“Suicide is painless, it brings on many changes”
song from M*A*S*H

The bus is going over the cliff, and no one has their foot on the brakes

Well, it seems we’re already in the political “silly season” for 2008, and 2007 has barely begun. Political campaigning is quickly becoming a permanent state of affairs.

My concern in this essay isn’t whatever candidate the Democrats are going to present (unless they really surprise me and nominate Zell Miller, in which case I’ll vote Dem for the first time in my life). I know what that party stands for, which is basically everything I’m against.

No, my concern is what I see coming from the Republican party. At this time, the two candidates that seem to be getting the most traction – at least if you listen to the MSM as well as the columnists on this site – are McCain and Giuliani.

Let’s take McCain first (and save the “best” for last). McCain, he of the McCain/Feingold infringement of the First amendment, McCain/Reed/et al gun control bill, McCain/Kennedy pro-illegal alien bill, his embrace of the global warming nonsense, the Gang of 14, the Keating scandal… this guy’s a serious candidate for the REPUBLICAN nomination? Sounds more like a lefty Democrat to me.

Further, McCain is constantly touted as a big expert on military affairs because of his war record. Let’s get serious. He was a jet-jockey, a junior officer in Vietnam, who was shot down and became a POW. That’s like saying Custer was an expert on Indian affairs because he was at the Little Big Horn. Any expertise he may now have is due to his experience on the committees on which he’s served while in Congress, just like any other legislator, including those with no prior military experience.

Then there’s Rudy. Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Sounds like a line from a Cary Grant film. Rudy, as far as I’m concerned, is nothing more than Hillary Clinton without the hair. He’s pro-abortion, pro-illegal alien, and anti-gun. Yeah, he did a good job as New York’s Mayor on 9/11. Does that qualify him for the Presidency? He’s promised to appoint “conservative” justices if elected. A politician’s promise, and we have no track record from which to draw judgments. Second, whose idea of “conservative”?

If you want some idea of Giuliani’s integrity, take a look at the following link:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0212072giuliani1.html

Here’s the problem, as I see it. The Republicans took a beating in the 2006 election. They positioned their whole campaign as an anti-Pelosi tirade, a big bunch of Chicken Littling, and it was a message that didn’t sell. The last big Republican tsunamis were the elections of Reagan, and the 1994 sweep stimulated by Gingrich’s Contract with America. Since 1994, their margins have steadily declined, while at the same time they’ve morphed more and more into Dem-Lite.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Apparently, they haven’t yet learned a thing from their defeat. The Republicans are already stumping for Giuliani using the same straw man tactic that assured them defeat last year, this time substituting the name “Hillary” for “Pelosi”. As Einstein observed, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different outcome each time.

The apologists, on this site and elsewhere, are saying we should simply hold our noses and vote for Giuliani or McCain. But if we do that, what have we gained? We should sacrifice all our principles, the very things that define us as different from Democrats and liberals, simply to have someone in the Oval Office who has an “R” behind his name? Pretty pathetic when a party’s whole campaign boils down to: “Hey, the other guy’s worse than we are”. Now, there’s a battle cry to rally the troops.

There’s also a long-term side effect that should be considered. The moment the Republican party decides they don’t need core/issue voters, their support for conservative issues will disappear like smoke in the wind. Say goodbye to your guns; say goodbye to any chance of getting a handle on the illegal alien problem; say goodbye to any support for the pro-life issue; say goodbye to whatever little fiscal sanity still existed; and say a big hello to higher taxes and more entitlement spending.

I live in Leftifornia, a state with a RINO governor. Believe me, you won’t like it.

In today's LA Daily News, there's an article about the new bills pending in Sacramento dealing with various aspects of the illegal alien problem here in Leftifornia. You can see the article for yourself by clicking the following link:

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_5263223

Be sure to take a look at the chart that accompanies the article by clicking this link:

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site200/2007/0219/20070219_080502_DN20_immig.jpg

What’s interesting to note is that there are eight new bills pending. Five of them, in line with the will of the people as expressed in previous elections through various ballot measures, would limit or restrict the “rights” of illegal aliens. All of these bills are offered by Republicans.

The other three bills, however – all offered by State Senator Gil Cedillo – would grant rights to illegal aliens. SB60, which Cedillo seems to offer in every single legislative session, is the infamous bill to give driver’s licenses to the illegals.

This particular bill has an interesting history. It passed a couple of years ago just before the election recall of Gray Davis. When the Governator took the election, and promised to veto it, the Sacramento Dems hastily passed legislation nullifying their earlier passage of the bill.

What’s also interesting about this bill is what Cedillo and the bill’s supporters are really trying to accomplish. Their claim is that the bill would legalize the driving that illegals are already doing anyway. But why does Kalifornia need to issue licenses to them? Any valid license issued practically anywhere in the world allows one to legally drive in Kalifornia, as long as the driver is properly insured. Therefore, whatever license the illegal alien is carrying, issued in his country of origin, will serve the purpose. Obviously, their goal is to allow the aliens to more easily assimilate illegally into American society by carrying what is the de facto stamp of legitimacy in our society, a valid and verifiable driver’s license.

Of course, Cedillo’s other two offerings are nearly as bad: a bill to create a state office to help “immigrants” – read that as “illegals” – gain citizenship and assimilate; and one to ensure that illegals can secure state educational aid – read that as “tax dollars”.

But when it comes to this driver’s license issue, Cedillo is the Energizer Bunny of illegal aliens’ “rights”. He simply won’t take “no” for an answer!

There’s a lesson in this for Republicans. Cedillo may be a shill for the illegals, but you have to admire his tenacity. If the Republicans showed half as much doggedness in standing up for their principles as Cedillo, they wouldn’t have nearly as many problems as they currently do.

First, I want to thank all of my friends on this site who have taken the time to check in on my blog, drop comments, ask where I’ve been, send me emails (those who have my personal email address), and otherwise stay in touch and express interest and concern.

You folks are great! Thank you. I appreciate every one of the contacts that have been maintained, every line and email.

I have been off-site since approximately Thanksgiving. In all honesty, the post-election commentary had reached a point that went far beyond boring: "We lost! How could that be?!" "Base conservatives are idiots/traitors!" "Pelosi = Doom of America!" "The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Well….. The sky may be falling, but we’re finally out of the political silly season,. And a lot has happened that may be worth a comment or two.

You may also find that there’s a common thread binding my following observations. Let’s see!

The "Surge"

Bush wants to "surge" another division or so into Iraq. I’m a strong supporter of the idea of a US military presence in the Middle East -- see my earlier essays. But sticking more grunts in there without redefining the rules of engagement to allow them to fire upon any and all hostiles only means that we’re sending more target dummies into Iraq. It guarantees a higher long-term casualty count.

Bush is a pathetic President, and refuses to learn from his past misjudgements (with the exception of Meiers); just like his idiotic and slavish devotion to the idea of Amnesty, he seems locked on to the idea that he can create an Israel-type democracy in Iraq.

Lotsa luck on that one, George.

The Republican Party, committed to the idea of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and slavishly adhering to the idea that trying to emulate Democrats is the way to ensure their own ascendancy, has once again taken the wrong message from the results of the last national election.

Case in point: all the talk about Giuliani as being the next Great White Hope. I’ll preface by saying I detest Rudy. I live in Kalifornia, where we have the Governator, for whom I am proud to say I have never voted. There’s a reason for that: He’s a RINO; runs Right, governs Left. Just like Clinton.

Giuliani’s at least as bad (see my earlier essay "Rudy?… for President?"). Now he’s scratching his back paws in the grass, trying to cover up his earlier liberal statements in an attempt to garner some appeal for conservatives.

Don’t be fooled.

If 2008 is a Rudy v. Hillary contest, I’m staying home.

You’ve just got to laugh at this one! The hubris of Pelosi in demanding a 757 to fly her everywhere, simply so she won’t have to take off her Jimmy Choos in the security line like the rest of the hoi-polloi, is simply priceless.

The only reason the Republicans can’t make the hay out of this that they should is that their own guy, Hastert, started the ball rolling with a smaller version when HE was Speaker.

Pathetic. Another sparkling illustration of why the Republicans have earned their minority status.

Bipartisan hubris, arrogance, and contempt for the electorate. I can’t fault the Democrats; for them it’s simply business as usual.

No, my Finger of Accusation points directly at the Republicans. They have forgotten why Reagan was elected to the Presidency with the largest landslides in modern history. They have forgotten why the Gingrich-engineered "Contract with America" saw the Republican party ushered into majority status with a margin that has been steadily whittled down over every single election since, as they have become more and more simply Democrat-Lite.

Like the bewildered bull staring at the flashing cape of the matador, the Republicans have no idea why they’re getting weaker and weaker, all the while bleeding from the many gashes in their flanks that are solely due to their own inability to grasp the true dimensions of their predicament.

I consider the flood of illegal aliens across our open borders an even bigger threat to our national security and identity than Al Quaeda. I believe this was one of the determinant issues in the just-passed election. Historically, nations that refuse to defend their territory and sovereignty cease to exist. Examples: Maori, North American Indians (a poor example, as they were never unified into a nation), Australian Aborigines, Alto Californios, Mexico vis-à-vis Texas and the American Southwest, Arcadians, almost the entire Middle East which has been carved in so many ways over the ages, etc.

Today (19 Nov 2006) Ruben Navarette – one of the regular columnists on Townhall and a writer whose only topic seems to be the support of amnesty for illegal aliens – published another column on the topic. Here’s the link:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RubenNavarretteJr/2006/11/19/escondido_and_others_have_it_wrong_on_immigration

Having for weeks advocated,in the area reserved for posts and comments,giving him the minimal approval rating, thinking that the Townhall (TH) editors actually pay attention to that – after all, that’s what it’s for, right? – I got fed up and decided to write to Josue directly asking him to yank Navarette’s column. I went directly to Josue’s blog, and imagine my surprise to find an essay by Josue himself supporting Navarette! Here’s the link:

http://josue.townhall.com/g/f6ff2f9b-9bec-4190-afb8-67963a6360b5

Well, I posted a comment on Josue’s essay, but I’m copying it here for the edification of those who may never visit Josue’s blog. His essay is entitled “Illegal Immigration: Agreeing with Ruben”. The title speaks volumes.

“Josue: WRONG!

“I came to your blog to urge you to yank his consistently pro-illegal-alien column. He's a One Note Johnny, and that's his only song: Illegal aliens are good for the country, and we should legalize them.

”Imagine my surprise to find you acting as his apologist!

”Contrary to your position that it's "a multi-faceted and complex social and legal problem", it really is quite simple. These people, of whatever race, are here ILLEGALLY! Get it? There are laws on the books, and there's nothing complex about it. If I blow a radar speed trap, there's nothing complex about that, either. Same deal. It's called THE LAW. Look up the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, which Reagan signed into law and later regretted as the biggest mistake of his presidency. It already granted amnesty then, and being old enough to remember it well, I vividly recall being assured it was a one-time deal ONLY.

”Why are we revisiting it 20 years later? Because of activists like Navarette and Linda Chavez, and their apologists like YOU.

”You wrote this: "All it takes is ONE generation, and a family is assimilated". ROTFLMAO

”Have you ever even visited LA? I've lived here over 30 years, and all I see is this city sinking into a swamp of Third Worldism.

”Then you wrote this gem: "What do we need, you ask?... Improved legal guest labor program that invites and quickly welcomes qualified workers from around the world."

”BS!

”No wonder you won't kick Navarette off of this site; you believe the same crap he does.

”We don't need a "guest worker" program -- code word Amnesty -- at all. What we need are tightly regulated borders accompanied by a disciplined legal quota-based immigration program, accompanied by felony charges for those who knowingly hire illegal aliens in accord with Simpson-Mazzoli.

”Josue, I had hit a dry spell as to a topic for my next blog essay.

”I now have my topic.

”And get Navarette off this site! His votes on his column suck; he doesn't deserve a space on this site. Further, my next essay may also get YOU in its sights.”

I guess I decided to get Josue in my sights immediately after all; I am TICKED. Also, that helps explain some of the extremely BAD choices this site seems to be making with some of its columnists.

Food for thought.

BTW: ROTFLMAO means Rolling On The Floor Laughing My A__ Off.

  
                                        The people have spoken

                                       But is anyone listening?


The 2006 mid-term election has run its course; now we can assess the results.

It didn’t turn out well for Republicans. However, in spite of the losses, it is interesting to note that there were no accusations of voter fraud, hanging chads, minority intimidation, or any of the other nonsense we would have surely heard if the Democrats hadn’t succeeded in their quest to regain power. I guess those voting machines with no paper trail only function flawlessly when Democrats win.

As to the Democrats themselves, let’s hear some of the cheering from their supporters:

“A new recording Friday attributed to the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq mocked President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls…Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats”   (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq ) Strong praise, indeed.

“TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran”. Well. A victory for Iran. That’s comforting.

Hugo Chavez: “I just heard that Bush has been beaten up by the Democrats," he beams. "It's a reprisal vote against the war in Iraq, against the corruption." It is Wednesday afternoon and US midterm election results are bringing joyful tidings to a leader who used to call the US president "Mr Danger" before downgrading him to "the devil". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/venezuela/story/0,,1944386,00.html ).

By their friends shall ye know them.

Moving on. What can we anticipate, and what are the lessons learned?

The Dems are flushed with victory right now, and envision a radical new direction for the country. They are a traditionally arrogant group (as have lately become the Republicans, to their chagrin now as they pay the price) who will soon have to face the realities of being in control. I think they’ll quickly forget that they cobbled together a victory by enlisting candidates (the Bluedogs) who espouse more traditional values (gun rights, pro-life, anti-tax), and will find their agenda blocked on many fronts by resistance within their own party. Their margin is razor-thin. New issue-specific coalitions will form that will stymie them on some fronts. Their majority can’t overcome filibusters or vetoes (assuming Bush ever learns how to veto anything. He may well soon have to). Let’s look at a few specifics.

Immigration: the Reps were wrong on this issue anyway, with their bent toward amnesty. They only finally passed a decent bill when they saw the ship going down, and even then they never passed the enabling legislation to fund it. Perhaps if the Dems try to pass amnesty, the remaining Reps will see this as the key issue it was to their defeat and stand up for a bill similar to the original House proposal, keeping their eye toward 2008.

SCOTUS: who knows if any on the bench now are even going to retire, and if they do it's still Bush nominating the successor. If they try to block his nominee, he can and should refuse to submit a substitute. Nothing in the Constitution mandates the number of Justices. If a liberal retires, a smaller court would actually be more constructionist.

WOT: If we get hit again after the Dems are in office for a while, they have a MAJOR problem on their hands.

Spending: All I can say is, how can it get any worse?

This election was the Republicans' to lose, and lose it they did. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It's been a long time coming, and it's because they lost their principles, and became indistinguishable from Democrats in many ways.

Conservatism -- usually Republican -- wins when it sticks to key conservative issues. However, it falls to pieces when "core conservative issue" gets re-defined.

Core issues: small government; fiscal responsibility; constructionism (gun rights, rule of law); states' rights; lower taxes; strong defense. Read the Contract with America.

However, "conservatism" becomes a joke when extraneous issues become re-defined as "core issues" to make the "tent" bigger.

Faux core issues: Medicare prescription entitlements; education; disaster relief; Terri Schiavo; anti-abortion crusade; flag-burning issue; others.

At that point, the Republicans are doing the same thing as the Dems: using the club of government to enforce their social views, or entitlement spending to buy votes. That is NOT principled.

Touching briefly on the Mainstream Media (MSM). Yes, the MSM is biased Left. Get over it. We have talk radio and the internet. The MSM was biased against the Contract with America and Reagan, too. They HATED both. Railed against them all the time, with much rending of clothes, wailing and gnashing of teeth. Both sailed to easy victory.

And THAT is the key lesson to be taken from this event. This is still a traditional, conservative country. The people vote for those values. But when the Republicans run on those values but govern like Democrats, the people see the obvious hypocrisy, and show them the door. Note how, over the years, as the Reps got more and more complacent and arrogant their margins got thinner and thinner, until now they finally lost.

The Republicans got this defeat the old-fashioned way: they earned it.

"May you live in interesting times."
Ancient Chinese curse


                         

In a few days, the political silly-season will come to an end, to be immediately followed by the autopsy/blame/jubilation period. That’s when all the political almost-made-its, their supporters, the pundits, the victors, talking heads, pol-junkies (like me), the losers, and everyone else under the sun will once again – as at the end of every political campaign period – offer their wisdom and analysis of what went right or wrong in the then-defunct campaign. They’ll offer pearls of hind-sighted wisdom, blindly project the impact on future campaigns, and generally make fools of themselves.

How can I pass up the opportunity to do the same? After all, who can ever forget that memorable picture of the jubilant Harry Truman, the day after his election to the Presidency, holding up the newspaper with the bold headline “Dewey Wins” on page 1 above the fold?

I predict the Republicans maintaining control of both houses of Congress, probably with slimmer margins. At worst, they lose one house, but I don’t think so. The main reason? The Democrats are even more inept than the Republicans. Exhibit A: John Kerry’s “humor-malfunction” (remember Janet Jackson?). Trying to disguise an actual gross misjudgment – using the old 60s rhetoric of “leave college, end up in Nam” in the modern era -- as simply happenstance, and trying to shift the blame to others, coupled with his refusal to apologize. The American people see right through that kind of thing, have contempt for it, and react strongly to it. Ask Dan Rather. Further, as with Rather, Kerry’s timing couldn’t have been worse. Trying to spring an “October Surprise”, it’s backfiring badly, happening too close to the election to allow the issue to cool down. In addition (as if more is needed) he’s also again badly misjudged the mood of the country toward the military; we’re no longer in the era of the popular perception of soldiers as “baby-killers”. They are now very admired. Kerry, of course, as well as a large portion of the Democrat party, is still mired in the Vietnam era, and simply doesn’t get it. To them, adding the phrase “… but we support the troops” forgives all sins.

Wrong!

Further, in spite of the scandals on both sides of the aisle, and the teeter-tottering poll results, we must bear in mind two things. First, the only poll that counts takes place on the first Tuesday in November. Second, in spite of the disdain of the electorate for Congress and the parties, as Tip O’Neill said, “all politics is local”. People may deplore the institution or party, and give it very bad ratings in polls, and yet still really feel motivated to support their local Representative, “Good Old Jim”, because they know him and like him on a local and individual level.

Let’s suppose I’m wrong (I think that may have actually happened once…. I have to think about that) and the Democrats take one or both chambers. They’ll be put in the position of having to perform, and be judged by the electorate based on that performance. In two short years, they’ll have to have some kind of record to which they can point as the 2008 elections loom; more on that later. If they don’t achieve a majority this time around after all their own hysteria this election season, what they'll do over the next couple of years should be highly amusing and most destructive to their own party. I'd pay money to see that.

Further, there's always the outside possibility that the Dems take a real drubbing on Tuesday. Then, with an even smaller minority, they see the handwriting on the wall and start shifting Right, pushing the Reps ahead of them. I’d pay even MORE money to see that.

The earlier-mentioned possibility of the Dems taking both houses actually poses more of a problem for them, in my estimation, than losing. Because, at that point, the reins will be in their hands. Which way will they guide the horse of policy? Will they promote programs supported by Middle America, and in a fashion that can withstand the filibuster or the veto while gaining popular support? Or will they prove themselves to be simply empty suits, masters of rhetoric who, when given the chance, find themselves holding an empty bag of tricks, with nothing better to offer than a hatred of George Bush? If so, the Democrat party will quickly find itself scrambling around on the discard pile of history, wondering what went wrong.

However, let’s assume I’m right and the result is favorable to the Republicans. They will then be looking forward to 2008, when EVERYTHING’S on the table, as the next election is the Big Leagues, the election for President as well as the Congressional elections, with no incumbent coattails for anybody to ride. That will be the tipping point for the R party: they can either continue pandering Left, in which case they are in REAL trouble in 2 years, or they can start moving back in the Right direction, which will behoove them as a party as well as the country as a whole. If they are successful this time, regardless of how large or slim the margin is, they should consider it a gift; and use the next two years as a period of rehabilitation.

Interesting times.

I am violating my own marketing principles – regarding my blog’s success – by posting a second commentary on the upcoming election; not only by ignoring my own constraints about revisiting any one issue too soon, but by repeating arguments I’ve made in earlier essays.

In this case, I’m making an exception.

Over the last few weeks, because of the position I’ve taken about the ineptitude of the Republican party’s tactics and strategy, I’ve taken a lot of heat. I’ve been called everything from a turncoat to a “Libertarian” (like that’s an insult) to “evil”  to an apologist for the Left (so ludicrous an idea it’s never deserved comment) to naïve to … well, I could go on for a while. You get the point.

As it happens, I’m not the only one who takes my position. Today, 29 October 2006, Dick Armey – a died-in-the-wool conservative and “Contract With America” signatory – seems to agree with me in an editorial published today in, of all places, the Washington comPost. Here’s the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701482.html

In his commentary, Armey also decries the sad state of the Republican party, and its loss of its guiding compass of principle. I just reviewed the column with an eye toward extracting some quotes to include in this essay for those who didn’t want to click the link and read the entire Armey column.

Here are some of the more salient parts:

"Somewhere along the road to a "permanent majority," the Republican Revolution of 1994 went off track. For several years, we had confidence in our convictions and trusted that the American people would reward our efforts. And they did.

"But today, my Republican friends in Congress stand on the precipice of an electoral rout. Even the best-case scenarios suggest wafer-thin majorities and a legislative agenda in disarray.

"Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect -- and we have no one to blame but ourselves

"Gingrich and I and a handful of true believers in Ronald Reagan's conservative vision set the goal of retaking the House. The "Contract With America" outlined our platform of limited government...   In 1994, this vision was validated when Republicans took 54 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate and control of both houses of Congress.

"Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy...We emerged as a wounded party; we stopped trusting the public; and we internalized the wrong lesson.

"Now spending is out of control. Rather than rolling back government, we have a new $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription drug benefit, and non-defense discretionary spending is growing twice as fast as it had in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Social Security is collapsing while rogue nations are going nuclear and the Middle East is more combustible than ever. Yet Republican lawmakers have taken up such issues as flag burning, Terri Schiavo and same-sex marriage.

"The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas.

"The likely Republican losses in next week's elections will not constitute a repudiation of the conservative legacy that drove the Reagan presidency and created the Contract With America. To the contrary, it would represent a rejection of big government conservatism.

"Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.

"When we act like us we win. When we act like them we lose. Let's win."

Perfectly stated.

Yes, you heard it here first!

Before Fox News, Townhall.com, the Washington Times, Drudge, New York Treason, Al Jezheera West (LA Times), Washington ComPost, Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, or any other news source to which you may subscribe. Ted Kennedy is on a feeding tube and is dependant on it for total support, even as an occasional walking aid, as you can see for yourself in the following picture, captured by our own intrepid undercover photojournalists.

Asked to comment, Senator Kennedy issued the following statement (please listen to the following recording, as transcription proved impossible):

“I just want to shay it’sa crack, I mean crop, I mean prop, I mean… or at leastn it’s so lame because I’m lame an neeed the crotch of the… thing, y’know like

“What? I cannnnnn’t shay tha… wha? Imean huh?

“N‘kaa-ay. Becuz I rully can, y’know? ‘s okay. Stolie’s good… yep…Oh, YEAH!…Smirny, too…

“ANYhoozies… yep. Bobbo, you baboon …[sound of snorting or chuckling] brin the car round… no, awl drive…werewsI?

“OH, YEEEeeeAAAaaawwrg!! Hehheh, that Deaniack, whottaguy… like Barack Osama, er er Obahama er er Bahama-mama… ANYYyyhoooo… Kenneddeddeddys ‘re prouid an servaantishis… y’know, like pubis service.

Huh?”

Unfortunately, the tape ends at that point. Security personnel on Kennedy’s personal staff entered the area and prevented any further electronic recording. However, it is difficult to assess whether or not Kennedy’s feeding tube issue is life threatening, for – as you just heard for yourself – his communication skills don’t seem to have been at all impaired.

This is BrianR, with this late breaking news, signing out.

As next week’s mid-term election looms, we are at the height of the political silly-season. The din from both sides of the aisle is deafening. From the Left we have Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Murtha, Reid and others screaming shrilly about Foleygate, their secret plan for the Iraq war, and how much they hate George Bush (who, interestingly enough, isn’t running for anything). From the Right we have Hannity, Limbaugh, Medved, and others proclaiming that the sky is going to fall if we have to say the words “Speaker Pelosi”, and life as we know it will come to an end.

I think everyone needs to get a grip, and take a chill pill.

First of all, if the War on Terror (WOT) is the driving issue, let’s get it in perspective. The Cold War lasted about 40 years, and Ronald Reagan finally won it without us ever having to fire a shot at the USSR. During the Cold War, there were many proxy actions (Vietnam and Korea coming immediately to mind). There were Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses during that time. There were ups and downs, but we ultimately prevailed. The WOT has been going on for about thirteen years now, since the first WTC bombing, though we’ve only been aware of it for about five. Whatever happens in Iraq, the WOT is going to last for a long time still to come. Regardless of what happens next week, there will be both Democrats and Republicans at the helm between now and its conclusion, current chicken-littleing notwithstanding. The ultimate outcome – barring terrorist deployment of a true WMD against us – will most likely be determined by the same factor that did in the USSR: depletion of the enemy’s resources.

In other words, no matter what happens in the current election, the Democrats will at some point have their chance to run things. That’s simply political reality based on the cyclical nature of American politics.

Will that be a good thing for the country? Probably not, given the current Democrat positions, strategies, and philosophies. Will it be fatal to the country? Again, barring WMDs, no. We survived Jimmy Carter, didn’t we? There may even be an up side.

There’s an old saying that goes “Sometimes it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”. The Democrats have been safely sniping from the sidelines now for years, and they’ve been given a lot of latitude. If they take control of either or both houses next week, what’s the worst that can happen? They’ll have, at best, slim majorities so it will be hard if not impossible for them to pass any radical legislation. Further, even if they do, there’s George Bush, sitting in the White House and never having to worry about running for office again, veto pen in hand (assuming he remembers where he put it). But the important point is that they’ll be then forced to perform, and their actions will provide the real information people need to make truly informed choices in what I consider a much more important event, the upcoming 2008 election, in which the Presidency is up for grabs and no incumbent is running, as well as all House seats and one-third of the Senate.

A Democrat win this time, then, essentially means a gridlock situation for two years (which is actually fine with me), and most probably a very resounding Democrat defeat in the all-important 2008 election.

Which brings us to another issue. If the Democrats do, in fact, prevail in the upcoming election it will not have been because they’ve presented persuasive arguments; after all, their whole campaign essentially boils down to “we hate Bush”. It will be because the Republicans will once again have demonstrated their astounding capability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They have failed to set the tone and agenda of the debate, defaulting that to the Democrats. They have failed to be aggressive in setting forth a clear message of values, essentially boiling their whole campaign down to the mirror image of the Democrats’: “we hate Pelosi”. They have wandered far from the essential roots of their success, conservative values and small government. If they lose, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

The most resounding Presidential victories in recent history were the election and re-election of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as well as the same for Nixon. In both cases, the candidates underscored the philosophical differences between themselves and their opponents, and especially in Reagan’s case made crystal clear the bedrock conservative principles for which he stood, a message that resonated not only with the base of the party, but Americans across the land. This country is essentially, at its roots, a Judeo-Christian society with strong and traditional conservative values. The reason none of Reagan’s successors have been able to achieve the type of results at the ballot that he did is that they have allowed those values to be diluted in their pandering quest for votes. In other words, in trying to be all things to all people, they end up being nothing to anyone, and you end up with the majority of the voters casting their ballots for the least objectionable candidate, which is why in the current era we end up with these races being virtual dead heats.

Further, some conservative pundits – such as Medved and other columnists on this site – have taken the tack of saying that conservatives who don’t vote for Republican candidates are, essentially, traitors or cowards. Aside from the fact that this kind of rhetoric is NOT going to sway many people who think for themselves, it is even counterproductive, as it’s downright repulsive. Evidently, in their minds, conservatives are supposed to act just like the sheeple they so deride on the other side of the aisle, who enter the voting booth and vote for anything with a “D” behind it. Bad for them, but good for us if the letter’s an “R”.

Double standard, anyone?

Important update 25 Oct 2006

Dick Mountjoy -- a solid, conservative Republican who, when he held statewide office was a staunch Second Amendment supporter -- is running against Dianne Feinstein for the US Senate seat up for grabs this election. Today, I was in contact with Mountjoy's office, and the Republican Party has failed to provide any support at all for Mountjoy's campaign.

I thought this was an important election. Isn't that what everybody's saying?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

In the midst of this election season, speculation is running high as to who will be the nominees from each party come the 2008 elections for President. Many names are bandied about: Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Reid, Kerry, Romney, et al.

As a conservative, my particular concern -- and therefore my thoughts -- turn to the Republican offerings. At this point, the names most often mentioned are McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. I’ll preface by saying flat out I don’t like any of them. None of them are supporters of the Second Amendment. Giuliani is quite liberal on several issues: abortion, illegal aliens, and gun bans come immediately to mind. McCain’s a loose cannon, a member of the Gang of 14, Keating 5, co-author of the McCain/Feingold bill that is the biggest suppression of First Amendment rights in the history of this country.

At this point it would be helpful to remember that in 1990, two years before Clinton was elected to his first term, he was an obscure governor of an obscure state, barely a blip on anyone’s political radar. When he was first discussed seriously as a presidential candidate, it was considered almost a joke.

But here’s where history starts to come into play, and what the Republican party needs to remember.

The common wisdom now is that Perot’s third-party candidacy cost Bush 1 the election. But there have been third-party candidacies before. Why was this one different? That’s the important question. Bush was the heir apparent to Reagan, arguably the most popular President in at least the second half of the Twentieth Century, a man who swept into office in two landslide victories. Bush rode easily into a first-term Presidency on very long coattails.

But Bush forgot the Reagan legacy of American values and conservatism. He talked about his “thousand points of light”, a metaphor that never seemed to make any sense, then broke his pledge of “Read my lips. No new taxes!” He paved the way for his own demise, as conservatives disgusted with his catering to Democrats and obvious lack of principle looked for any alternative, and cast millions of votes for Perot.

When Clinton stood for re-election, his opponents were Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, another pair of appeasers. They were almost throw-away candidates, and their campaign was so lackluster it was truly pathetic. Neither presented any conservative credentials, nor could they be considered candidates that could inspire the party’s base in any way.

And there’s where we reach the hub of the issue. The base of the Democrat party can be counted on to reliably vote in elections, regardless of the quality of the candidates. They are animated by the idea of changing America into something they want it to be (as opposed to what it is), and realize the means to do that are the reins of power. It is, in my opinion, a cynical approach to governance.

On the other hand, the base of the Republican party is animated more by principle, and if their candidate seriously violates their principles they simply refuse to turn out in the numbers necessary for that party’s victory. This is the lesson of history the Republican party simply refuses to learn.

Bush 2’s recent elections should underscore this point: against two arguably ridiculous candidates (Gore and Kerry), Bush still only managed to eke out the slimmest of victories, and those were more due to votes placed against his opponents by interest groups such as gun owners and right-to-lifers. In either case, had there been a viable third-party candidate, Bush may well have lost. He may well owe his presidency to the candidacy of Ralph Nader.

The Republican party needs to take a serious look at the direction it seems to be heading. If they continue to try to curry favor with their opponents in the media and the national political scene, they are heading for disaster. If they refuse to embrace and promote true conservative principles, they are heading for disaster. As I wrote earlier, fortunately we’re still two years away, a political lifetime. Maybe 2008’s candidate hasn’t yet hit the political radar. Let’s hope so. Because I, and I’m sure very many like me, just can’t see myself voting for anyone under discussion at this point.

My name is Hassan

I was born in the camps 22 years ago. Life was hard. I have two older brothers, and one more and a sister were born after me. My father struggled very hard to provide for us, but work was hard to find. Sometimes, often, there was not enough food for all of us to eat. Then my mother would put the food on the table, and she and my sister would go into the other room and pretend to eat, though I knew there was no food there for them.

Our home was a very poor affair, a small house, more of a hut, made from scraps of building materials my brothers and I could take at night from nearby construction sites. But it was our home.

I was very lucky. I was always the smart one in the family. My father, a very devout man, visited the Mosque every day for ablutions and prayers. I often went with him, from the time I was a very small boy. I love the Q’uran, and learned it quickly. I am very devout, and the Mullah noticed this, Praise be to Allah. He took special notice of me, and allowed me to go to school at the madrassa. I learned much there.

I learned that Allah is great, and all is the will of Allah. En sh’Allah, Allah willing, all the peoples of the world can become the instruments of Allah’s plan for this world, in preparation for entry to Paradise in the next.

I learned that the Great Prophet Muhammed, may his name be praised, revealed to us His plan in the Q’uran as to how we should prepare for that day. That we should convert all Infidels to Islam. That those of The Book should be allowed full conversion, and the rest allowed a form of generous accommodation. As long as they acknowledge Allah as the one true god.

We must remain chaste, especially our women; sisters, mothers, daughters. Chastity is good, and the men of the family are honor bound to enforce this virtue.

We must pray five times each day, facing Mecca. The M’uzzin shall make their call to remind us, and we must heed their call.

But at the madrassa and the Mosque, I also learned some things that disturbed me very much. I learned that the reason why I, and my father before me, could not find work to provide for the family is that the Jews and the Americans conspire to keep us poor. They wish to control all the Middle East, and its oil. They wish to make the Faith and the Imams and Mullahs weak, by imposing “democracy”, in which any person, regardless of how faithful they are or are not, shall have the same voice as the Faithful. And this includes women! They would give women the same voice as men! Even in the Mosque, where all are equal in the eyes of Allah, women sit in an area away from the men. This “democracy” would put all together. This is heresy!

In my final year at the madrassa I was honored to be chosen, with a very few others deemed as true believers and good students, for special instruction. We were introduced to the Imam. We pursued further, special studies. We were shown videotapes, taken right from the Infidels’ own television stations in America and Europe, showing how degraded their culture truly is. I was shocked at what I saw, and felt the sin of even watching such evil and debasement.

I was shown videos from the television news shows in the West, films that showed how greedy the Infidels are, with their big cars and big houses, the souks they call “malls” with wasteful and shameful things for purchase. The Imam instructed us that the only reason the Infidels can afford such shameful, sinful luxury is by stealing the wealth of our homelands. Their greedy companies make dishonest deals taking advantage of the owners of the oil, to make unfair profits. The Jews keep the Arab brothers at each other’s throats through their lies, then steal when they are distracted. They make their bread for their religious days from the blood of the young Faithful. I learned of how the Jews plan to conquer all the lands of the Faithful. It was all in a book called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written by the Jews and Zionists themselves. It was truly frightening.

I saw movies that showed the actors, men and women together, the women shamefully exposed. Even movies with the people doing the forbidden act, which is only for man and woman when married. Imagine! In a movie! It is beyond shameful, beyond sinful! The people who would do these things are no better than animals, pigs rutting in the mud.

It is with shame that I have to confess that when I saw these things, my body betrayed me. I could not arise from my seat because my shame was so obvious, but the Imam, in his kindness, Allah be praised, put his hand on my shoulder and told me he understood. That the shame was for the people who would do these disgusting things in front of a camera. He made me understand that the shame is not in the act itself, because it is right for a married man and woman who wish to have children. And it is also right as a reward in Paradise for those who are martyrs to Jihad. That Allah, in His wisdom, has reserved virgins for those who become martyrs to Jihad, and all is right.

I have chosen the path to fight for Jihad, and if Allah is willing, to become a martyr for Jihad. I have taken special instruction in how to do this. Tomorrow is my day.

Do not forget me. My name is Hassan.

On Thursday 20 September, in the LA Daily News, AKA LA Liberal Times Lite, AKA Al Jezheera West Lite, I read a very interesting article. Apparently our termed-out State Attorney General, Bill Lockyer (who cannot run for Attorney General again, and so is now running for State Treasurer [“those stupid voters! Term limits be damned!”]) has filed a lawsuit in federal court against six of the major automobile manufacturers for damages to the State of Kalifornia due to auto emissions as a cause of global warming. Evidently this bonehead’s legal theory is that car emissions have caused harm to the state in the form of unreimbursed health care costs and damage to the environment. He wants the court to force the auto manufacturers to pay the state for these “damages”. Named in the suit are: Chrysler, GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.

Lockyer’s true motivation, of course, is most likely to focus attention on himself in a race to which no one is paying any attention – that of State Treasurer – as he continues to try to further his career at the public trough as an elected official. No better way to do that than to be controversial, especially on such a hot button topic. So this is probably simply a political stunt.

But let’s take a look at the real world ramifications of this action. The State and the carmakers are going to have to expend real money to address this nonsense, in the millions of dollars each. Assuming the State loses (a pretty good assumption, given that Kalifornia already has the toughest emission laws in the nation) the State will also have to assume the cost of reimbursing the carmakers for their expenses; even more cost to the taxpayers. If the carmakers lose, who do you think is going to ultimately pay for the cost of the monetary damages? Why, the car-buying public, of course. So auto prices will climb even higher.

All so Lockyer can move to a new job. What a set of gonads this guy has!

Further, note the list of respondents. What about Saab? Where’s Ferrari (this is Kalifornia, after all)? How about Porsche? Volkswagen? Mercedes? Rolls? What is this list based on, and how were the respondents chosen or omitted?

So you say to yourself: LOL! Those poor Kalifornians! What losers! But this has nothing to do with me.

Wrong, mi amigo. Don’t forget; what happens here is coming your way (and aren’t you happy about that?).

For years, I’ve been saying that the ground broken by the state lawsuits against the tobacco industry were setting extraordinarily bad precedent. Gun manufacturers have already been victimized by the same bullying tactics, fortunately so far unsuccessfully. The fast food industry is probably next in line; opening salvos have already been fired. Lockyer is a sterling example of how political hacks and lawyers are abusing the tort system of this country for their own personal gain.

It’s time for a major overhaul of the tort system in this country.

One of the key elements in the philosophical difference between the Right and Left is how each regards and responds to acts of terrorism as they are promulgated against our allies and us.

I think it’s first helpful to define the term. To me, terrorism is an act of violence or intimidation performed by an individual or group, targeted at another individual or group, the goal of which is to gain a cultural, social or political objective as opposed to personal benefit.

The response of the Left to terrorist acts has been to approach them as individual criminal acts, to be investigated using the techniques of standard police procedure. When the wrongdoer is captured, he is afforded all the rights of any other criminal defendant, including right to counsel, jury trial, Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections, etc.

The inherent weaknesses to this approach are many and varied. There are limits to police-type investigative procedures that are exceeded by terrorist capabilities, not the least of which is that action planning occurs, in many if not most cases, in geographical areas that don’t fall clearly into jurisdictional arenas. They can involve many different individuals and groups scattered in diverse regions of the globe. U.S. criminal court systems -- even putting aside the issue of their legitimacy in handling this type of case -- can easily get bogged down by the potential volume of cases that may be presented as time goes on. Further, and most important, this approach ignores the reality defined earlier as to motivation, which is the distinguishing factor between a simple crime and an act of terrorism.

The Right, on the other hand, views terrorism as a form of unconventional warfare. This approach more realistically addresses the motivating factors of the terrorists while at the same time simplifying the countermeasures and responses that can be brought into play. If the terrorists are considered unconventional warriors they are not recognized as eligible for Geneva Conventions protection. Agencies with investigative capabilities far in excess of standard police organizations, such as the CIA and the various intelligence branches of the military, can be brought into play along with their counterparts from cooperative ally nations. As the goal is or should be eradication rather than arrest and conviction, special operations (Spec Ops) forces – such as Delta – can be utilized much more effectively than arrest-oriented police agencies. Further, these are all organizations with an international scope that more capably addresses the globe-spanning reality of terrorism.