Republicans in the lurch

So, it seems the party is on the brink here.

We may be about to become as irrelevant as the Democrats were in '84.

Problem #1: I told you earlier this week. McCain, should he get the nod, CANNOT win in the general election.

Problem #2: We hate Hillary Clinton too much.

Huh? How is that a problem? Let me explain.

Sean Hannity has called his program the "Stop Hillary Express" for months now. Rush can't go a day without mentioning her. We all know that she's got huge "disapproval ratings." Problem is, the Dems know it too.

You see, the negative attention that Republicans are providing to Hillary, the missteps of her campaign (read: her husband) in recent weeks, and the defection of party leaders like Teddy to Obama's camp make a tri-fecta. All together, these things are about to make the Democratic nomination a lock for Barack.

Barack Obama is going to be damn hard to beat. Why? Same reason Hillary isn't beating him: race. Race trumps gender in the United States; it always has. How does that hurt us in the General Election, though?

Regardless of who the Republicans put up, we're going to be stuck. If we criticize Obama in any way, shape, or form, there will be accusations of racism. Don't believe me? Ask Bill Clinton. And nobody wants to vote for someone they think is racist, and no one wants to be seen as racist by not voting for "the black guy." Add to this the fact that McCain is throwing around racist terms and that the founder of Romney's religion (NOT Romney himself, however) was violently racist, and we're really screwed.

Make no mistake, Obama is dangerous.

But, Obama is dangerous in other ways. Need proof? A sample of his issue positions, from his web site:

"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. "

"As president, Obama will reward work by increasing the number of working parents eligible for EITC benefits, increasing the benefit available to parents who support their children through child support payments, increasing the benefit for families with three or more children and reducing the EITC marriage penalty which hurts low-income families."

"Obama's K-12 plan will expand service scholarships to recruit and prepare teachers who commit to working in underserved districts."

"Obama will ensure that trade agreements include strong labor and environmental protections and that all Americans share the rewards of globalization."

"The lack of affordable, high-speed Internet access in rural, urban, and minority communities has created a digital divide between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not. This severely limits the growth potential of many urban and rural companies. Barack Obama believes we can get true broadband to every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation technologies, and new tax and loan incentives. "

Name one provision in any of his policies above that doesn't involve a radical expansion of Federal power and/or a radical expenditure of federal funds.

Barack Obama may well be the most dangerous man in America right now.

No way. Way!

This has got to be, by far, the most interesting primary season that I can recall. Looks like one of my predictions from yesterday was actually spot on. Of course, my Florida predictions were rather akin to a shotgun blast...

At any rate, McCain beat, not handily, but he did beat, Romney in Florida. Rudy's out, and probably going to endorse McCain. Will that hurt Romney? Probably. But, Mitt still has some things going for him, leading up to the convention:

• There are enough Western states, where Romney is likely to perform well, on Super Tuesday to catch up, or at least keep within striking distance, of McCain's delegate count.
• He has the support of a sizable majority of the "uncommitted" delegates (akin to the Democrats' SuperDelegates)
• If Huck makes it all the way to the convention, his delegates could, in theory, be sent to one column or the other, tipping the balance. My guess is that Huck is going to send them to Mitt, rather than John, because Mitt is closest to Huck on social issues.

As for the Dems, Hillary continues to shore up her delegate count, while Barack is wooing establishment Dems like Teddy into his camp. Hillary's ace in the hole has always been the SuperDelegates; Teddy's defection suggests that they may not be a lock for Hill. Still, Barack is going to have to pick up some delegates on Feb 5 if he wants to stay in this thing.

As for Super Tuesday? Hell if I know.

McCain is NOT going to win. Not even against Hillary.

Frank Rich thinks that the combination of Hillary Clinton on the Dem ticket and John McCain on the Republican ticket means a Republican victory.

Respectfully, I must disagree with Mr. Rich. Or maybe not respectfully, we'll see how it goes. Depends on whether he starts to behave himself or not. If not, I might suggest he go back to reviewing Broadway plays. Poorly.

At any rate, Frank Rich has got to realize something: the people that want to see John McCain as the Republican candidate, primarily, aren't Republicans. They are Independents and crossover Dems. They're people like Frank Rich who have the good sense to be tired of the Clintons. But, most Republicans would rather have another candidate. Practically any other candidate.

You see, the buzz about McCain, like it was in 2000, proves something about Republicans: we aren't willing to nominate someone just because the media thinks that they could be electable. If you don't believe me, I've got two words for you: Bob Dole. The media never thought Dole was electable (he wasn't) but we put him out there anyways.

The thing is this: with the exception of defense, John McCain offers nothing different from what any of the Dems are offering. Independents and crossover Dems will vote for McCain in the primary, because 1) they have no scruples, and 2) because they know that, regardless of which Democrat is nominated, they are probably going to be OK.

McCain vs. Hillary, or McCain vs. any Dem, is a loss for McCain, no matter how you slice it. You see, he isn't going to win in a general election because those Independents and crossover Dems aren't going to vote McCain in the general; they're voting Democratic. Add to this the fact that the Republican base is not going to get any more fired up about McCain than it got for Bob Dole, and you've got a solid Dem victory.

Yeah, Romney, Giuliani and Huck all have their problems in terms of electability. Fact is, so did Reagan. We need to be less concerned about electability, and more concerned about ideas and competence. If we put forward the candidate that has the best ideas for America, and that is competent to implement them, we've got a shot at winning.

Oprah is in trouble with women. As it turns out, there are plenty of women who believe that you ought to put a person in office just because she's a woman. These women believe, it would seem, that race is not a good enough reason to put a person in office.

But, as it turns out, in the U.S. race has most often trumped gender (or class, for that matter). After all, in the mid-nineteenth century when Europe was undergoing its class revolutions, we got into a civil war instead. We granted "all men" the vote long before we granted it to women. Not saying it's right (I don't believe it is) but it is how things are here.

To get mad at Oprah for not supporting your favorite liberal democrat is just plain silly. As an American, I don't identify myself, politically, as a white male. In fact, the one person I really wanted to see in this primary season, and the one person for whom I would have fervently campaigned, is Condi. But I have a sneaky suspicion that if there were a general election between Condi and, let's say, John Edwards, Oprah and every one of her little minions would be voting Edwards. Would they be traitors for doing so? Of course not. It would just mean that they had the sense to vote for the candidate whose ideas most fit their own.

Three-Ways aren't always good

Just a quick update from South Carolina:

Looks like McCain will narrowly take it over a close second Huck. Looks like we forgot about the 25% of voters in South Carolina that are veterans, as it seemed they tracked extremely high for McCain.

While I'm here, let me say this: I thank John McCain for his service. America owes him a great debt that we can only repay by insuring future generations of Americans grasp the freedom for which he was imprisoned.

Having said that, the fact remains that, while a veteran may be emotionally connected to McCain, it doesn't mean he'd be a good president. It's not that much different than a woman who votes for Hillary, or an African American who votes for Obama. Being able to relate to a candidate does not qualify them, and voting on that basis is plain foolish.

Aw hell, at least Rudy's way down at the bottom. Still, I'd prefer him to McCain. And Mitt may actually be in trouble here if he can't make some deeper progress in the other southern states.

Goodnight, Fred, we hardly knew ye. If you'd have run 200 years ago, you'd have won in a landslide.

Yabba Dabba (Friggin) Do!!!

My good friend Phil believes that, if there is a Republican who can beat out Hillary, it is Fred Thompson. He thinks that Rudy's too moderate to energize the Republican base, and that Romney is still a moderate deep down as well, despite the rhetoric. McCain, well, he's just a couple deuces short of a full deck.

But Fred Thompson, more than anyone in the field, has a folksy, populist, Reagan-like appeal. Thompson presents well on TV, and Arthur Branch is embedded in many of our minds in the same way that "The Gipper" was in a former generation. Not only that, Thompson has the wherewithal to look Michael Moore in the eye, tell him he's nuts, and then blow a big puff of smoke in his face. That, my friends, is the testicular fortitude that a Republican presidential candidate needs to have.

Now, all of the big conservative radio guys have held off of a full endorsement of a particular candidate. My bet is that, as we get closer to this thing, that's going to change. Thompson is the kind of candidate that someone like a Sean Hannity or even a Rush Limbaugh can get behind, I believe.

Reagan said it once, "How can a president not be an actor?" I can see Fred saying that. Reagan also said, "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." I can see Fred saying that, too.

It is looking like Fred is finally going to declare, quite fittingly, on Independence Day. Let Freedom Ring!

Hillary and the Common Good

Sometimes, we have to be reminded. Hillary Clinton is a socialist, tried and true. While Bill may have been more pragmatic, Hillary really believes in the cause. And there is nothing more dangerous than a true believer in socialism.

Now, I have nothing, in a personal way, against socialists. It's just that our Constitution expressly embodies the opposite of socialism. The founders were all about limited government. Hell, even the so-called "Bill of Rights" was, by many of the time, seen more accurately as a "Bill of Prohibitions" - against the federal government. "Congress shall make no law..." is a pretty explicit phrase in regard to what it's trying to do. And, if there were any question, the ninth and tenth amendments spell it out: if the constitution doesn't specically proscribe a particular power, that power belongs to the states, and to the people.

The problem is that, by and large, even the conservative politicians don't tend to see the Constitution as sacred any longer. Politicians of both parties invoke the phrases they like the most, and that most fit their particular situation. But at the end of the day, even the most simple-minded gradeschooler can tell you that socialism and the U.S. Constitution are mutually exclusive.

Nazis, art, and flags

I am a Northerner. I was born and raised in Michigan, and I have lived in just two states: Michigan and Indiana. I've spent maybe a total of 60 days in my life in the South, mostly in Florida and Georgia. When the Younces arrived from Germany in South Carolina in the 1780s, they came without much of anything at all, and they certainly didn't own slaves. As a matter of fact, they were Brethren ministers opposed to the slave trade. Many from the second generation, including my forefathers, moved North to Ohio. I married a Hoosier whose family history does dip down into a border state, Kentucky, before her mother was born. In terms of pedigree, with the exception of the Northern colonial descendants, I'm as pedigree a Yank as there are.

In terms of racism, it is a somewhat difficult thing to talk about one's own record. It always comes across as so defensive, so forced. But, I'll say it clearly anyways: I'm no racist. It's cliche, but I've "had several black friends" and any one of them would tell you that I'm not racist. I've done volunteer work at a camp for troubled African-American boys, I've spent a week at a time on "home missions" trips repairing houses in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, and my denomination was one of the most anti-slavery churches of its day. I'll go toe-to-toe with anyone who suggests that I am somehow racist.

But, I am still offended when someone desecrates the Confederate Battle Flag.

I understand some of the outrage among portions of the African-American community over the Confederate flag. To some degree, you could compare it to how the German Jews must have felt under the Nazi flag. Still, I don't believe that this is a good comparison. The Confederate flag, in one form or another, only flew between secession and the end of the Civil War. It doesn't represent the oppression of the African-American under slavery, any more than the U.S. flag represents slavery - after all, slavery was implicitly recognized by the Constitution. (I'm fully aware that there are radicalized elements in the African-American community that would like to do away with the U.S. flag for that reason, but these voices are, thankfully, few and far between).

The confederate battle flag, rather, represents, in the eyes of the South, the oppression of the South by the Federal government, and the struggle of the South against that oppression. As such, it is no coincidence that Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse: more federal oppression.

Yeah, slavery was wrong. It was a moral evil that was, thankfully, wiped from our nation's landscape. But the way that it happened was through Federal oppression of the Southern states, and that was just as wrong. Tying the ideals of the Confederacy only to slavery, or suggesting that the Confederate battle flag should somehow be lynched, is to distort history. It is to miss the one remaining lesson of the Civil War that still faces us today: the Federal government does not have the right to citizens to states how they run their own lives. Of course the liberals want us to connect the Confederate flag with slavery; to connect it with government oppression would only reveal their true agenda.

Why the Party is hanging Al Gonzales out to dry

I think I've figured it out. It's starting to make sense.

It's the same reason that Nixon didn't dispute the election in 1960 and Gore did 40 years later. It's the same reason that Nixon resigned and Clinton didn't. (That's an intentional comparison, by the way, for you liberal readers. I know you guys hate being compared unfavorably to Nixon).

It's the same reason that Republicans always seem to balk at defending their own from wrongdoing. And here it is: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals.

Now, I know. The liberals always lambaste conservatives for claiming to be, or feeling, morally superior. Yeah, it has a negative connotation. But, I don't think that it has to be all that bad. I think that it is all right to have a higher moral standard. I think that it is OK to call a spade a bloody shovel. If someone does something wrong, liberal or conservative, a conservative should be able to stay true to conscience and say, "you did something wrong."

Does this mean that conservatives don't have moral failings? Nope. Does this mean that they don't have just as many moral failings as liberals? Not at all. But it does mean that they have a sense of guilt. They have a sense that behaving badly is not all right, even when they do it themselves.

Just because Newt was having an affair at the same time as Clinton doesn't mean that Newt was right to do it and Clinton wasn't. Both were abhorrent. But, eight years on and Newt has said, "my affair was a moral failing on my part. It's something I've had to repent of and make up for." Bill's wife is still talking about the "vast right-wing conspiracy" who outed her husband's affair. Clinton has done nothing that would suggest contrition. Newt has.

Does contrition make it right? Again, no, it doesn't. Nothing makes it right, that's the point. Just like firing judges on a purely political basis, if that's what Al Gonzales did, was not right. No, it's not as bad as firing all 93 judges, including one who was investigating your business dealings. But the conservatives have this moral compass that tells them that corruption is corruption regardless of who commits it. Liberals don't.

Now, is it premature for Sununu to call for Gonzales to resign? Yeah, it is. The facts aren't all in yet. There is no reason that he should see Gonzales as red meat, at least not yet. That's at least as political and reprehensible as firing judges on political grounds.

I would love to blog about something other than Hillary

But when she declares that she'd keep troops in Iraq just weeks after telling Bush he'd better get the troops out of Iraq before he leaves office, I can't let it go.

One of two things is going on here: Either Hillary just says whatever the hell she feels like saying depending on her audience or the direction the wind is blowing, keeping her real agendas secret, or maybe 2 + 2 really does equal 5, as long as Hillary says so. In the end, the logic of her position demands it..

Hillary is Nucking Futs.

The woman has lost it. Again.

She's declaring another "vast Right-wing conspiracy". This time, however, the conspiracy isn't out to make it look like her husband had sex with an intern. No, this one is to make sure that black people don't get to vote.

Becuase, as we know, that conspiracy was so successful that it actually got Bill Clinton to have sex (sorry, oral counts in my book) with Monica Lewinsky.

I suppose it's a vast Right-wing conspiracy that prompted Hillary to criticize Alberto Gonzales when he fired 8 U.S. attorneys, as opposed to the 93 that her husband fired.

Ron Paul in '08 is our only hope.

Why the Dems want a timetable

Democrats want us out of Iraq. That's not news. A millitary withdrawal would make for the ultimate black eye on any administration. Just ask LBJ's ghost, he can tell you all about that.

But, this timetable thing is especially interesting. Hillary, of course, previously said that Bush shouldn't leave Iraq for his successor to clean up. That would mean, then, that we should be out of Iraq by January of 2009, right? Nope. The Democrat timetable for the pullout of Iraq is August, 2008. Why?

It is simple. The Dems don't want the war on terror to be an issue in the 2008 campaign. The fact of the matter is that, unless Lieberman decides to run for prez as a Dem, they don't have one candidate on the block that is strong on defense. And the Republicans are overflowing with them. And, while I don't personally like McCain because of his encroachment on free speech (which was initiated and executed by the Democrat Feingold, by the way), you damn well better believe I'd rather have him at the helm during war than Barry or Hillary.

The Democrats know it. Even if support for the war is at an all time low, none of their candidates can get elected if we've got troops deployed in an active conflict zone.

This is also, by the way, the same reason the Dems want to negotiate with a guy who denies the holocaust ever took place. God forbid that we should be in active conflict with Iran in August of '08, just three months before the presidential elections.

What the Liberal Media isn't Telling You - Part 1

Among other things...

Not everyone hates George W. Bush, especially not all Republicans.

DDT is not as dangerous as malaria.

Phil Gramm behind him.

Democrats pander to the evangelical block as much as Republicans.

Tony Blair is an interesting figure.

On the one hand, he is as left as they come in terms of British politics. As leader of Labour, he's going to naturally be to the left of most Democrats in the United States on social issues as well as economics. Yet, he has been a staunch ally of the United States and President Bush in the war on terror.

Until now.

I can't fault the man for falling to political pressure. The fact of the matter is that, if a Democrat in the US had faced the same kind of opposition that Blair has faced in the UK, we'd have been out of Iraq before you could say "fat bloated bastard."

I guess it speaks to the testicular fortitude of George W. Bush that we haven't announced a timetable.

Hillary, however, has.

If you haven't got 'em, you just haven't got 'em.

Hillary wants the Confederate flag removed from the South Carolina statehouse grounds. Something bothers me about this.

OK, I know, I know. I've heard it. The Confederate flag, even if it doesn't represent slavery or racism to Bo and Luke Duke, it does represent slavery or racism or something to Jesse Jackson and his friends, so it's offensive. It's about reception as well as intention. Fine, fine. I disagree, but I'm tired of this particular argument for a while. We can revisit it another time.

I'm not even upset at the hypocrisy of Hillary. She never suggested removing the Confederate star from the Arkansas state flag, or pulling down the "lone star" Republic of Texas flag down off of the Texas Statehouse grounds. (Although, that would be a fun one to watch. Can you imagine the hell that Hillary would catch?)

And, honestly, the "support the troops from South Carolina by removing the Confederate flag, yet let's demand Bush bring them home without victory" argument is, by any logical estimation, flawed at best. But, that's not new, we've seen it a lot from Hillary. And I'm sure we'll see a hell of a lot more. That doesn't especially bother me today.

Nope. My big problem is this:

Hillary Clinton is a Senator. From New York. She thinks she needs to dictate to another State, South Carolina, what it should and should not do with its flags.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. Of the United States. As which she, we should assume, would actually think she had the power to dictate to a state, like South Carolina, what it should do with its flags. Now, that is scary, my friends.