Dick Stanley.
Why Here?
Thursday, February 14th, 2008It cannot be denied, by anyone who’s paid the slightest bit of attention, that all these crazy left-wing agendas are part of something much, much larger. I demonstrate this through the eight-or-nine-in-ten rule. Show me ten war protesters, I can show you eight-or-nine abortion advocates. Eight-or-nine people who don’t believe in God. Eight-or-nine people who think “global warming deniers” are on par with holocaust deniers, eight-or-nine people who think we should interrogate our terror suspects by simply feeding them, letting them sleep, and waiting endlessly for them to decide to tell us something good — no interrogations.
This nonsense is all connected.
And nearly all of it is much more popular in other countries, than it is here in the USA. The planet, minus America, does things more-or-less the way they want it done. But that isn’t good enough.
Rick was observing the way they run away from an argument, out in cyberspace where nearly every fight is make-believe. The subject of the argument? The whole “turn away the Marines, people are frightened of military stuff” thing. Okay so these people are afraid of defense, but not offense. It could be summed up as: People don’t kill people, armies and guns kill people. Are military units made up of people? Sometimes, but other times not. The answer to that one switches back and forth based on political convenience.
Ann Coulter notices the incredible success these lunatics have had in taking over the one place where their policies prevail only partially, which is our country, now running three liberal media constructs as the only three viable candidates for President. Mmmm…for idealogues who like to talk about “diversity,” they don’t seem to be very much into it. I’m not sure what taking over an entire planet has to do with diversity. Maybe they want to make sure everybody can just see how they do things, and decide for themselves how incredibly smart the liberal-secular-anti-gun way of living is? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Just run one of ’em up against some opposition, like Rick did, and see how they react to it.
No, they’re control freaks. They just want everything done their way — period. They aren’t all about presenting us with alternatives, they’re about taking them away.
In the last year, the USD has lost value against the Canadian dollar. Canadians who are pre-disposed toward the anti-carbon anti-God anti-death-penalty anti-self-defense anti-common-sense way of life — but I (mostly) repeat myself — recognize this as an extremely powerful argument: To build a society enshrining the ideals you favor, right alongside another society enshrining ideals you do not. And then show how incredibly prosperous you are. They know how persuasive this is. Believe me, I can vouch for this personally, you’ve never seen anybody quite so full of themselves.
So with nine tenths of the globe doing things the way they want, how come they don’t practice that a little bit more? Maybe build some artificial islands. One off the coast of Oregon, one off of North Carolina, one off of Maine…make countries out of each and every one of them. No guns, no death penalty, no religion allowed. And then they can all surround the United States and watch us go down the tubes, with our foolhardy practices of faith, inalienable rights, respect for the individual, private charities over public social programs, and law, and justice. Just grab a bag of cheese curls, watch us flouder around with our prehistoric ways. And point. And laugh.
(Just don’t forget to pay that tax on your television set.)
What’s this drive to stamp out every last tincture of any idea contrary to your own, in the name of “diversity”?
Towards Obama
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008If you told me six months ago I’d find something awful about a nationwide rejection of Hillary Clinton, I’d have told you you were nuts.
But throughout my grousing about this wonderful awful invention for which nobody wants to claim any credit, the twenty-one month long campaign season, one thing that’s been left unmentioned is this:
Our finalists for the nation’s highest political office, and virtual leader of the free world, John McCain and Barack Obama, are the finalists because…
…they’re the ones our journalists love the most.
Let’s just be honest about who narrowed the field for the rest of us before we were allowed to participate in the process. The folks who give us our news. Our bad news. Who make commissions off bad news. Who starve if there isn’t enough of it.
This is a twenty-first century innovation. One of the few. And it isn’t a good one by any means.
Best Sentence XXV
Monday, February 11th, 2008The Best Sentence I’ve Heard Or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award goes out, this morning, to the lovely Michelle who is grousing away about my Governortron 2000’s virtual endorsements…and she comes up with this gem, apparently revisiting it from earlier…
As we have seen time and again, “bringing people together” is code for increasing the size and scope of government.
In my own experience, this hackneyed phrase has been seen to mean something a little broader, like “set up a policy I happen to like that would directly affect everyone, so it cannot be subjected to argument by anyone.”
It is directly oppositional to another hackneyed phrase, “make sure everyone has a voice” (or vote, or say, or representation, or that everybody takes part in deciding). Of course a lot of us don’t realize that these two cliches have a directly antithetical relationship to each other. That’s because cliches make us feel good. They don’t blaze a trail and they don’t involve any risk. They’re the pathways of the craven; those who aspire to be extraordinary while endeavoring, one moment to the next, to be as ordinary as possible. That’s how cliches get to be cliches.
And the ugly thing about human nature is we tend to be fair-weather friends to both. We don’t crave representation when we’re in the majority. We want it when we find outselves outvoted — at which time we have an unfortunate tendency to define “representation” as winning. Once we get what we want, there, we run into the thing Michelle’s discussing above. We want to “bring everyone together” — now, RIGHT now — when we’ve won. Make everybody else do things our way. At that point, we’re not so much into counting every vote, we’re more about “unifying” and “healing the divide.”
I would further add none of these little observations about human wisdom will be news to anyone who’s worked in politics for any length of time. Watch a skilled politician as closely as you can, across long stretch of time, you’ll see the successful ones recycle these little sound-bites exactly the way I’ve described above, on the occasions I’ve called them out. They play to our darker, less constructive base instincts.
This Is Good XLVI
Sunday, February 10th, 2008From Right Wing Nuthouse, via Tom the Impaler, a very telling earlier draft of John McCain’s speech to CPAC.
I know that many of you doubt my conservatism. I am shocked that you could be so deranged in doing so. I was there at the beginning of the Reagan Revolution. I even had my picture taken with The Gipper. (Try and look humble.) Surely that should be enough proof of my conservative bona fides. Are you saying that you doubt the word of Reagan? What kind of conservatives are you?
Of course, there are varying degrees of conservatism. I’m from the “Maverick Conservative” wing of the party. This is the wing of conservatism that believes anything the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the news nets will praise me for is probably conservative enough. If it’s not, tough. If you think I’m going to change my position on an issue and get the media upset with me, you’re dreaming.
The Maverick Conservative wing of the party – both of us – want to be clear that we support many of the same issues that you “movement” conservatives support. All we ask is that you ignore us when we thumb our noses at you. You can’t expect us to maintain our status as “Mavericks” with the media without deliberately undercutting your agenda while hinting what barbarians you truly are. Therefore, I ask that you simply accept us for who we are.
And calling us “self aggrandizing media whores who care more for pleasing our liberal friends than in working to enact conservative legislation” may be accurate but please – keep it to yourselves.
Fold the Tent Conservatives
Thursday, February 7th, 2008I assume this is aimed at me, and people like me…
The reaction to my column on Monday, “What Can the Right do to Unite?”was visceral and acrimonious.
Among the literally hundreds of responses I received were reproaches such as:
:
“The party PLANNED this. They aren’t going to let a conservative in if they can help it. The RINO’s have been pushing and pushing to get here where NO conservative will have a chance.”
:
“I will not vote for guys who DON’T represent me. That is what they are to do, represent. If I can’t find someone who has a chance, I will NOT do what I did here in California and vote for the “winner.” Arnie is an unmitigated disaster. I WON’T do it again.”Responses such as these made me realize that there is a constituency within the Republican Party and the conservative faction that heretofore was unknown. There exist conservatives and Republicans and feel that they would rather have their ideological and political opponents in office than vote for the candidate who they and their fellow Republicans nominated.
They are the same conservative Republicans who refused to vote for Rick Santorum because they wanted to “punish” Republicans and “punish” Mr. Santorum. This, of course worked out real well for them as a liberal Democrat was elected to replace Mr. Santorum and he wound up getting a good job with a D.C. think tank.
Now Mr. Bush has less chance of getting his judicial nominees confirmed since Democrats now run the Judiciary Committee and the federal courts will be populated by even more liberal Democrat judges who will declare unconstitutional any parental notification laws, capital punishment or life without parole sentences, police procedures, anti-terrorism methods or you-name-it, dozens of other laws that protect the health, welfare, safety, civil rights, and prosperity of Americans.
Way to go, people!
These true-blue, simon-pure conservatives are deserving of a name. They need a label that will identify them as a distinct political bloc. They need an appellation derived from a characteristic.
I think they should be called “Fold the Tent” conservatives. They will be part of the “Whiners Wing” of the Republican Right.
I’ll go ahead and respond, since from reading Mr. Tremogle’s previous contribution, I’m only more convinced that I’m in a position to do so. His bewilderment speaks for many others, as does my disaffection. And my response is this:
Whatever ya gotta tell yourself, Sparky.
Of course, all elections are not necessarily like this one. Four years ago there was a distinct message on which we were being called to vote yea or nay: Is global terrorism something we should address at all? The long-faced donk challenger from New England used twisted logic and tortured speechmaking to imply strongly, but of course never come out and say word-for-word: No. We should stick our heads in the sand and ignore it. His incumbent opponent wanted to hunt the terrorists down like the dogs they were and are.
There was already a lot of mumbling about globular wormening and socialism in our health insurance, but the messages were unmistakable. Bush or Kerry. Go or Stop.
But other people wished some other issues might have gotten some more attention. Some of them didn’t care about terrorism one way or another. Some of them voted Stop, others noted their displeasure with the offering by not voting.
I voted Go. But I didn’t throw a hissy-fit that my “Go Guy” wasn’t picking up the votes of the disaffected, those among the electorate who wanted the election to be about other issues.
Cut to four years later, and it seems the consistent theme througout all of this election is that we can get everything we want if we take all the issues from four years ago, primary & secondary, and just mash them together. Cut our carbon emissions to the bone, let illegal immigrants in to murder our wives and rape our children, and provide single-payer health insurance to everybody — we’ll have Osama bin Laden whining like a little bitch in no time at all. That’s the prevailing sentiment, the only question is how we should lie to ourselves in order to think it’ll work.
I can only speak for myself. But I suspect my words speak for others as well. You decide…
Listen up, Mr. Tremoglie. I’m not a little kid picking up his marbles and going home. The problem is the opposite; the problem is that I’m grown up. I’m tired. Tired of various dialogues, inside the political system and outside of it, in which the parties agree to pretend they’re hashing out disagreements, when they’re really just reciting a lot of stuff.
I’m sick and tired of parallel monologues.
And that is what we have here. Republicans and donks, they both seem to know exactly what they want to do, and they seem to have made up their minds on this before they even heard from anyone. Four years ago, I didn’t demand that my chosen candidate be able to pick up votes from people who didn’t approve of what he was trying to do — you shouldn’t be throwing your little temper tantrum that this sham should pick up participation from people who don’t believe in it.
Other folks are tired of other things. They’re tired of war. They’re tired of thinking about terrorism.
I respect that.
But I don’t respect the belief that it will go away if we simply stop thinking about it.
So go, then. Vote for your one RINO or your two donks who are all committed to nationalizing our health insurance system, eroding our border, and destroying capitalism in the name of the dreaded ManBearPig boogeyman. But you can participate in this process without my help just fine. Like I said, it seems you and the rest of the electorate know exactly what to do without relying on me to help you decide. You don’t seem ready to absorb additional opinions. You don’t seem willing. You don’t seem able.
So don’t seek some kind of landslide mandate for these crazy positions, that they don’t deserve. I come from a place where terrorists stop terrorizing when they’re dead, national borders count for something, socialism sucks, and changing light bulbs is something we do to lower the power bill — not because Al Gore told us to. And running a business that provides jobs for people is a GOOD thing, carbon emissions or no. If you have other ideas, vote on them, but take responsibility for them. Don’t seek out others to help you feel better about those other ideas, when clearly, by yourself, you don’t.
“I volunteer nothing.”
“But the law demands that the defendant’s side be represented on the record.”
“Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?”
“Well, no … yes … that is, to complete the form.”
“I will not help you.”
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, “This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a –” He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
“I want,” said Rearden gravely, “to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you.”
“But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself – and it is you who are rejecting it.”
“I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice.”
I want to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it – I will not help you. I will not help you pretend that you are administering democracy.
Is that visceral and acrimonious enough for you?
Being, Not Doing
Wednesday, February 6th, 2008What did I say…
What’s Wrong With the World?
:
…“comfort” has evolved to a state of being like some model…not achieving something, but resembling something. Being, not doing. Because if people accept you as a peer, you won’t be left to starve no matter what — but if they don’t, then who knows? More guarantees in life are always good. And so we try to be like everybody else.
:
You’re hired into a job, you are hired to be and not to do. If you’re fired, you’re fired for your failure to be and not to do. If not — when you get another executive in charge of the company, if you open your company’s web site and read his biography, you’ll probably read a great deal about what he is…not so much anymore about what he has done.
What did I say…
The Fourth Most Important Issue
:
Is this thing called “identity politics” not just the biggest old bucket o’ crap to hang around humanity’s neck since the constitutional republic was invented?
:
Is it possible to represent someone in a high political office, such as President of the United States, who is not part of your personal demographic group? Or is a woman guaranteed superior representation from someone else who is a woman, compared to what she’d ever get from a man?I personally favor the first of those two options. I know if Condoleeza Rice was running, as a straight white man who is a parent and has been married before, I’d put her ahead of a lot of married-and-divorced straight white fathers who are in the race now. I’d vote for her over Giulliani, McCain, definitely over that crackpot Ron Paul. She’d come in behind Thompson, because Thompson has actually been consistent and stalwart on things that I think are important. I’d put her on par with Romney, I think. Maybe a little bit ahead of Mitt.
That’s the fourth most important issue right there: Is this something I’m not supposed to be doing? I just stacked Condi in behind Fred but ahead of Mitt and Rudy and John and Ron. White guy, black girl, white guy white guy white guy. Hey, I’m a white guy and I put a black lady in as #2. Is there a “Stick To Your Own Kind” police coming over to put me under arrest now? Or am I simply betraying my own interests, with my readiness to vote for someone who’s a woman when I’m not one myself?
And what do we have going on href=”http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004125568_camplatin15.html”>here:
As both candidates aggressively court Hispanic voters, Obama confronts a history of often uneasy and competitive relations between blacks and Hispanics, particularly as they have jockeyed for influence in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.
“Many Latinos are not ready for a person of color,” Natasha Carrillo, 20, of East Los Angeles, said. “I don’t think many Latinos will vote for Obama. There’s always been tension in the black and Latino communities. There’s still that strong ethnic division. I helped organize citizenship drives, and those who I’ve talked to support Clinton.”
Being elected to be, and not so much to do.
I would imagine, since this is a year divisible by four, that over the next three months or so the li’l toe-heads in school are occasionally going to be called on to inspect this thing called “politics.” Their teachers are going to eek out some non-committal brand of babbling calculated not so much to elucidate, but to give the feeling that something of substance was handed out without ticking off their bosses, parents of all political flavorings, and most importantly the teachers’ union.
They will dish out, faithfully, the seven lies I was told years ago when I was captive to these “teachings”. Namely, that Republicans and democrats want to do the same things but have different ways of going about doing ’em.
They’re going to present the political process as a process in which we identify common problems, and get together to solve them.
And here we are.
Arguing between elections about who could fix things if only they had the power, and who’s gumming up the works because they have too much — and when the elections come it’s all different. We use the electoral process to figure out which demographic group outnumbers which other demographic group.
Whose turn is it to have a representative in the White House? Women? Or Blacks? Are there enough Hispanics to hand the election over to the woman?
Is anybody talking anywhere about what the respective candidates would do about the various issues?
It seems those days are long gone.
My radio guys had a “senior analyst” on the other morning. And they decided to insist on some major policy difference between Clinton and Obama. Where, exactly, do they disagree?
Talk about awk-ward. The poor guy hemmed and hawed and eventually squeaked out something about…erm…Venezuela.
I have to admit, it is kind of exciting living in a time in which, in my youth, it was a contest among white-guys-only, and now it’s not. But the thing that makes it exciting is the stuff I have the opportunity to learn. And what I’ve learned is something maybe I shouldn’t be mentioning in a blog, and it’s certainly something I can’t say out loud in public.
I’ve learned that these problems we’re trying to solve, get considerably less attention now than they did when it was a contest-among-white-guys.
No, not for the reasons you might think I’d say that, since I’m a white guy. For entirely different reasons. Simply put, if you think this is progress — you’re nuts. We’re going through the motions of arguing about issues, and we’re doing anything-but. We’re having a contest to see which human class has the most noses. We’re trying to figure out which race has done the best job of breeding.
You know, maybe with another century or so it’s going to be natural for this stuff to gradually dissipate. Eventually, we’ll achieve the wonderful society we envision…an election comes up and it’s Blacks against Hispanics against white guys against women, and we get back the pressure on the candidates we used to have, to form sensible policy alternatives on the issues that confront the nation. Maybe in 100 years, maybe a little more.
But the problem is, in the course of all those generations people die off while waiting. And that strikes me as a little silly, when I consider — if we put some thought into why some policies are good and some policies are bad, and were somewhat more interested in what our elected officials do than in what those elected officials are — it wouldn’t take nearly that long. It’d be fairly instant wouldn’t it?
It also occurs to me that when people talk about the amounts of money raised by these candidates, the numbers they throw around are fairly large, in the millions of dollars. That means jobs. Big, beefy, mature industries, headed up by smart, slick experts. Which means a lot of people who have something to lose if we talk about issues and policies, and a whole lot to gain if we remain distracted by what personal attributes the candidates have.
I’m a realist. I understand in the first election in which a woman and a person of color have come so far, a little distraction is normal. But at some point it gets to be a little too much, doesn’t it? All this activity and all this time, in all these states, with little or no discussion about policy differentials?
And this is supposed to be our remedy for the “disastrous” policies of an incumbent President, who’s “messing everything up.”
This looks to me a lot more like a prologue to messing things up.
Why I Won’t Support McCain
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008Here we are…nine months away from my first vote for a third-party candidate since 1992. And if you told me nine months ago that I’d be seriously considering that again, I’d have told you you were nuts.
I thought I had learned my lesson. Trouble is, I can tell a setup when I see one.
The LA Times has endorsed John McCain in the GOP primary, and at least two of its reasons for doing so should give conservatives pause: the liberal paper likes McCain because he’s weak on border fences and strong on global warming.
Excerpts [emphasis added]:
As the Republican field indulged this campaign season in an orgy of ignorance on immigration, McCain stood his ground, sponsoring legislation that would provide a route to citizenship for the 11 million to 12 million immigrants here illegally. His rivals have argued for mass deportations and strong border fences.
Similarly, McCain has led his party in its halting effort to confront the reality of climate change. He introduced the Senate’s first attempt to address the problem legislatively in 2003, and although that bill failed, McCain has supported cap-and-trade systems that could reduce greenhouse gases, and he has stayed that course despite criticism from fellow Republicans. [emphasis NewsBusters]
I’m supposed to consider this “maverick” because at least we’ll get some strict constructionists nominated to the Supreme Court. Who the hell says, might I ask? We got the strict constructionists we do have, out of Presidents who had enough umpshun in the gumpshun to survive whatever forces in the beltway tend to make a guy more “hip” and “with it.” For a little while.
It seems, after enough time, they all rust over no matter what kind of metal was used to forge them.
And McCain shows signs of oxidization and wear all over the place. “Maverick,” now that I’ve thought about it for awhile, is probably farther off the mark than any other one word that could be used to describe this candidate. All something has to do is become cool, The Thing To Do, and he’ll be in. And nobody knows who exactly gets to decide what’s cool. Here’s this phony science promoting a theory that has “world government propaganda” written all over it in bright, glow-in-the-dark red crayon — it seeks to assert THE WORLD WILL END IF OUR TAXES AREN’T RAISED. Hey, that is what it says. I’m not twisting that around or modifying it in any way. That is the core message. All the rest is just hyperbole, cherry-picked “facts,” my-scientists-are-smarter-than-yours types of gimmicks, and other decoration. The core message is that we can die free, or live a little while longer if strangers decide how we do that living, and we pay them for the privilege.
And McCain’s choking down this donkey-doot sandwich and ordering seconds.
Strict constructionist judges my left nut.
I don’t oppose McCain because I’m afraid he’s too liberal. I oppose him because he has failed to position himself as a representative of The People. He could wake up tomorrow morning with just about any ol’ crazy thought rattling around in that head of his, and rest assured, whatever crackpot idea it is will be fashionable. Either he’ll make it that way, or it was like that when he found it. Either way, his administration would be an administration of…well, I really don’t know who exactly.
Highest bidder, I guess.
H/T: Michelle.
Best Sentence XXIV
Tuesday, February 5th, 2008The Best Sentence I Heard or Read Lately (BSIHORL) award this morning goes out to Kathryn Jean Lopez, for a column she wrote a month ago…that I just found:
Primarily Undecided
Two election nights into 2008, we have no idea how this is going to end.
By Kathryn Jean LopezThere’s one thing that is clear the morning after the New Hampshire primary: We don’t know anything.
And before we reach the end of the first paragraph, we bump into the prize. Read it twice if you have to. Tell your friends.
Politics is not a science and we should stop pretending it is.
True, true, true…and, on occasion, a little tough to remember.
Of course in context what she’s saying is that the clay feet belong to those who announced “the Clinton era was over” and her point is that it is not. The month that has rolled on by since then has not been kind to this point. But…that makes it all over again for her, in a way, does it not?