Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 election. Show all posts
26 July 2008
Brilliant
Don't miss this excellent satire on the Obamamessiah from the TimesOnLine UK. As the Brits would say, "It's Just Brilliant, Lovey."
22 June 2008
Is Obama in Violation of US Code Title 18-713?
When I saw this story on Obama's new seal, I recalled this little piece of U.S. Code which refers to: Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States, the seals of the President and Vice President, the seal of the United States Senate, the seal of the United States House of Representatives, and the seal of the United States Congress, and which says:
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And wondered...???
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And wondered...???
21 June 2008
What a Difference the Messenger Makes
The liberal media is praising Obama for making some critical statements about black fathers in front of a predominantly black audience. Addressing the congregation of a large black church, Obama mentioned his own absentee father and said “we need fathers to recognize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception.” He went on to state, “more than half of all black children are living in single parent households” and “too many fathers are MIA” and “the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.” Obama is being widely credited with making a speech that was “striking for its bluntness” and is being applauded for his courage in presenting it to a black audience.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
So what about poor Bill Cosby, who has been bluntly speaking about the epidemic of fatherlessness among black Americans for over a decade? Where are Cosby’s accolades for having the courage to confront his own culture? The New York Times has called Cosby’s speechifying “inflammatory” and other forums have referred to his criticisms of the black community as “controversial.”…yet when Obama echoes these same sentiments, he is praised for being “brave” and making a “positive stand.” The capacity of the liberal media to ignore these sorts of disparities is truly amazing.
20 June 2008
Because Baby Alex's Momma Says So
Recent days have seen quite a few media chime-ins on the ‘Baby Alex’ ad sponsored by MoveOn.org. The ad features a young mother bouncing a beaming baby boy on her lap and emoting in a quavering, affected voice, “John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for a hundred years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him.”
We’ve become accustomed to the Left’s propensity for not letting the facts get in the way of a nasty campaign ad, but one still feels disgusted at the ad’s blatant exploitation of babyhood in an attempt to manipulate voters. For the umpteenth time, McCain never said he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. He simply referenced our ongoing military presence in countries like South Korea and Japan and said the same would be fine in Iraq “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And, presumably, it would also be fine with McCain, and any other sensible American, if Alex grew up, enlisted in the military, and were stationed for a time in peace time Iraq.
It’s not ok with this quavering, indignant mother, though. Asserting lifelong ownership of her son, she is not going to let John McCain “have him.” Nevermind that McCain will likely die of old age before the boy turns 18, and nevermind that the boy may well grow up and decide to serve his country of his own free will. Those facts do not make for good Drama – and it is drama, after all, that so often trumps the facts in our national dialogue.
Too bad little Alex’s mother is not as committed to truth telling as she is to claiming ownership over a life that, ultimately, is not hers. Her assertion that she knows what is best for another, both now and for all time, embodies the justification for the Left’s entire political agenda. As this ad reveals, the lefties do not hesitate to try to dictate the life choices of others. Other viewpoints, and freedom of thought and choice, are not in the script...even for their own children.
We’ve become accustomed to the Left’s propensity for not letting the facts get in the way of a nasty campaign ad, but one still feels disgusted at the ad’s blatant exploitation of babyhood in an attempt to manipulate voters. For the umpteenth time, McCain never said he wants to fight in Iraq for 100 years. He simply referenced our ongoing military presence in countries like South Korea and Japan and said the same would be fine in Iraq “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” And, presumably, it would also be fine with McCain, and any other sensible American, if Alex grew up, enlisted in the military, and were stationed for a time in peace time Iraq.
It’s not ok with this quavering, indignant mother, though. Asserting lifelong ownership of her son, she is not going to let John McCain “have him.” Nevermind that McCain will likely die of old age before the boy turns 18, and nevermind that the boy may well grow up and decide to serve his country of his own free will. Those facts do not make for good Drama – and it is drama, after all, that so often trumps the facts in our national dialogue.
Too bad little Alex’s mother is not as committed to truth telling as she is to claiming ownership over a life that, ultimately, is not hers. Her assertion that she knows what is best for another, both now and for all time, embodies the justification for the Left’s entire political agenda. As this ad reveals, the lefties do not hesitate to try to dictate the life choices of others. Other viewpoints, and freedom of thought and choice, are not in the script...even for their own children.
09 June 2008
LOL
I haven't posted much about Obama because I can't bring myself to believe my beloved country will elect this naive, inexperienced, vapid person of questionable judgment to the office of the Presidency. Today, however, I was presented with something so funny and apt that I felt I must share (and which made me wish I could draw better). Anne of Idaho wrote in:
Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."
I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!
Several people on-line today have been positing that Obama will “grow with the job” and become more centrist as the realities are brought to his attention. Someone ought to do a cartoon with Obama on a bicycle with training wheels practicing on the White House driveway. I envision him in a dorky striped shirt and shorts with untied sneakers and a beanie hat with a balloon tied to his wrist that says, "We Are The Ones We've Been Waiting For."
I'm going to send this to several syndicated cartoonists and see if anyone's game. Stand by!
07 June 2008
Chuck Muth: Paul Supporters Announce Their Own Personal Convention Restart
Chuck Muth's June 6 Nevada News & Views lights on exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about when advising Libertarians to either pacify or disavow their nuttier factions. Chuck is a Ron Paul supporter who laments being tarnished with "the same brush as the wacko fringe of his supporters here in Nevada..." He's referring to a small rebel force of "Paultard" (Paul + retard - re) agitators who have donned their light sabers, dubbed themselves the new experts on Robert’s Rules of Order, and announced their intention to convene their very own Nevada Republican Convention on June 28th in Reno. Of course, only one convention can be held in a presidential election year and the state committee has already announced that it will be on July 26th...but the Paultards are not going to let a little thing like the rule of law get in the way of a good time. Their Thursday press release announced: "Nevada Delegates Reject State Party’s Date for State Convention.” The rest is too ridiculous to repeat.
I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!
I agree with Chuck's assessment of how this will likely play out: The Paul supporters will meet on June 28th. Their meeting will have no legitimacy and anyone they “elect” to attend the national convention will not be seated by the RNC. They will then boycott the official July 28th convention which won't be able to muster a quorum in order to conduct official business so either (a) no NV delegates will go to the national Convention, or (b) state party leadership will select the delegates to go to the national Convention. Either way, these Paul supporters won't be casting any actual votes for Paul in any forums that will actually count. Hope they have a great time in Reno on the 28th. Party On!
05 June 2008
great comment from OvercomingBias.com
From a post on yesterday's Overcomingbias.com:
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
For the last few years the message we'd heard from our relatively liberal media is about how powerful is the U.S. president and how important are leader motives in determining policy outcomes. Specifically, we've heard that U.S. outcomes are bad because of Bush's despicable motives [added: and incompetence] -- Bush has personally destroyed Iraq, New Orleans, the global environment, the deficit, oil and food prices, drug prices, the housing market, the mortgage industry, civil rights, and so on.
Odds are we will soon have a president Obama, and with him the outcomes won't be much different - U.S. presidents don't control that much after all. So we will soon hear the media talking a lot more about how limited is presidential power and how important is other context in determining outcomes -- Obama tried but was thwarted by congress, foreigners, interest groups, the weather, complexity, and so on. Just wait for it.
What a great point. I have always found the intellectually dishonest habit of scapegoating a president for Every Wrong Under the Sun very annoying. Anyone who remembers his 8th grade history and civics lessons in re: to our system of built-in checks and balances (refresher: the legistlative branch; the judiciary; and the executive office ) ought to know that Presidents do not, in fact, have all that much power. Love them or hate them as you wish, but don't blame them personally for decisions that Congress also made, or the Courts upheld.
28 May 2008
What Floats McCain's Boat
Chuck Muth’s YuccaFacts has good fun today. He first quotes John McCain on Yucca Mountain in a speech in Denver yesterday:
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
27 May 2008
In Deo speramus
It is perhaps fitting that on the day after Memorial Day, Victor Davis Hanson writes about Obama's "frequent recitals of U.S. history in which the Underground Railroad, the freedom riders, women suffragists, and icons of the civil-rights movement figure prominently." Hanson points out that in almost every reference to America's collective past, Obama mentions some sort of reform and/or protest. Hanson then cautions us against adopting as our heroes only those "who found the system wanting and took it on."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
Hanson rightly says that there are many historical figures responsible for our freedom and prosperity and that many of them were not social activists. He suggests that Obama ought to try mentioning a few, "whether an Edison and Bell, people of action and courage like Lewis and Clark or Lindbergh, political figures such as Teddy Roosevelt, and military heroism at places like Gettysburg, the Meuse-Argonne, Okinawa, Chosun, or Hue" and says there is a need to "remind Americans of concrete examples of our exceptionalism, of good works, and of men and women of singular accomplishment".
I wholeheartedly agree. Our nation has birthed many great Citizens who never walked a picket line or marched on Washington D.C. Skepticism and dissent have their place, but we must not ever think an anti-establishment mentality is necessary to Heroism. What is essential are one or more of the following qualities: courage, strength, persistence, the love of justice, honesty, integrity, responsibility, and above all, humility. This list of virtues widens the field considerably. Indeed, I would posit that in addition to our researchers, doctors, nurses, inventors, teachers, writers, and assorted public servants, many of America's greatest citizens are ordinary people attempting to live decent lives in the midst of tremendous personal difficulty.
When I think of Barack and Michelle's seemingly endless harping and complaining, and their focus on an endless parade of negatives, I am reminded of Paul's letter to the Philippians in which he wrote, "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things" (Philippians 4:8).
Though we are not a perfect nation, how happy we should be that there is much that is true, noble, just, and good in our history. Ours is not the shameful story some like to tell: an ugly nation of extended injustices interrupted by rare heroic protests. We are more than that.
I will never vote for nor admire a man who thinks that greatness and virtue lie only on our horizon and only through his insight and leadership...rather than behind us and eternally within us by the grace of God. We are not perfect, nor ever have been. But it is God - and not Obama - in whom we hope and trust for redemption, and it is the contemplation not of what is wrong but of all that is good and right that gives us and all our heroes both courage and "the audacity of hope."
22 May 2008
Oliver Stone to Release "W" in late October
In a subtle effort to enlighten us all, and with no thought of influencing the national election two weeks later, Lionsgate Studios and Oliver Stone will release what sounds like a downright mean-spirited biopic on George W. Bush on October 17th, 2008. As Mark Hemingway pointed out, this will be the third election in a row that a highly charged political film was released right before the nation heads to the polls. No worries: it will flop and/or fizzle, as all of them have.
19 May 2008
Who Else Would Do It? Who Else Could?
In re: to my Bob Barr/Libertarian post, Anne of Idaho writes:
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
A Few Words on Bob Barr
Bob Barr has announced his desire for the Libertarian party nomination. For those of you who are unfamiliar, Barr was a Republican who served four terms in Congress (for Georgia) before losing in a 2002 primary fight against Rep. John Linder. A quick sum-up of his time in Congress: he voted Yes to the Iraq war, Yes to the prescription-drug program, and Yes to the Patriot Act.
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
Barr now flies the Libertarian flag and says he is Pure-Dee anti-government as well as a staunch non-Interventionist. In another interesting role reversal, he has recently joined hands with the Marijuana Policy Project to repeal the hard work he did as as member of the Task Force for a Drug-Free America (Barr once helped block a voter initiative to legalize medical marijuana in D.C.) He says the expansion of government power after 9/11 changed his views on the war on drugs. (What does the Patriot Act have to do with cracking down on joint-smoking cancer patients? I’m just wondering…)
Anyway, I agree with Barr’s change of mind on medical marijuana and I sure don’t mind him opposing a taxpayer subsidized prescription drug plan (or any other kind of subsidy), but on the Patriot Act and the war on terror I think he’s just plain wrong. Barr now opposes laws which (I believe) have improved U.S. counter-terrorism efforts without stomping on too many constitutional liberties.
As my GOP friends keep reminding me: in a close presidential race, every vote is important. Even if that weren't the case this year, I don’t think I would vote for Bob Barr based on his views re: international relations. Perhaps I’m not leaning as Libertarian as I thought…
Question: Are Libertarian candidates making a mistake vis a vis their insistence on being anti-Interventionist? It seems to me that those who care most deeply about protecting fundamental liberties should be in favor of intelligently deploying our military wherever and whenever lunatics gather and train with the monomaniacal goal of killing us (death being the ultimate loss of freedom). 9/11 and other deadly incidents of international terrorism over the past two decades should have changed the way we think about how, when, and where we send troops and wage wars...shouldn't it?
Obama Speaks! (File Under: OMG)
Listen up, good Peeps: Obama has a word for us!
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.'”
We can’t…? We can’t eat a hearty dinner and turn the thermostat down a notch for fear of upsetting foreign governments…? We can’t pick Grandma and Grandpa up in the SUV to go see the kid's football game and just expect to get away with it...?!
For the record: we primarily drive a mid-sized fuel-efficient sedan, eat normal quantities of food, and keep our thermostat between 76 and 79. But if I WANT to buy a gas-guzzler, gorge myself silly from dawn to dusk, and turn the temperature down so low it starts snowing in the living room, I darn well WILL - and Senator Obama and his international PC police can kiss my well-fed, air-conditioned, Hummer- driving a**.
“We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say 'OK.'”
We can’t…? We can’t eat a hearty dinner and turn the thermostat down a notch for fear of upsetting foreign governments…? We can’t pick Grandma and Grandpa up in the SUV to go see the kid's football game and just expect to get away with it...?!
For the record: we primarily drive a mid-sized fuel-efficient sedan, eat normal quantities of food, and keep our thermostat between 76 and 79. But if I WANT to buy a gas-guzzler, gorge myself silly from dawn to dusk, and turn the temperature down so low it starts snowing in the living room, I darn well WILL - and Senator Obama and his international PC police can kiss my well-fed, air-conditioned, Hummer- driving a**.
14 May 2008
OMG
Well…I may not be ready for full-fledged Libertarianism, but I truly don’t know if I can remain a registered Republican very much longer. Two nights ago I said to a Very green sounding McCain fundraiser: “Tell the Bosses that when the GOP stops sliding to the Left, gets back to Goldwater-Reagan values, and helps nominate a decent Conservative candidate, I’ll gladly give more money. And tell them to stop sending out these stupid pretend surveys that a tree monkey could complete just so they can ask for more money for their lame campaign.” She was silent for a moment, and then laughed and said “ok,” and hung up. I respected her for that; I really did.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
I guess I was still grouchy from McCain’s interview with O’Reilly late last week. Big Mac says he refuses to consider drilling in ANWR, nor will he crack down on sanctuary cities…because he is a Teddy Roosevelt conservative. (?!) Um, try not to abuse TR’s legacy like that, “my friend.” TR was tough, wise, and knew the difference between good policy and pandering. He cared about conservation – but was wise with it. And he wanted measured, well-managed immigration. I very much doubt he would have approved of McCain’s tedious thirty-nine part illegal immigration “program.” I ask you: why must McNoodle appear on my television screen and conjure up the dead spirit of past conservatives as if it says something about HIM? Can he not entertain and convey these ideas on his own? Where is the principled and pure conservatism of the Now?
And please don’t feed me any lines about John’s commitment to appointing conservative judges. That’s a no-brainer, so no Brownie Points will be awarded. And anyway McCain has more demerits than he can hope to overcome. He has, after all, failed to complete assignments again and again. Like when, you ask? Well, let us count the ways. He pulled some pretty dirty campaign tricks on Bush in 2000 but now haughtily insists he will run a “respectful” campain against Obama. I guess he only plays nasty with members of his own party, but against the man who may well be the downfall of our nation he will be Oh So Nice. I mean, He’ll be Lovey Dovey.
To continue… McCain slandered the Swift Boat veterans against John Kerry without the basis of evidence, which I found just astounding. He also echoed the lies of the Left by deriding the Bush tax cuts as being only “for the rich.” He has flip-flopped on immigration policy numerous times. He favors constitutional rights for terrorists. He helped legitimize the filibustering of judicial nominees in the Senate. He championed bad campaign-finance reform. He has participated in the demonization of the big, bad oil and drug companies. He co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy illegal immigrant Forgive, Forget and Let’s-all-have-a-Scotch bill. He also voted for Specter’s hare-brained Let’s-politely-ask-for-Mexico’s-permission-to-build-a-fence-on-our-own-freaking-border Bill. He has sold out on global warming and talks about Green living like he invented it. His pro-life credentials are questionable. (Shall I continue…?)
“So, what do you WANT?” a friend inquires nervously as I finish the rant. Great question, and SO glad you asked. I want a conservative candidate who is…a Conservative. I want a president who talks sincerely and intelligently about reducing government. I want a POTUS who genuinely wants government transparency at every level. I want a strict adherence to ethics and a swift cutting off the offending hand when violations occur. I want our $3.1 trillion dollar federal budget slashed. I want balanced budgets at all levels of government. I want major tax reform with lower taxes for all. I want an end to the welfare state and an end to taxpayer dollars being doled out to entitlements and special interests of all kinds. I want an end to subsidies. Let us all live and die in the free market, and let people give to the causes they believe are worthy because they choose to do so.
I do not want the government giving money to anyone who bought a home they can’t afford, or saving any mortgage company who loaned too much money to too many high risk borrowers. Let everyone learn their lesson, and lick their wounds, and proceed. No one will die because they have to give up their house and go rent for awhile, so let’s stop behaving as if this “crisis” is on the level of a personal tragedy. I want things to happen because the economy makes them necessary or because individuals and private organized groups gather up and make it so. I want an end to union dues being used for political purposes without member permission. I want an end to earmarks forever. In general, I want less Bureaucracy in the Universe.
I want a better, stronger, faster, meaner military, and I want to use it to frighten the world into behaving properly where American interests are concerned. I want everyone in this country to get real about the dark soullessness of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. I want a swift cooling of relationship with all nations who claim they are for peace but either whistle and look the other way or are in bed with these nuts on the sly. Including and starting with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I want Israel to bomb anyone who breathes in their direction, and I want to throw a parade for them every time they do. I want the NRA to thrive, and I want to keep my guns and be free to buy more, and I want our kids to learn how to use them properly, and I want to be free to shoot intruders and trespassers or anyone who tries to harm me or my family.
I want the CIA to organize an infiltration of the organization of every sick, murderous despot in the world so they can summarily shoot he and all his drooling cronies in the head. (I realize this is where the Libertarians and I part ways. I also realize it separates me from many of my Christian friends. However, I am an unapologetic Interventionist when it is called for, and I believe it is called for whenever and wherever diabolically inclined dicators are responsible for grave human rights violations. I believe there is such a thing as right and wrong, and I believe we have a moral obligation to say so, and to do something about it. If someone summarily and systematically murders those who they are supposed to lead and care for, let them be shot, and let God judge their souls, and let their people go free.)
I want an end to the “drug war” which is costing us billions, filling up our prisons, and accomplishing little. Many companies have drug testing policies, and many other companies don’t care, so let’s just let everyone make their choices and let the market do what it does. If private organizations want to battle the sale and use of drugs, and help people who are addicted through education and counseling, let them do so, with our thanks. I want prison system reform including the establishment of work camps and compounds where all prisoners will pay their debt to society by laboring 40 to 50 hours per week (just like the rest of us!) both to maintain the prison and to produce something useful. I want these prison workplaces to be managed like a business: efficiently and for profit.
I want us to abolish or considerably reduce the scope and influence of the failed Department of Education. I want more charter schools and more encouragement and resources for home schoolers. I want education reform and better public education for fewer billions of dollars. I want more intelligent educational and career tracking for kids based on their skills, interests, and goals. I want to encourage more kids to go to vocational and/or trade and/or tech schools and for everyone to stop pretending that every kid needs a four to nine year college education for our country to be great. I want an end to affirmative action in academics. The smartest and best and most hard working ought to be accepted to our universities, no matter their gender, class, or race. Less talented students can attend community college and transfer in later if they are able, which they should be if they have any ability at all.
I want our courts to honor and uphold our Constitution. I do not want it revised. I want all judges to do their jobs, by the book. I want to stop the slow erosion of personal property rights. I do not want national, socialized health care. (I’ll take McCain’s tax credit for health care, but let’s remember that if our taxes weren’t so high in the first place we wouldn’t need a freaking credit in order to afford our doctor’s bills. Am I supposed to feel like McCain is “doing” something for me when really I’m just getting some of my own damn money back…?) I don’t want any cap-and-crap energy policy. I don’t want corporations trading or selling carbon emission credits like baseball cards. Can we please stop introducing abstract ideas into our economy as if they can actually serve as real currency and support the market? Good grief!
I want us to accept that there is nothing Hillary Clinton or anyone else can do about the OPEC oil cartel and their inflation of prices…except to drill for oil and refine here at home where and when we needed and even if it means running an ugly pipeline or two over the freaking tundra and ruining the scenic view of some Arctic terns.. I want us to get the per gallon gas prices back down at least in the $2.00s while we figure out what the next generation of cars is going to run on. (And it is NOT bio fuel. Even though plants are a quasi-“renewable resource,” the earth cannot sustain enough plants for both food and the world’s rising fuel demand. Hyrdogen fuel cells make a lot more sense, or how about that new proto-type car that is primarily motored by air pressure?)
I also want to tell the Middle East and half of Africa to feed their own damn starving citizens and neighbors since they are raking in trillions from oil sales. I want everyone here at home to stop treating nuclear power like it’s the Devil and get real about the tremendous benefits - when it’s managed correctly. It’s powerful; efficient; reliable; and opens up high tech jobs in the community. We can deal with the waste intelligently, by extracting and refining the Uranium (a huge boon to any state’s economy).
(sigh)
I am aware that I want what apparently cannot be had, at least not this year. And I know I will vote for McCain, as the best of the undesirables. But I will not be happy about it. And I will hope for something better next time. And I will probably have an “I” rather than an "R" on my voter card by 2012, if for no other reason than to let the GOP know how disgusted with them I really am.
05 May 2008
I Won't Say I Told You So
Well, the polls are finally catching up with what I've been saying for months (to anyone who asked and a few who didn't). Hillary is a stronger candidate and much greater threat to the GOP chances in November than Obama. As of Friday, Gallup had McCain up six points over Obama, but up only one over Clinton. And Rasmussen had the McCain v. Obama lead at five points with Hillary leading McCain by one.
For the Dem nomination, Gallup has the candidates tied and Rasmussen has Clinton up by three. However, the buzz on the Dem street is that black voters will blow a group gasket and go AWOL (or vote for McCain) if Hillary gets the nomination. I don't claim to understand what would cause a voter to switch to the other party's candidate (and ditch their chosen party platform) if Their Man doesn't win the nomination, even when polls show that man CAN'T win the Big Race. I suppose it's another example of Ideology trumping Reason. As Nicholas Wapschott (of the New York Sun) said in his recent op-ed “The Limits of Idealism:”
"Yet Mr. Obama has one thing in his favor: the predilection of ideologically driven supporters to fall in love with a losing candidate. The Democratic party’s virgin foot soldiers put more value on intention than achievement and prefer purity to pragmatism. They consider idealistic perfection more important than tainted electability. They are often natural oppositionists who prefer to complain from a position of self-righteous impotence than make the grubby compromises needed to win and to govern."
Some situations do call for a staunch commitment to Ideology over pragmatism, but these instances rarely arise in politics. Our primary process and two-party system is what it is; our electoral choice often boils down to which candidate we hope will mess up the least amount of stuff for the least amount of money; and petulance, pouting, and spurning the voting booth helps nothing and no one.
For the Dem nomination, Gallup has the candidates tied and Rasmussen has Clinton up by three. However, the buzz on the Dem street is that black voters will blow a group gasket and go AWOL (or vote for McCain) if Hillary gets the nomination. I don't claim to understand what would cause a voter to switch to the other party's candidate (and ditch their chosen party platform) if Their Man doesn't win the nomination, even when polls show that man CAN'T win the Big Race. I suppose it's another example of Ideology trumping Reason. As Nicholas Wapschott (of the New York Sun) said in his recent op-ed “The Limits of Idealism:”
"Yet Mr. Obama has one thing in his favor: the predilection of ideologically driven supporters to fall in love with a losing candidate. The Democratic party’s virgin foot soldiers put more value on intention than achievement and prefer purity to pragmatism. They consider idealistic perfection more important than tainted electability. They are often natural oppositionists who prefer to complain from a position of self-righteous impotence than make the grubby compromises needed to win and to govern."
Some situations do call for a staunch commitment to Ideology over pragmatism, but these instances rarely arise in politics. Our primary process and two-party system is what it is; our electoral choice often boils down to which candidate we hope will mess up the least amount of stuff for the least amount of money; and petulance, pouting, and spurning the voting booth helps nothing and no one.
03 May 2008
Jonah Goldberg: Slap on Another Coat of Wrightwash
From Jonah Goldberg this week on NRO:
Oh and one last thing, I'm not someone who constantly carps about how we need yet one more conversation about race in this country. But the people who do say that sort of thing the most seem to be the same people who want the conversation about Jeremiah Wright and what he represents to go away. That is outrageously dishonest. Unless of course your real aim is to have the same old conversation about race again and again and again, in which the only villain is white America and the only victim is black America, and all of the old cliches get one more fresh coat of Wrightwash.
Oh and one last thing, I'm not someone who constantly carps about how we need yet one more conversation about race in this country. But the people who do say that sort of thing the most seem to be the same people who want the conversation about Jeremiah Wright and what he represents to go away. That is outrageously dishonest. Unless of course your real aim is to have the same old conversation about race again and again and again, in which the only villain is white America and the only victim is black America, and all of the old cliches get one more fresh coat of Wrightwash.
Rove on McCain: Medic and Hero
Karl Rove had an op-ed in the WSJ this week re: stories from John McCain's past that the senator has not revealed. Rove's advice to McCain? Open up. Here's an excerpt:
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again. But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, McCain put Mr. Day's splint in place. Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Mr. Day relayed to me one of the stories Americans should hear. It involves what happened to him after escaping from a North Vietnamese prison during the war. When he was recaptured, a Vietnamese captor broke his arm and said, "I told you I would make you a cripple." The break was designed to shatter Mr. Day's will. He had survived in prison on the hope that one day he would return to the United States and be able to fly again. To kill that hope, the Vietnamese left part of a bone sticking out of his arm, and put him in a misshapen cast. This was done so that the arm would heal at "a goofy angle," as Mr. Day explained. Had it done so, he never would have flown again. But it didn't heal that way because of John McCain. Risking severe punishment, Messrs. McCain and Day collected pieces of bamboo in the prison courtyard to use as a splint. Mr. McCain put Mr. Day on the floor of their cell and, using his foot, jerked the broken bone into place. Then, using strips from the bandage on his own wounded leg and the bamboo, McCain put Mr. Day's splint in place. Years later, Air Force surgeons examined Mr. Day and complemented the treatment he'd gotten from his captors. Mr. Day corrected them. It was Dr. McCain who deserved the credit. Mr. Day went on to fly again.
Kenneth Blackwell: Beyond Obama's Beauty
If you're still on the fence about Obama, you should read this editorial by Kenneth Blackwell in the New York Sun. In the e-mail forwards of this column, it was noted that Blackwell is a well-respected conservative - and that he is black.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network.
Ken Blackwell is the Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council, and the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow for Public Policy at the Buckeye Institute in Columbus, Ohio. He is a visiting fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the American Civil Rights Union. He serves on the Board of Directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union and Pastors Retreat Network. Mr. Blackwell is also the Chairman for the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, and a member of the National Rifle Association's Public Affairs Committee. He is a columnist for the New York Sun, a contributing editor and columnist for the conservative news and opinion site Townhall.com, and a public affairs commentator for the Salem Radio Network.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
