Archive for the ‘RINOs’ Category

I Made a New Word XL

Friday, August 6th, 2010

Frum • i • fes • to (n.)

A Frumifesto is a manifesto written down by a liberal jackass pretending to be a conservative, crying into his beer grape juice that “today’s” conservatives aren’t acting like “real” conservatives, which means like liberals.

Like this guy over here.

Some ingredients in the mix are regular fixtures.

1. She’s in there. Oh yes. Bank on it. The Wonder of Wasilla.
2. The drive against intellectualism. That’s right, these slope-head conservatives of today use their bare feet to propel their little Flintstone’s cars, and they want you to do the same.
3. Putting the hate on the O-man because of His Holy Pigment. That’s right…if only there was a white guy turning America into a socialist paradise, these neanderthal conservatives would be as pleased as punch. They’re upset because He’s too dark.
4. Buckley will get a mention. George F. Will’s name will probably be used too, even though he isn’t dead.
5. Maybe some made-up stories about racist signs seen at tea parties. Or some real stories about real signs carried by infiltrators, which are made-up tea-party people. Also, the “one percent” canard, supposedly the black tea party people are below 1% and this means there’s something wrong with the movement. Xenophobia, nationalism, et al.
6. Global warming. Why won’t these modern conservatives just accept it.

Outside of those staples, on a case-by-case basis the Frumifesto takes off in all sorts of exotic, imaginative, spontaneous directions. Like, for example…

…no, check that. They’re all pretty much identical. I don’t know why anybody bothers to write new ones, I really don’t. Because other people fall for them, I guess.

Well Jonah Goldberg wrote up a good column about how it’s all a crock. Then FrankJ noticed Goldberg’s column and wrapped it.

Me, I’m lamenting the demise of yesterday’s liberals.

I had not yet left my hometown, which was a college community and still is. Liberals back then didn’t seem like anything I’d one day miss. They hated Reagan and they said a lot of stupid shit about it. Like for example…”we” already had the power to blow up the world seven thousand times and here we were building even more nuclear missiles. They wore socks under their Birkenstocks. They were mostly male, old, white, fat, and smelled funny. Their eyebrows stuck out and curled around. You wondered how long the eyebrow hairs were if they were stretched out. Like the Ayatollah Khomenei. They could hide sandwiches in those things. Every one of ’em looked like an evil fucking Santa Claus.

But if you disagreed with them, they just grunted at you. Gugh. Grrr. You wouldn’t get some theory pulled out of thin air about your latent racism or homosexuality. Not that they weren’t a bunch of pretentious intellectual wanna-be types. They were semi-retired professors after all. Like me, they found it difficult to have a thought without jotting down a few pages…except they were much more enthused about making up stories. It would have been a natural fit. Maybe they just didn’t think of it.

Maybe they went on to write a bunch of Frumifestos.

The point is, every single person on the earth who disagreed with them, was not automatically a racist. I miss that. Like today’s liberals, they still pretended to possess a monopoly on “reasoned discourse”…and like today’s liberals, they didn’t come even close to delivering on it. They wanted diversity only with regard to religion and skin color, not about political opinions. Just like today’s liberals.

But they didn’t commit slander quite so often. Back then, it would have taken some work. It wasn’t like today when it seems to come automatically, even to the brainless.

America Loves a Fighter

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Now here‘s something to chew on, something to make you think and go hmmm.

Byron York put up a column earlier this week blaming Republicans for the excesses of the democrat party. Much of it filters through the lens of the fact that democrats currently enjoy a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. It’s a critique that the Republicans need to fight just a teensy bit harder. Had just 157 Minnesotans voted differently, Al Franken would not be in that august body and we would not have this albatross of a health care bill.

SusanAnne Hiller takes this one down. I am not entirely sure these two disagree with one another, when I read things like this…

The GOP’s white flag allowed the left to gain momentum, until it was unstoppable. So much so that the McCain campaign wouldn’t even touch Obama’s associations or Rev. Wright’s anti-American sermons. I think this was due to fear of what the left would do to them with their compliant and obedient MSM ready to report. The Obama campaign said repeatedly that their intentions were to transform America. The MSM never called them out on what that transformation was going to look like. And when McCain started to gain momentum, he would pull back and actually give kudos to Obama and his campaign. With such a non-strategic campaign, circling the wagons and shooting in, and the wrong presidential candidate, the GOP met its doom.

The democrat party wanted to choose, during the campaign, what subjects would be “on the table” for discussion. Each and every single minute of each and every single day. And the Republican party let them go ahead and do it. We don’t want to talk about Jeremiah Wright! Um, alright then…after all, this isn’t an argument about who associates with the most decent friends. Yeah, but we want it to be an argument about who’s most decent, and you John McCain are indecent! Um, alright, okay…we’ll talk about that then. And we won’t mention Jeremiah Wright because you don’t want us to.

Obama talked about McCain’s flawed policies. McCain talked some about Obama’s flawed policies…but made sure for every minute of that, there were two more minutes about Obama’s noble intentions. Intentions didn’t enter into it when it came time for Obama to criticize McCain. McCain was just Bush’s third term, the doddering old fool didn’t know how many houses he had, and that was the end of it.

Obama fought, McCain did not, and Americans love a winner.

But there is cause for optimism here. It is quite silly and absurd to insist the democrat party will enjoy a filibuster-proof majority in the 112th Senate. Nobody’s predicting that. In fact, it is reckless to suppose Republicans will gain seats in only one of the chambers, as opposed to both. It isn’t even a safe bet to predict the democrats will come through it retaining control of Congress.

The big question is this: Can we keep the grown-ups in charge for more than eight years? More than twelve? When the democrat party first got started, this country said “no” to it quite regularly. Lincoln to Arthur — that’s 24 years. Disregard Cleveland and the trend extends to Taft, 52 years. Disregard Wilson and it goes to Hoover, 72 years.

This is the one place on the globe that rejects the “trickle-up-poverty” of socialism. That really needs to be the platform. And if that means the platform is more about rejecting things than accepting things, then so be it. Smitty speaks wisdom when he takes on Dan Riehl:

But other than some scolding for what has long been known and already widely discussed, I’m not sure York’s item says much at all. Net net, the GOP has to find a way to bond with the base and the American people as a whole. They shouldn’t think they’re going to win any election prizes simply for not being Democrats.

I’m not sure, Dan. Didn’t BHO win by saying he would not be Bush? You know Progressivism is killing the country. The real danger would seem to be fragmentation, as voting for 20 different “not being Democrats” effectively elects the Democrat. So the principles should always trump the personality, in a thinking electorate. Oops.

There is going to have to be some revulsion here. Some anti-democrats are going to have to be made miserable by their tethering to some personality who is opposed to them on some secondary issue. They are going to have to be tortured with avoidance-avoidance-conflict, holding their nose while they punch the chad, muttering something about “well, if it’s an asshole/jerk/big ol’ dummy against Obama, I can’t vote for Obama.” One man’s fine dessert is another man’s sewage. Personally, I think the best scenario would be to hand the plate-of-poop over to the “conservative” Palin-bashers…the Rick Moran, David Frum types. That would be my ideal scenario, because if we embrace what they want — “let’s be intellectuals, and let’s define intellectualism according to the whims and dictates of whoever talks the loudest” — the democrats will be back in charge in a heartbeat. So let them be he ones tortured with avoidance-avoidance conflict. It makes sense.

First and foremost, the grown-ups have to fight their way back to the front of the bus, and the steering wheel. And it needs to be presented to the electorate not in terms of who’s going to do the driving, but in terms of who’s driving right now, and shouldn’t be. Because that’s what’s really important.


On climate change —

WRONG: “I cannot back the cap and trade legislation being proposed right now, although I do acknowledge it is a serious issue and we definitely should look into it.”

RIGHT: “This is an enormous, unprecedented, global scam being put on the American people and I’m not going to stand for it.”

On Al Qaeda —

WRONG: “My administration will not rest until these bad men are brought to justice. And they will be treated humanely and given every protection we offer to all the other accused persons in our great justice system.”

RIGHT: “Some say this enemy knows no nation and no uniform, and can therefore never be defeated. I’ll tell you how we defeat them. With steadfast loyalty to those who stand with us, and swift retribution against those who attack us. Under my administration, America will become the most valued ally the world has ever known, and the most frightening nightmare our enemies have ever seen or imagined.”

On offshore drilling —

WRONG: “My administration will not be responsible for importing one drop of crude oil from overseas than is absolutely necessary; we will work vigorously to bring the technology to the forefront that will make the best use of alternative fuels, and we will leave our arctic reserve the beautiful pristine wilderness that it is.”

RIGHT: “For too long, our antiquated laws have kept our own natural resources out of our reach. This is absurd. We will use whatever means is at our disposal to restore our nation’s energy independence, and all other goals are secondary.”

Stimulus spending —

WRONG: “Of course, it has to be about creating and saving jobs…”

RIGHT: “Keynesian economic theory has been shown repeatedly to be flawed, ineffective, unworkable and damaging. My administration will not tolerate this in any form. Give the money back to the people who made it in the first place, so they can spend it as they see fit. To those who say the tax rates need to be raised, I say you are free to send your own surplus taxes to the U.S. Treasury any time you want to.”

Airport screening —

WRONG: “My Transportation Security Administration is going to be the most non-denominational, non-discriminatory, non-profiling, non-judgmental Transportation Security Administration ever!”

RIGHT: “My Transportation Security Administration is going to make transportation secure. That will be its prime directive and that will be its only directive.”

Conflict in general —

WRONG: “We will do anything we have to, to avoid a bloodbath.”

RIGHT: “If there’s gotta be a bloodbath, let’s get it over with.”

On political attacks —

WRONG: “My friends, I would like to assure you, I am not what my opponent said I am.”

RIGHT: “On this occasion, I invoke the Morgan Freeberg Rule Number One: ‘If I’m gonna be accused, I wanna be guilty.'”

A war against Muslims —

WRONG: “This is a war against terror, and a war against bad men. It is not a war against Islam! It’s not! It’s not! It’s not!”

RIGHT: “A fireball burning at 3,000 degrees Celcius knows nothing of race, creed or sexual preference. You want non-discrimination? Make a move against some of my fellow citizens. Harm them or threaten them, and I will bring you some non-discrimination.”

And then you go right on like that, all the way down the line, issue by issue. You see the pattern? You do things the wrong way, you set up some glimmering feature about yourself, and then you have to follow that up by proving it. You start with few goals and then task yourself with many goals to show off what a broad, complex, Picard-like thinker you are. You appeal toward those who become quivering, neurotic and frightened whenever anybody acts on something. This was given a fair try in ’08 and it didn’t work…which means it won’t. You do things the right way, you identify an enemy and offer some reasons why that enemy must be defeated, gelded…something about the consequences involved in leaving that enemy influential. And then, to prove that, all you have to do is recite some facts. You remain concentrated on few goals, and your promise is action. Action…not to build, or to destroy, for that is what the private sector does. To protect. Protect within a narrow field of constitutional jurisdiction.

Let the other guys assume the defensive position. Stay focused. Stay on target. Unidirectionalism. Clarity and transparency — through simplicity. Show yourself equal to the task of guiding a small government. It takes a big man to do that. Any ol’ fool can “rule over” an omnipresent, omnipowerful government. Show yourself equal to the task of…guarding something. Single-mindedly, simple-mindedly. More watch-dogging. Less dissembling, obfuscating, equivocating.

In other words, you fight. That’s the right way.

Frank’s Purity Test

Thursday, November 26th, 2009

So Frank got a gander at the new Republican purity test, and came up with one of his own.

(1) Punching hippies is a legal form of expression.

(2) The moon should be declared hostile and nuked.

(3) The average American should be armed like Neo from the lobby scene at all times.

(4) Nachos are awesome.

(5) The federal government needs to stop wasteful spending. Also, researching giant war robots and dinosaurs with rocket launchers on them is not wasteful.

(6) America owns Antarctica.

(7) It’s not good diplomacy unless the foreign leaders are kneeling before us.

(8) Vampires shouldn’t sparkle.

(9) The fact that we torture terrorists isn’t horrific and is actually kind of funny.

(10) Biggest problem facing our nation: Too many sissies.

If you disagree with one of them, the punishment is for everyone to look at you and yell, “What’s wrong with you!” If you disagree with two of them, you get beaten up after RNC meetings. If you disagree with three, you lose RNC funding. And if you disagree with four or more, Fred Thompson punches you in the face such that your head explodes.

My favorites are #9 and #10, with #10 in a slight lead.

Purity Resolution

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

All RIGHT. Now we’re talkin’.

Republican leaders are circulating a resolution listing 10 positions Republican candidates should support to demonstrate that they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

The proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican national committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. They are asking for the resolution to be debated when Republicans gather for their winter meeting.
Here is the resolution’s list:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

If I was running for office — hah right, fat chance. Anyway, I’d be at nine outta ten. It is a satisfactory intersection between the issues that concern us in the here-and-now, and my own platform. So the seventy-percent test seems fair, to me.

I wonder how Scozzafava woulda done.

Update: I would have appreciated some elaboration on Point #1. Maybe splitting it in two. Whoever wants to call himself a conservative in 2010, should be spirited in launching a devastating attack upon the various wealth-distribution schemes. There needs to be an emphasis on the damage that takes place on the natural-market forces when assets are forcibly taken away from one and given to another. There also has to be a sense of conviction that Keynesian economic theory is not only invalid, but has been repeatedly tested and failed each time. That we are permanently done with it.

Neal Boortz has a great quote about this today. The author is Dr. Adrian Rogers.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. [emphasis mine]

Go in to 2010 standing up for that guy. The guy that must work to earn without receiving. Let the liberals appeal to their base, let them wail away that you’re slavishly playing into the interests of a bunch of rich pansy whiners. Let them go ahead with that.

Just stick to that one sentence up there, the one bolded. Whatever is given to someone who didn’t earn it, must have been plundered away from someone who did. And who loses when that happens? We all do. Rich, poor, anyone in-between.

You know what else has to be in the document? Something about reality. Name-calling. Stop championing one policy over another policy by coming up with a bunch of school-playground names for people who happen to favor the other policy.

To drone on at length about how liberals want energy, labor and prices to be artificially more expensive…how they’re guilty-white-racists pushing bad policies in some sick search of personal redemption…how they’re out to bring down the free market system…that’s all fair. The next few steps beyond it go into ad hominem, and that’s too far. Leave that to them. They’re very practiced at it and they don’t have anything else.

Memo For File XCII

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009

I had this horrible nightmare in which I was becoming a good friend of mine, an older gentleman who drank himself to death. It got me to thinking some more about Meghan McCain’s idiotic comments, and how they connect together with what I had to say in response to one of Mahatma Ghandi’s most famous quotes. These two things connect together.

This is the biggest of all the reasons McCain is embarrassing herself when she opens her mouth. There are many of those, of course; but this is the great-grandpappy of ’em, and as decent and as thorough a job as Cassy did eviscerating her, nobody’s mentioned this one that I can see.

Let’s walk through some littler ones though. First, Meghan suffers from the delusion that she’s found a “gotcha” on Michelle…

Michelle Malkin, the conservative pundit and author of the recent book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, was asked during a live chat on Politico’s The Arena on Friday which conservative political figure or commentator needs to shut up. Guess who her answer was? Yeah, that’s right — yours truly.

So Michelle Malkin successfully rounds out the trifecta of extreme female conservative pundits, following Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who believe that I, and Republicans like me, need to shut up and get out of the party…But what confuses me is this: Malkin recently posted an item on her blog about how “drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

It’s worthy of note, even if you don’t think so Miss McCain, that Michelle Malkin was asked the question — she didn’t offer up the idea that you should be gagged. No contradiction here sweetie. I, too, think it’s un-American to drown out opposing views. And if I’m asked a question similar to what was asked of Michelle, well…

FailThere’s another thing you’ve overlooked on that point, I think. “Needs to shut up” implies the shutting-up is for that person’s own good; it certainly implies that, much more strongly than it implies it’s worth Malkin’s time to break into someone’s bedroom in the middle of the night and surgically implant a gag-ball over that person’s pie-hole. So with that in mind, how does Malkin’s comment about you shutting up correlate to drowning out opposition? It seems as the matter receives greater study, whatever correlation there seemed to be before, starts to soften up and melt away. I think the crucial focus you missed was aptly summarized by me in my Ten Commandments For Liberals Who Want to Argue About Politics (#4):

If there are some contrary facts, then, it is to your benefit for you to be told about them. Your conservative colleague/opponent just might [be] involved an effort, as any true friend would, to stop you from making an enormous ass out of yourself.

Malkin might have been involved in a desire to see you stop hurting yourself.

Or perhaps Cassy Fiano speaks for Michelle as aptly as she speaks for me. She’s as clear as clear gets: “…I’m pretty sure [McCain will] just continue on acting like she’s being crucified in the GOP, when frankly, no one in the GOP even gives a damn about her. We just wish she would stop making idiotic, asinine remarks in our name.”

Now for the big kahuna, the thing that I said as I shamelessly ripped off India’s savior: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the resolve with which it ensures that good guys win and bad guys lose.”

McCain wants the Republicans to be more positive and more accepting. That is her central thesis, and it shows many signs of being not quite all that well thought-out…

It’s true that Democrats make being a member appealing in a much different way than the Republican Party does. The Democrats seem to have mastered inclusiveness — whereas Republicans, like a country club, seem to require a litmus test. But if people like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter think they can bully me into giving up this fight and what I am doing, they are going to be severely disappointed. And I can assure them that unless they start being realistic about the cultural and generational differences between the two sides of the party, there will not be a new generation of Republicans.

The democrat party seems, to a weak mind, to have “mastered inclusiveness.” Those of us capable of paying attention to things have figured out long ago, that what the democrat party has mastered is inclusiveness’ opposite. Just name an issue — any issue you want — and as that issue bubbles up to the surface of a conversation between democrats and non-democrats, each and every time you’ll see a discussion about some “villain” group that has been carefully defined alongside that issue. Whites, Christians, straights, “teabaggers,” those awful corporate chieftan people, “the rich,” stay-at-home Moms, Boy Scouts, anybody who doesn’t want Obamacare, Oil companies, Health insurance companies, lobbyists, bloggers, talk show hosts…I could add on to such a list all day long. Inclusive?

You kiddin’?

What democrats have mastered, is the construction of a barbaric society. Barbaric, the way I’ve described it: Apathy toward the matter that is supposed to be weighing most heavily on our minds, which is the day-to-day assurance that good guys win and bad guys lose. It happens every single time we put democrats in charge of things and it’s happening now. Photo ops with tinpot dictators as we “sit down and talk about our differences with” them. Which are meaningless to us…but mean everything to the tinpot dictator. Next thing you know, they’re emboldened, acting like they’re emboldened, negotiating concessions out of us they wouldn’t be able to negotiate if they weren’t emboldened. First little ones, then big ones.

Back at home, it becomes unprofitable and pointless to try to build a business. Why bother? If you’re profitable, the new regime will just take all your money. And so people sit on their asses some more. The democrats rationalize this because the poor, poor pitiful poor who can’t get jobs, are in a different economic layer than the folks who would’ve opened a new business and decided not to. So it’s not like the same malaise is hitting everyone, right? But it is. It’s exactly that way. An entire civilization is being incentivized to sit on its ass. Ass-sitting is the new hard-work. Crime is the new law-abiding. Capitalists are the new bums. Mean is the new nice.

Everything’s upside-down.

Meghan doesn’t see this kind of world, because frankly she’s too young and thick. As Cassy’s commenter MLH says,

I follow Meghan on Twitter (just wanted to see what all the hype was about) and I can’t disagree with anything you say about her…I’ve been following Ms. McCain for three months. In that time frame all I’ve discovered is that: #1 She’s managed to get around four or five speeding tickets in the past few months(no clue how she still has a license other than her last name). #2 Gone to L.A. for a “No H8TE” photo-shoot. #3 Gone to NYC for some kind of photoshoot. #4 Out somewhere at parties & clubs in L.A., and NYC. #5 Learned all the complaints about her apartment and how shopping is such a hassle at various stores. #6 Going to Sturgis to be cool with all the bikers (Daddy told her to “be careful.” #7 Four hours one day of hysterics because she fell for some weirdo’s suicide note to the point where she actually got her PR person to contact Twitter and the police to get the man help — turns out he “wasn’t serious and will seek intensive help” after she gave him the attention he needed (she got a kudos from Alan Colmes on that one with the gracious statement that her actions “only show how much she cares.” #8 And finally, One time she asked all her followers what she should write about in her next column at The Daily Beast. This girl is indeed vapid beyond belief and one glaringly obvious reason why influential people’s children should be rarely seen, and even rarer heard.

People who fit this profile, seem to rise up to outvote the rest of us every sixteen years. Meghan is older than sixteen, but not much, and her comments about politics generally indicate someone who only started paying attention to things over the last year or two, perhaps less than that. She isn’t even up to par with the average voter, who’s already seen it happen a few times: We put liberals in charge when we get sick of conservatives, and conservatives in charge when we get sick of the liberals. And we get sick of liberals about three or four times quicker. It’s their solutions, you see. They don’t work.

They encourage sloth, dysfunction, anarchy and crime.

Meghan McCain is “pro sex.” Good for you, Meghan. Sex, sometimes, is not a vice…sometimes, on the other hand, it is. Evidently you haven’t been around long enough to hurt someone by having sex, so it’s a good thing overall that you’re blind to this. But maybe if you spent a little bit less time Twittering, and a little bit more time actually talking to these people you think want to apply these litmus tests that you yourself are far too decent to apply to someone — hah! — you’d find out what so many others understand they’re really all about.

It’s not about excluding people from things.

It’s about doing what leads to good things, and staying away from what leads to bad things. For our own sakes, and for the sake of those closest to us. FOR the PEOPLE. I had a nightmare in which I hurt people close to me by drinking a lot, something I actually saw someone else do. The hurting people by having sex, I’ve already done. The essence of Christian behavior is to say “Let’s just try to stop doing that stuff okay?” The essence of democrat behavior, and Meghan McCain behavior, seems to be: Don’t you dare say a word against any of that, someone might feel excluded.

When we forget about Morgan’s definition of a decent society, nine times out of ten I notice we do it by starting out on the path you’re on right now. By being “accepting” of this or that. Ghandi also said “hate the sin, love the sinner” — it’s such a great summation of Christian attitude that it’s often mistakenly attributed to Christ Himself. This denotes a distinction requiring an observing mind sharper and more capable than yours, I think. This is the problem you represent, Miss McCain. You’re so anxious to show off that you’re universally accepting of people…when you really aren’t, but that’s a whole other story…that you end up setting yourself up as a champion of just-plain-bad ideas. Drinking yourself to death, dropping out of school, having kids before you can afford to raise them, adopting a kid without both a mother and father in the home, smoking crack, voting for Obama, robbing liquor stores, rioting, calling a motorcycle gang a bunch of pussies…just pointing out these are bad ideas, doesn’t automatically mean you’re “excluding” the people who have been doing them. Failing to regard them as bad ideas, doesn’t mean you’re an accepting person. You don’t have the brainpower to understand this. You’re in some great company there.

But your ignorance isn’t a way out of the wilderness, for Republicans or for anybody else. No matter how much smugness you toss into the stewpot with it.

Michelle Malkin answered the question that was put to her very, very capably. Anybody who thought otherwise for whatever reason, only had to read the comments you had in response. It’s almost as if you read what she said, and thought “Hey, someone who isn’t familiar with me might be confused about what Michelle said there…I’d better throw something out where people will see it, so it will all come together and make sense.”

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Michelle, Meghan, Cassy

Tuesday, August 11th, 2009

Meghan has a few words for Michelle.

We will not get anywhere by continuing to sell hate and fear. Of course, there is always going to be a fraction of the GOP that is going to respond to that, but at some point we have to start facing the reality that hate and fear will only get us so far. Those emotions are not sources for inspiration of joining anything, let alone supporting a political party.

The old conservatives of the past need to start accepting that this is a new era and I am a part of a new generation. I am as sick of the infighting as everyone else, but I would like to point out that I am not the one starting this fight or demanding that the other half of the party leave.

Cassy has a few words for Meghan.

But here’s the kicker: just because we don’t want you to lead us does not mean that we are kicking you out of the party. Just because we aren’t appointing you our new rising star doesn’t mean you don’t have a place here. I suspect Meghan knows this deep down, but what kind of attention would she get by acknowledging that? It’s much more fun to sit there and try to fill the role of the new maverick in the Republican party. You get all kinds of lavish attention from celebutards and liberal talking heads who praise you for “keeping it real”. So I’m pretty sure she’ll just continue on acting like she’s being crucified in the GOP, when frankly, no one in the GOP even gives a damn about her. We just wish she would stop making idiotic, asinine remarks in our name.

Now, I really whittled both of these down to size in order to make a certain young lady look a whole lot more intelligent than she really is. To figure out which one it is, why don’t you pop both of them open and give a full reading to each of them — when you run across the “money quote” I think your eyes will bulge out of their sockets, whatever liquids your swallowing will be ejected forcefully from both nostrils, and you’ll wonder why anybody ever prints anything written by…a certain someone.

Give you a hint. It’s got something to do with something that rhymes with “Jitter.”

Memo For File XC

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

I was over reading in “The House” and I ran across the line “Republicans don’t need to broaden their base…”

and I thought to myself….

No…. they need to deepen it.

Blogger friend Phil.

I just heard Joe Scarborough on the radio, and I guess he has a book out about how Republicans can get back into the swing of things. To his credit, he does not belong to the Meghan McCain camp of “Keep The ‘R’ But Lose Everything Else”; but from his comments, I don’t think he is altogether correct either. I view him as a tent-embiggener, and I think the former Congressman Scarborough would agree with me on this.

This is not to say I think all his points lack merit. Quite to the contrary: Some of what he says really has to be taken seriously. His emphasis seems to be on localizing control as opposed to keeping the decision-making power at the higher levels and then pushing for “morality policing”; on this point, I agree. He pushes for a moderation in tone, a less cantankerous tone of discourse, which I also think is a good idea. On this point though, he’s drinking kool-aid. As I pointed out earlier, it has emerged as a favorite left-wing tactic, both in cloakrooms at capital buildings and in water-cooler chats among ordinary wage slaves, to declare the conversation has become uselessly heated and then falsely blame the conservative for starting it…either the discussion itself, or the inferno of unfriendly remarks that erupts within. (More often than not, the liberal has taken the initiative in both of these.)

So Scarborough’s advice is a mix of the healthy and the not-so-much. What I think he has done, is construct a house with some good architectural ideas and a sturdy foundation, on a site of shifting sand.

Scarborough argues that right-wingers seeking to recapture Ronald Reagan’s box office mojo need to embrace environmentalism (they should be “Going green for God”); acknowledge the permanence of troubled entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare (“Everyone is going to have to give until it hurts”); and pursue a humble foreign policy (except when they don’t: “Most Republicans, including myself, were steadfast in their support for the war” in Iraq).

On contentious social issues like abortion and gay marriage, the heirs to Edmund Burke and William F. Buckley Jr. should push for decisions to be made at the state level — not necessarily because localized decision-making provides better answers but because “that is the only way to protect the advances conservatives have made over the past generations.” Most of all, Scarborough counsels, conservatives need to channel their inner Gipper by “following the advice of Jesus and the example of Reagan, by trying more often to turn the other cheek” during fractious policy debates.

So he’s been duped into a lot of things here. That it has become antithetical to Republican-ness to “turn the other cheek” infers, or at least implies, that we have a lot of Republicans out there seeking revenge against perceived slights, and doing the party harm by being seen seeking this revenge. That may be happening here and there, but if one is embarking on a quest to find vengeful people who never heard of turning the other cheek, one can hardly do better than making a bee-line for the nearest gathering of hardcore left-wing liberals. On the radio, I hear him implore the conservative movement to show better support to the New England intellectual-snob set; we should be asking ourselves how welcome Buckley himself would feel in modern conservative ranks.

Again: He’s drinking kool-aid, without knowing that’s what he’s doing; and in so drinking, he takes the defensive prematurely. Conservatives need to make people feel welcome? Conservatives do? How ya figure? Take a look at what I need to do for liberals to show me contempt, and engage their blizzard of “You’re So Stupid” attacks. Some would say I have an unusually natural way of attracting such an onslaught; and in some ways they could be right. But from all I have managed to observe, it really doesn’t take much. I’m a six-foot-tall straight Protestant white guy who hasn’t served in the military and still possesses all his limbs.

From that starting point I don’t need to do an awful lot to bring on pit bulls. Failing to support fully-taxpayer-funded abortions on demand from sea to shining sea — that is plenty enough to throw the feeding frenzy into high gear. Or, I could fail to get behind an initiative to forever banish intelligent design from all schools public & private. Or…I could support these things, and just be a little bit pokey about it. It’s not that I’m placed under a magnifying glass for being a white male; I can see from the experiences of Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin that my white-male-ness in fact spares me from some of the worst of the viciousness. But my point isn’t the intensity of viciousness, it’s the ease with which one becomes a target of it.

America has a party that is obsessed with properly qualified membership, and once that party’s decided you’re on the outs, you’re on the outs for good. That party is not the Republican party.

Republicans need to confront some phony “truths” that Scarborough, judging from what the former Congressman has seen fit to bring to my attention, is failing to confront.

There is no need to prove that conservatism has something to do with a “big tent.” Conservatism is a big tent by its very nature. The notion that some among us possess a group membership that makes them better than anyone else, is a hallmark among those other guys who want to sieze control of the tax code so they can loot from the undesirables and ply a bunch of phony “government program” benefits onto the desirables. True, conservatives would like to do something similar with businesses — to the extent you think it’s a phony-government-program-benefit to lower taxes, that is true. But what color is a business? Anyone of any color, gender or sexual preference can start a business.

Conservatives need to confront some mistakes in the national thinking that even the Great Ronaldus failed to confront. That the guy who wins, is the guy who can show off a veneer of patience, cheerfulness, good humor and cheer, for example. Reagan won that one by being that guy.

You want some “rising star” to emerge in 2012 and pull that one off against Obama?

Best wishes to ya. You won’t see my weekend-beer-money in the kitty. I’ll be sitting that one out.

No…the thing that has to be challenged, is this notion that a position on the ideological spectrum makes you cheerful and patient. This profound absurdity has been allowed to endure plenty long enough, I’d say. We’ve got to get rid of it. NOW. If we don’t, someone is going to come up with the bright idea that we have to stop the women from voting in elections — they are, without a doubt, the demographic that predominantly finds this appealing — and I don’t want to see things diminish to this point. Women should be allowed to keep voting. And to make sure they don’t lose this right, it has to be shown that they can be allowed to vote, without the country being condemned to repeating some terrible, awful mistakes. And let’s be honest, that has yet to be demonstrated.

Not that a whole lot of men aren’t also falling for it. But it doesn’t matter. It’s just a fact: Your decision to support Cap-n-Trade, or Universal Healthcare, or a Second Stimulus — or to oppose those things — none of this makes you a Good PersonTM. Nor do such declarations of ideological positioning make you a rotten nasty person. These are debates about policy, and they should be treated as such.

The identity politics is also something Scarborough seems to support, or at least, fails to oppose with the level of vigor I’d find encouraging. If you’re from Delaware, a conservative spokesman from Missouri can support your interests just fine and dandy, better than our Vice President Mouthy Joe. If the Delaware guy somehow can’t see that, the problem belongs to the Delaware guy. Any conservative kingmaker who’s got some say in making-or-breaking the spokesman from Missouri, needs to stand up for that principle rather than trying to soothe the agitated feelings by embarking on some journey to find a New Englander saying the same stuff.

Why? Because that’s called prejudice. And conservatives are supposed to be united in opposing it, in all its forms. That means opposing identity politics in all its forms.

Scarborough’s examples do little to highlight this critical distinction. So here’s another one: Voter ballots printed up in Spanish.

That is a pickle. The easiest way to embrace the Scarborough-big-tent-ism is to select a path identical to Meghan-McCain-big-tent-ism: Crank up the presses por favor! Because pushing for a truly conservative point of view would be excluding people. Conservatism has to waver. Perhaps this is why I’m not hearing of Scarborough highlighting this particular issue. There’s a lot of heat there, so who could blame him?

But the kind of conservatism that is really on the line here, has nothing to do with excluding people. It has more to do with an intellectually honest argument about what equality really is. What’s being discussed is a country’s right to have the one thing that has been best proven to make all countries strong, and to weaken them when it is taken away: A culture. France has a culture. Spain has a culture. Lots of countries in Africa have a culture. Great Britain and Canada could have a culture…if they wanted it…

Why can’t the United States have one? That’s the question that should be asked. And even in these racially-sensitive times, it shouldn’t be that tough of a point to argue. I asked, a few paragraphs ago, what color is owning-a-business? Well, what color is English? Other countries get to define, and defend, their culture; the United States should be able to do this too.

Gay marriage, that’s another one. The lazy, predominant, wafting, prevailing theme is that it’s some kind of a civil rights issue. We all have to bless same-sex marriage or else people are being denied their constitutional rights to love each other. Just a little bit of honest, responsible thinking will reveal this is wombat-rabies bollywonkers crazy. The issue is the civil rights of the churches, who would surely be litigated into non-existence in an all-gay-marriage nation for refusing to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies. What if we take the “don’t do it, and say we did” route in legalizing same-sex marriage? Those who want to get married are denied nothing. Marriage is all about elimination of options for the individuals who enter into it; it doesn’t grant anybody any “rights.” What it does is eliminate the rights. Like any other declaration of something in front of a community of witnesses, just like any other signature, it exists for that very thing — to eliminate options that would otherwise be open to one party, for the benefit of other parties. In the case of marriage it is a mutual exchange, but that doesn’t mean someone’s been deprived of civil rights just because the state hasn’t been muscled into re-defining something.

With regard to Phil, I don’t know if he agrees with all my points here — they aren’t my most politically-correct ones, some of them could be quite controversial. But I’ll definitely place my stamp of approval on what he said. In fact, broadening the tent is not only different from what Republicans need to do, it does great harm. These ideas about embiggening, far too often, result in a subtle collapse of some of the principles conservatives are supposed to be defending.

Clearly, from the lesson that was taught last November, the goal should be how to define that line that separates conservatives from liberals. Perhaps that’s why it rankles me so much to hear people talk about letting more people in. If you do that just to make the tent bigger, without safeguarding the principles, that’s when the tent pole snaps. I think the message needs to be “no, conservatives aren’t eager to include more people, but we aren’t eager to exclude people either; it’s those other guys who are passionately engaged in doing both of those.” That really is the point that has to be made. Anyone, regardless of place of birth, color of skin, sex or creed can adopt the right principles and be a conservative. But you must adopt them.

You have to adopt the right principles to be a liberal too. But nobody notices that, even though the challenge is stiffer on the liberal side because it’s enduring. Be a liberal, so that liberals will let you in their “big tent,” say all the right things so that they let you in…and you’ll get in. But thirty seconds later you have to prove your devotion all over again. It’s never enough. Deep down, they know it to be true. Listen to them argue sometime. Even the ones that run things, even Barack Obama Himself, they never have any confidence that their Good-person-ness has been validated with any permanence and the whole thing’s a done deal. The sloppy, obsequious arrangement has always looked to me rather like eating egg drop soup with chopsticks, with your pants on fire. The desperation to keep on proving inner personal decency over and over again, persists, becomes cyclical, then dizzying. It’s beyond distracting. It’s how they manage to stumble upon their very worst ideas.

Do we need an example of that? Look no further than the idea of supporting Sotomayor. There’s nothing to recommend her to the Supreme Court, and contrary to popular belief, she has speechified about the “Wise Latina” not just once, but repeatedly.

It’s not a silly idea to argue that this is racism. It is the very definition of it. What’s a silly idea is to seat her on the Supreme Court. There’s no reason to do it, none whatsoever, except to “prove” that whoever’s making the decision possesses some streak of innate personal goodness, that that person himself doesn’t really believe is there.

Prove it. For thirty seconds.

Priestap Takes Meghan McCain Apart

Friday, April 24th, 2009

Kim Priestap rips Meghan a well deserved new-one in Pajamas Media this morning. Her comments resonate with my own natural frequency, right from the very opening line:

“I love you. Now, please change.”

That is the message Meghan McCain has for the Republican Party.

(Shudder.) Oh! The level of suspicion and skepticism I have for people with this message…which translates to “I’ve flung the right bromides your way, now you have to listen to me, you must diminish yourself.”

These people could go deer hunting, leave the rifles at home, and talk the animals into committing suicide. The lowest forms of human life are congressmen, used car salesmen, environmentalist whack-jobs, psychiatrists who write prescriptions for Ritalin because a single-mom asks them to, public school teachers that hate their jobs and make sure their students know about it…trial lawyers…environmentalist whack-jobs who drive big cars…whale poop, and then them.


R and R-Lite Instead of D and D-Lite

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Cylarz has a challenge in the comments section that really makes you think. His intent is to show how absurd is the notion that Rush Limbaugh is running much of anything, along with the idea that anyone, anywhere, is somehow forced to listen to him:

Imagine what life in this nation would be like if our parties were Republican and Republican-lite…instead of Democrat and Democrat-lite. The former is what the political scene would look like if everyone were listening to Rush.

It is my conviction that American consensus-politics are revolving on the rim of a large wheel. It is a merry-go-round that spins into & out of, not so much conservatism and liberalism, but fantasy and reality. Right now we’re on the 1976-77 sector of the wheel, wherein we just installed a hopey-changey youthful-charismatic guy who’s gonna solve all our problems. This is an exceptionally narrow pie-slice of the wheel’s orbit. It’s over in the blink of an eye. We see life’s problems are ours to solve and it’s not realistic to elect some savior-champion to deal with them on our behalf…we see it some more…we see it some more…lesson learned. For a few more years.

This dream Cylarz has, is at the opposite side…and is perhaps a little bit wider. It’s the 1969-1973, 1980-1986 side of the wheel.

So it’ll happen. It’ll happen, and we’ll get tired of it. All this stuff is inevitable, as the wheel keeps on turning. That’s my point. We kick the democrats out of power when we get tired of fantasy; when we notice, that to keep liberal ideas even looking good, there’s this never-ending pressure on to pretend simple things are complicated, and complicated things are simple. After awhile we get tired of that and we kick ’em out. We fire the Republicans when we notice, gee, it’s been awhile since we engaged the government to solve a problem and watched the problem disappear before our very eyes, wouldn’t that be neat? (The conservative platform is constructed around the paradigm that this isn’t really the purpose of government; in that way, the Founding Fathers worked under well-defined conservative bias.) People will listen to Rush, to learn what they should’ve learned before they went to vote. It’s already started to happen. It’s that human instinct to think and think and think some more about “did I turn off the stove?” when the car is zipping on down the freeway and it’s way too late to do anything about it.

But imagine if things were that way, and they stayed that way? I notice when we’re in the fantasy zone, we really are D and D-Lite. Oooh, look at me, I’m a compassionate conservative, I can blow money away on bullshit projects just as fast as my democrat “friends”; vote for me. When Republicans are in power the liberals don’t engage in some contest to see who can be the most-moderate lib. They just get all pissy and mumble the word “fascism” a lot.

So lessee…what would happen…

That last election would have been between Fred Thompson & Sarah Palin…and…Joe Lieberman and Ron Paul. Dr. Paul would be considerably more hawkish, his concerns about the constitutionality of the War on Terror ejected from his platform. Gen. David Petraeus would now have a fifth star. We would have pulled out of the United Nations.

A massive stimulus bill would have injected trillions of dollars into the U.S. economy over the next decade-and-a-half…in the form of a tax cut.

Barack Obama’s formidable oratory skills would be deployed where they would do the most good: On a radio or television program, trying to compete with Rush Limbaugh.

The front page of my local newspaper, and yours, wouldn’t speak very often to the plight of: state legislators pretending to care about balancing the budget, homeless people, unionized workers, ignorant addle-brained students who can’t graduate high school because they haven’t learned anything, prison guards, single moms, troubled youth, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. They’d live in a larger, better-informed world. Their headlines would very seldom deploy words like “BUDGET” and “DEFICIT” and “PROGRAM” and “NEED”…instead, you’d see proud, hopeful words in those daily headlines like “FREEDOM” and “OPPORTUNITY” and “LIBERTY.”

Your television “news” program wouldn’t talk too much about liberal programs are going to do. They’d be better-anchored to reality; they’d talk about what tax cuts have done, versus what liberal programs have done.

When some big major mega-city that’s been run by democrats for generation after generation, runs into a predictable budget deficit…you’d hear about it that way. An important part of the news report would be an editorial analysis of some rival city, floating along free of the concern of ever-enlarging social programs, without the deficits and without the liberals running everything. The news report would go through the budgets, line by equivalent line. After all, it isn’t useful news unless we explain why the problem occurred, is it?

Kids can pray in the classroom. Every classroom. If they don’t know English yet, they’re sent to remedial classes to learn it, before they learn another thing. Kids know how to fire guns, shoot arrows, build fires, tie knots. Intelligent Design? It’s recognized as precisely what it is: Just an idea that the universe, particularly the bits of it that make life possible, is here because of non-random activity as opposed to random activity. And then it’s debated. As science. Which it is.

Oh, and before I forget: This asshole is locked up for good, and/or fried crispy.

A convicted sex offender due to be released Saturday from prison after serving 11 months warned in letters that if set free, he would reoffend, even against children. In the letters, Michael McGill begged authorities to keep him locked up for life.

“Please throw the book at me … I’m harmful to others I should be locked up for life,” he wrote in block letters that resemble a child’s writing. “I will sexual abuse men. Do this for the safe (sic) of others then I be able not to hurt anyone else. Judge I’m begging you to put me away.”

In another place he wrote that he had told his two 7-year-old male victims, “I will do more sex crimes with boys 4 to 14. I will molest with boys 15 to 18.”

Neither the Polk County attorney’s office, which prosecuted McGill and distributed his letters to other agencies, nor the Iowa Board of Parole, nor the attorney general’s office, which handles civil commitments for sexually violent predators, says it can do anything to prevent McGill’s release.

Feminists are about as powerful…oh…as they are right now. See, we still have that going for us. People have only partially lost their minds. They’re still not ready to trust feminists again just yet. Feminists get together in their little clubs, isolated from everyone else, sharing notes with each other along with instructions to help-me-hate-this-thing-over-here. That’s the form in which they want to exist. Everyone else, walled off from them, gets work done, makes money, and has fun doing it.

At work, you can still be sent to sensitivity training — if you’ve somehow demonstrated this is necessary. Departments of people are not sent to mandatory sensitivity training. People are not randomly sent to sensitivity training. You can’t unilaterally decide you were harassed; it really does depend on the will and intent of the alleged harasser. And nobody makes any money off of the sexual-harassment racket. If they’re in some position that is created to deal with this in some way, they do it as volunteers, because the issue is supposed to be so important to them…which only makes sense. In other words: Lawyers don’t run things.

Sports Illustrated Swimsuit CalendarIn your work cubicle, or in your office, you can put up a Sports Illustrated swimsuit calendar. If anyone comes by to mutter so much as a peep of protest, that is the one treading on thin ice…not you. The phrases “objectification of women” and “unrealistic unhealthy body images” are about as socially acceptable in that world, as a racial epithet is in this one.

Family comedies do not conclude with a feel-good comedy-tragedy ending with the dad whacking himself in the head realizing he’s been a jerk, or an asshole, or a killjoy, or a workaholic. If anything, they end with the kid whacking himself in the forehead, belatedly realizing he should’ve been listening to his Dad.

Neighbors talk to each other. They have block parties. You don’t need to drive 40, 50, 60 miles into the county to discharge a pellet gun or a firearm. Once the shooting-range is set up, you can do it right in front of City Hall. On weekends, the whole town gets together for target shooting. Somewhere else, they have a beer garden. (You can’t go to the target shooting after you go to the beer festival, because alcohol and firearms don’t mix…yes, Republicans and conservatives do get that. Most of us bathe daily and have all our teeth. Really!)

Men do not stand by, brain-dead, clutching a purse outside the womens’ toilet, awaiting their next orders. They talk to other men. They get together and compare notes. They each express admiration for the sidearm the other fella has purchased to defend his lady and his children, should any bad guys be stupid enough to enter uninvited in the dark of some terrible night. They brag about who achieved the tightest grouping on the targets. And they fantasize, together, like giddy little boys, about muscle cars. Women get together and compare notes too. They don’t brag about whose boyfriend bought them the largest engagement ring, or who took charge of the family menu or what they told the hubby to start eating, or how they keep him from hogging the remote. Their rivalry is engaged, instead, in terms of who does the best job bringing her husband beer. “Oh yeah? I’d never think of handing it to him without the cap already popped off…and it’s always ice cold.”

Vice President Palin is even more influential in her new role, than Dick Cheney was in his. She’s a true role model. Women suddenly want their hair made up into her ‘do, just like they wanted to emulate Hillary’s back in the 1990’s. Palin’s face, in this universe, is everyplace Obama’s face is in this one. Time, Newsweek, US News and World Report, USA Today…et al. (Obama’s face, in turn, could be on a milk carton somewhere.) Everything female is Palin, Palin, Palin. Women want to learn to fly airplanes, to fire shotguns, to ride ATVs, to clean rifles and pistols, to drive a dogsled…and to field dress a moose. The fashionable cliche, assuming there is one, is “Yoo betcha!”

Tenth Amendment, all the way. Some states and counties allow gay marriage and others don’t; some states and counties allow pot, and others don’t. Some states and counties are officially Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Scientologist, if they can get the votes. Nothing is singled out for social stigma, be it positive or negative. So a married gay man just might be an abuser and a generally bad husband, just like a married straight man — “loving” is no longer a euphemism for “same-sex.” And if you smoke pot, you just might have an addiction problem…just like someone who drinks, might have an addiction problem. That means, friends and family might be inclined to intervene if the signs are there. And anyone can be a religious fundamentalist whacko; not just the Christians. If your child needs medical care but you think his sickness is Gods’ will, the nanny-state might eventually interfere — if you’re showing signs of possibly lopping off your daughter’s head because she’d dating the wrong fella, the nanny-state just might interfere with that too. True equality.

When kids get into fights on the playground, all the trouble is reserved for the kid who threw the first punch. The kid who threw the last one, assuming that’s someone else, hasn’t got a single thing to worry about. And that’s precisely the way the world politics work, too.

You may say I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one.

Questions for Moderates

Friday, November 14th, 2008

A relative cc’d me on a disagreement he’s having in the e-mail. It seems he offered his opinion where it wasn’t welcome. One should, out of politeness, always withdraw speedily from such exchanges, and it seems he did so, but I thought his brush-off to the brush-off was pretty elegant:

Sorry you aren’t open to dialogue on controversial topics. I’ll try to remember to exclude you from them.

We’ve got a lot of folks who aren’t open to dialogue on controversial topics — provided they’re assured their guys are winning, and things are goin’ their way. Once you have, let us say, a smirky arrogant cowboy in charge of things, these “neutral” folks are suddenly open to dialogue on controversial topics just fine, thankyewverymuch.

I jotted down a comisserative reply, and my flaky treacherous wireless card, and/or my slick “New Coke” Hotmail interface that likes to give me dumb looks when I dispatch it to do something — one of those two — promptly ate it.

Computers. They’re like traffic lights. I can hear ’em giggling at me, I swear I can.

Oh well. I’ll just upload it here.

Given that there’s a connection between these moderates who don’t want to see anyone criticizing anybody else, and our new President-Elect hopey-changey President-God, I’m looking forward to the answers that must surely emerge as we are deluged by these four years of “change”:

Is there a difference between what will soon engulf the entire union, and the oily machine politics that are the hallmark of the buroughs from whence the Messiah comes? And if we are to think there is to be such a difference, why is that exactly?

What does the ascension of the MOST liberal Senator, to the White House, have to do with moderation, compromise, a new tone in Washington, or an end to partisanship?

How come it’s over the line to say Obama is Carter’s second term, but quite alright to run around repeating, ad nauseum, that McCain is Bush’s third term?

I can’t think of any democrat contender more extreme than Sen. Obama, the guy who won; can you?

I can’t think of any Republican contender more “moderate” or “middle of the road” (liberal) than John McCain; can you?

I’m hearing a lot about how Republicans should strive for moderation, in order to properly learn from their mistakes. What, exactly, am I supposed to be inspecting within the events of the past few months, to conclude this is a sweeping mandate for more moderation? On either side? What am I missing?

Since Obama’s strategy for dealing with other nations sounds so much like John McCain’s strategy for dealing with other political parties — admit to your mistakes, and apologize for being what you are — wouldn’t the most likely ultimate result for America, of an Obama administration’s foreign policy, look a great deal like the electoral outcome for the GOP in the 2008 elections? Why or why not?

Last but not least: How come these “moderates” are so passionate about having everything done their way? The more I study it, the less it seems to have to do with ideological neutrality, and the more it seems to concern a drive to wallow in ignorance, melded with a determination to stay that way and make others that way.

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson.

Least Favorite Conservatives

Thursday, November 13th, 2008

Right Wing News has put up a list of unliked conservatives, as voted-upon by “right of center” blogs such as this one. First, a minor quibble — this is not quite consistent with the way we see things here. What other folks call “conservative” is something we would call centrist. We see it as a personal practice of replying “Let’s Not Do It And Say We Did” to…you know…dumbass ideas that have already been tried lots of times before. Gun grabbing, pulling manufactured “rights” for special interest groups out of your rear end, eugenics, bloated welfare state, making atheism the official state religion, spreading the wealth, et al.

Opposing that is not right of center. It is the center. Most if it is written right into the U.S. Constitution. We just pretend it isn’t, by throwing around the word “constitution” as a figure of speech, and allowing it to be used by people who haven’t even glanced at that document, let alone studied the history and meaning of it.

I wouldn’t even bother with this quibble — except it has to do with what follows.

I found the list of despised conservatives, that I submitted, had only a small overlap with the “popular” list that was published in the end. I did not include, for example, Ann Coulter, George Bush or Peggy Noonan. I do not think you become “bad” at anything dealing with an exchange of ideas, when you simply become popular. That would imply conservative figureheads have a duty to stay popular. And if conservative figureheads have a duty to stay popular, we might as well call ’em liberals because that’s how you get popular and stay popular; by being a liberal.

I also didn’t include congressmen who’d cast pro-choice votes, unless they’d cast a vote on some other issue to call their credentials into serious question. I’ll not fault someone for applying their personal druthers, even when they represent hundreds of thousands of others, to an issue that is deeply personal to some, complex as all get-out, and cannot have an outcome that is completely fair to everyone. Not unless they’re pretending to be thoughtful and really following in lockstep to someone else.

On the other hand — I did include one or two “conservatives” who voted for gun control. To me, there is absolutely no logical reason to support gun control. It isn’t that I have a huge gun collection, or even that I like guns that much. It’s that, if you favor even “common sense” gun restrictions, you’ve missed an important point about what it means to be an American. You’ve revealed a sympathy for centrist authority that is quite incompatible with the intended spiritual underpinnings of our nation.

Ditto for tax increases. I don’t favor tax increases when governments are out of money. I’ve heard the argument before…”it’s a serious shortfall, and we aren’t gonna get it from anywhere else.” Eh, no. You raise taxes, people and businesses leave, next year the problem is worse. I’ve not yet seen it fail. On this point, conservatism is nothing radical — nothing over & above common sense. It is, simply, having a functional memory. Nothing more than that.

I have mixed feelings about what Mr. Hawkins is trying to do here, I must say. On the one hand, it is valuable for conservatives to inspect the list of individuals who have shouldered the responsibility for getting the message across, and what kind of job they’re doing. You’d have to be nuts to think everything is ship-shape in this department right about now.

On the other hand, whatever you might call us — tighty-righties, common-sensers, Great Americans — we do not worship popular people just because they’re popular. As I’m often fond of saying: An excellent product can be sold by an adequate salesman just as well as it can be sold by an excellent salesman; you don’t need the excellent salesman, unless you’re selling a substandard product that people really shouldn’t be buying. Since the conservatism I know is simply the possession of a decent memory, common sense, and the will to act upon those…it doesn’t have much use for excellent salesmen. Or it shouldn’t. If it does, something’s bollywonkers & gunnybags.

One other interesting point: John McCain is #1.

I can’t help but wonder what’s going on in a parallel universe in which Fred Thompson secured the nomination. And then lost. And then the Mirror-Universe John Hawkins gathers together his list of repellant conservatives. Think the former Senator from Tennessee would be Numero Uno? Think he’d even be on the list?


This has a lot to do with another thing I’m often fond of saying. When people invite you refute something unflattering about you, it’s a mistake for you to think, by the energies you’re about to channel into doing this, you’ll get ’em to do what you want. That’s the mistake conservatives made this year. The talking point got trotted out that conservatism was a consistent and unwavering excercise of bad ideas…so John McCain became the nominee, so that Republicans could show off how adept they were at wavering. See? Look at us. We can waver.

And the electorate patted the Republicans on the head, said “that’s nice,” then toddled off to vote for the other guy.

And muttered a few words as they toddled, here & there, about what in the hell it was the Republicans were trying to say.

Life is like that. That’s the way people react when you dilute yourself, and your message. Whatever reservations people had about you before, remain; all you really dissipate by doing this, is the confidence that was there before.