Tuesday, November 30, 2004

Dan Rather has finally lost it

This column by Ray Richmond contains various bits and pieces of Dan Rather's silliness, but none greater than this VERY rich quote:
Describing his love of CBS and CBS News, Rather observed in the interview
last year: "In my mind and the minds of the people I work with, this is a
magical, mystical kingdom -- our version of Camelot. And we feel we are working
at a kind of roundtable of King Arthur proportions. Now, it may be that this
kingdom exists only in our minds. But that makes it no less real for those of us
who live it every day."

And then there was this: "Ed Murrow's ghost is here. I've seen him and
talked to him on the third floor of this building many times late at night. And
I can tell you that he's watching over us."

Perhaps the folks at CBS may want to call the Ghostbusters to do a little clean up. And maybe Dan might want to have the medication tweaked just a little bit. I'm thinking CBS is relieved by Dan's decision to retire.

And somehow all of the erratic silliness begins to make more sense.

Hugh Hewitt was right!!!

If you haven't had the chance to get your hands on Hugh Hewitt's book "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat", you must, and then read this article by John Fund at WSJ.

The Dems in the State of Washington, furious with the notion that they lost a governorship to a Republican by a narrow margin, have endeavored to manufacture a bunch of votes, relying on liberal judges to ease the way for them, and actually "enhancing" ballots to make the intent of the voter just that much more clear. How kind of them. But I really love this quote from Fund:

Democrats demanded the names and addresses of [provisional
ballot] voters so they could contact them and correct the errors. County
officials responded that in requiring that all 50 states offer provisional
ballots Congress had stipulated that such votes remain private. Republican
lawyers argued that having partisans scavenge for votes would increase the
potential for fraud.

But Superior Court Judge Dean Lum said such arguments weren't as
important as the need to make sure every vote counted--an echo of Florida.

So if I get this right, the legal standard and the avoiding of voter fraud and harassment is less important than some feel-good political philosophy held by the judge. This reminds me of a Simpsons' episode where Bart was a witness to a crime and came forward to provide his version of the facts after the case was closed. The judge, upon allowing Bart's testimony said that the equivalent of, "I know that this is illegal and grossly unconstitutional, but I just can't say no to kids."

Their goal is very clear. They are going to manufacture vote after vote in the spirit of "counting every vote" until the Democrat wins, and then they will claim a victory of a few votes for their candidate, whereas that same slim margin in the hands of the Republican was somehow not unconvincing.

But this whole "every vote counted" mantra offered by the Democrats is twaddle. It sure sounds good, but the problem is that they have never wanted every vote counted. They want every opportunity to dig up votes that help THEM. And notice that this only comes up AFTER an election and never before. This commitment to "counting every vote" only arises when they think that more votes should have been cast for their candidate rather than were actually cast. But perception is reality with these people, and they live in their sordid little world of personal entitlement to power.

The problem is that there are judges who prefer politics more than the law they are duty-bound to uphold, and they can give these Democrats' smarmy perceptions some very real life. Once again, another example of just how important the judicial selection power is.

But to finish as I began, the burden is on the Republicans. If we are content with squeaker elections, then we are also choosing to be content with litigated elections but more likely, election mischief. "Enhancing" ballots and stuffing ballot boxes are unforgivable, but have been and remain mainstays of Democratic election tactics. They don't play fair and history shows it. But note what happened in Ohio just this month. Kerry was too far behind Bush at about 135,000 votes. If it were by about 5,000, we'd be dealing with recounts, including the Democrats' gold standard, the hand recount, which allows for fraud of all kinds.

If we can get real registered voters to their polling places to cast votes, and we can do it in numbers that trounce the Dems, we can avoid these problems. Because they still can't fake hundreds of thousands of votes.

The resurrection of Howard Dean

The Democrats really have a shot at renewing themselves as a mainstream moderate party along the lines of the Zell Millers, Joe Liebermans, Evan Bayhs, and John Breauxs. But they may be punting given that they now want Howard Dean to be the leader of the party.

Of course, this isn't the worst choice they can make for their future. Dean is a face that the rank and file of the party all know and to some degree like. Dean would also be replacing the man who has driven the party into the ground over the past four years--Terry McAuliffe. Without going on an extended diatribe about McAuliffe, the man has done more good for the Republicans than Karl Rove could ever hope to do. This was the guy who predicted Senate pickups and a Jeb Bush loss in 2002. He was close...Jeb won by double digits, and the President whom McAuliffe called illegitimate, put his own political capital on the line and regained control of the Senate. And the same in 2004. More Senate and House pickups, and another Bush win. McAuliffe's truly bizarre rhetoric and behavior earned him the rather fitting nickname "The Punk" by Rush Limbaugh. This guy is not a Tony Coelho or Dick Morris, whom the Republicans disliked but learned to respected because of their effectiveness. This is a guy with no self-respect who made a complete jackass of himself and brought much humiliation to his party. So, his loss could only help the Democrats.

But Eleanor Clift this morning, in her usual defense of her party, stated that Dean had broad support among Democrats. Curious then, that he almost never did better than a distant 3rd place finish in the primaries behind John Edwards, who couldn't gain re-election to the Senate, and couldn't at least deliver for his ticket a respectable single digit loss in his own state.

But what may be the more revealing thing about the Dems' potential choice of Dean is what it says about them and their knowledge of him. Dean really was not the liberal nutcase that he appeared to be. Sure, he believed to one degree or another most of the silly stuff he said, he has a fiery short fuse, and is fairly irreligious, but as a governor, the guy was significantly more of a moderate than he let on, and notably more so than John Kerry, a doctrinaire liberal who played himself as a moderate.

But what the liberal base knows best about Dean is his demagoguery in 2003 that put him on top of the pack until a week before Iowa. And it's hard to think that they're interested in a boring and undistinguished moderate-left governor. If they really wanted a more centrist approach, they could sign on Tom Vilsac of Iowa, Gary Locke of Washington, or even the likes of retiring Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. Make no mistake, the Democrats courting Dean as their leader want the same guy who ran the inflammatorily liberal campaign of 2003.

So it's hard to say what will eventually come of this development, but one thing's for sure: irrespective of whatever result a Dean chairmanship may bring, the Democrats are not pulling away from the ways of the left that have cost them dearly in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Monday, November 29, 2004

Politics & Iraq

Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics raises several uncomfortable questions for conservatives that require answering about why we hold the position we do on Iraq.

For my part, if this were a Gore presidency, I would have made a bit more noise about the lack of WMDs and, like Tom, I would have complained a whole lot more about our initial failure to squash the terrorists in Fallujah, as well as the repeated peace overtures to Shiite junior cleric and punk, Muqtada al Sadr instead of running him down as the terrorist leader he is. I also wouldn't have been too happy with what appeared to be an undermanned war, requiring the extensions of reservists' service. So I suppose my partisanship does affect my objectivity.

But a few things to consider...people can worship freely in Iraq. People can disagree freely. People can choose to hate their government and let it be heard. Israel, one of the itchiest trigger fingers of the free nations of the world (and with good reason), has one of its most lethal threats eliminated. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and an increasingly pro-islamist Turkey now must deal with the difficulty of having a budding Arabic democracy in the midst (with the exception of Turkey) of their dictatorships.

There is no question that the world is a much safer place after the invasion of Iraq. A government known to have possessed and used WMD on its own people, which attacked three of its neighbors, with plans to attack an oil-rich fourth neighbor to the south, which violated UN resolutions and terms of the 1991 cease-fire, which murdered its civilians, and which supported, harbored and collaborated with international terror groups, is gone. Yes, the pacification is not an easy job, and rooting out terrorist insurgents in an urban setting is a whole lot more difficult than eliminating a standing military. But the larger good is already being realized by a substantially reduced international threat.

Tom's most important point, though, is that these accomplishments are mere footnotes to many Democrats who seem to feel that deposing Saddam and all of the benefits which that brings to the Iraqi people and the world were mere details compared to the more important objective of deposing Bush in favor of someone who really had no agenda beyond winning an election.

And it's downright freaky when they side with Michael Moore who believes that there is no terrorist threat, when they demonize the Patriot Act and the Attorney General who enforces it by making blatantly false claims that people's civil rights are being trounced all over America, and by being quick to excuse terror attacks as the natural and just result of American foreign policy. Politics is a fine and fun game to play, but it raises numerous character questions about the Democrats when progress is viewed solely as a function of whether the person upon whose watch it occurred was a Democrat.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

Postponing the Iraq election

There has been much talk, mostly from the Sunni side, that the election set for January 30, 2005 be postponed. Various concerns about the security of the election keep coming up...Fallujah, Baghdad, terrorists, you name it.

But these calls for postponement should be roundly ignored. Sure, it makes sense on an academic level that an election should be held only when everyone who is eligible and desires to vote has the same opportunity as everyone else to have a say in an election.

But there were calls to postpone our election for fear of potential Madrid-style or worse terrorist attacks. We didn't, and a very clear message was sent to our enemies, that their days remain numbered. Postponement would have created a very real impression that the terrorists are more than thugs, but instead, real influences in our internal affairs.

And that goes double for Iraq, where a terrorist presence is a daily concern for soldier and civilian alike. Forestalling the election may make it possible for more folks to participate, but holding it on the scheduled date sends the message that terrorists do not control the democratic process. And a delayed election can only help the terrorists.

Because the symbolic value of this first election is exponentially greater than its substance. It will make the restoration of the totalitarianism that the terrorists so deperately want to restore to the region just that much more unlikely because the people of Iraq will feel the tangible results of a freely elected government. And it possibly has one other benefit to various Sunnis who may not be too keen on a majority Shi'ite Iraq. It will make them all the more eager to cooperate with efforts to root out the terrorists operating in their neighborhoods. They won't tolerate being precluded from voting and participating in the process when their Shia neighbors are making decisions for them.

January 30 is a hard deadline for the terrorists. Don't even consider granting them a stay.

Friday, November 26, 2004

Quasi-sensible Democrats are in for a disappointment

This piece from Jonathan Chait is an excellent example of the potential for disappointment that some more sensible Democrats may be facing. Please do not think that I am including Chait in the very small boat of "sensible Democrats". I'll ignore the extended discourse to which such an article gives rise, given that he is spewing out more bile (his word, not mine) about his disappointment with the candidate he loved just 30 days ago, but is busy deconstructing today. But this article makes some very valid points about just how destructive a Dean, Clinton or Kerry ticket would be for the party 4 years from now. Viewed in today's terms, indeed, he is right. But as was said with Bush in 2001, events determine what matters in 4 years, not necessarily personalities.

But (again, viewed in a 2004 light) Chait presumes that the Berkeley base of his party will somehow see their way to moderation, or at least silence borne of wisdom. Because it somehow worked so well this year for the Democrats? Because it somehow worked so well for the Republicans in 1992 who wanted to put the Buchananites in some much needed straight jackets with duct tape over their mouths? The Republicans were somehow blessed by a Pat Buchanan who jumped ship in 2000, but not only have the Democrats not had such a fortune, they actually seemed to have turned up the flames a little bit. The rhetoric of the 2004 Democrat primaries, and the way that the various candidates accordingly trimmed their messages to remain competitive should leave little doubt as to which wing of the party is in control.

I have argued before in this space that I think a realignment is taking place in favor of a fiscally conservative and an unapologetically pro-American foreign policy. The Republicans' hold of Congress, and the Bush win in 2000 (which should have been a Gore win in the face of then-apparent economic and national security), Bush's pickup of House and Senate seats after putting his own political credibility on the line in 2002, and his win over John Kerry just a few weeks ago in an especially bitter climate where the media did all it could to set Kerry up for a win, and questions over the progress in the Iraq war, is indicative of the increasing staying power of the Republicans' electoral strength.

Put simply, people don't want to feel guilty for being Americans. They don't feel bad that they earn money and want to keep more of it. They don't think Kofi Annan is more important than the President. They feel that people ought to work their way to a better life, not whine their way there.

But the Democratic base who ultimately decides who the nominees will be, are unlikely to put up an Evan Bayh or a Joe Lieberman. Not when people like Barbara Streisand, Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, the NAACP, NEA, NARAL, and the gay lobby have their hands on the wheel.

So, the sensible Democrats are in for years of disappointment. And I think that despite his rather impassioned article, Mr. Chait and those like him will continue to support whomever the Dems nominate--even if it's Hillary, Dean or Clinton.

Friday, November 19, 2004

When Racism Is OK

Racism is socially unacceptable. Period. And nowadays, even the slightest comment where even the tiniest tint of racism is discovered, people scream from the rooftops until the individual making such an utterance ends up getting a stomping.

Take David Howard, a former D.C. employee (note the "former" designation) who used the word "niggardly" in 1999 to describe how he would have to handle funds in the face of budget cutbacks. For the dilettantes, the word is of Norse descent meaning "stingy" and having absolutely no relationship to another word we all know well. In essence, he said that if proposed budget cuts went into effect, he was going to have to be tight-fisted. This piece does a nice job describing what happened to him (among others). Uneducated people called for his job and got it. The linked article nicely employs a quote by Tony Snow who said that the people who called for his resignation were morons chiefly because they didn't care to use a dictionary, and actually demanded that he apologize for their ignorance. His use of the word was entirely appropriate, but perhaps he should have understood that his audience was a bunch of boobs. Don't misbehave.

But racism is not bad if you're a white leftist. In fact, it's the responsibility of the left to truncate blacks both left and right, if history is any guide.

We all know about the welfare state which kept blacks in a permanent underclass of dependence and subsistence, and the left's love for liberal teacher's unions & their wants over the needs of a generation of inner city children to read, to the point that they oppose school choice in any form. But when the cameras are on, liberals LOVE inner city disadvantaged blacks. And you would too if you were them, as you'd need their votes to retain office. But what happens when blacks have the audacity to step outside the boundaries of public housing, go to universities, start thinking for themselves, and begin disagreeing with the liberal script they have been read for years?

Look at Condoleeza Rice, for example. Our moderate Republican intellectual African American Secretary of State appointee has taken a little good-natured ribbing from the far left, like this, this, and this . Each one makes a special play on her race, which is fine, if you're a liberal. Then, of course, there is this rather stirring article by Bob Parks whose thesis is that blacks are loved as long as they toe the line. Step out of line and, well, it's ok to use any racial stereotype against you. There can be no fair argument made that the linked cartoons and the pictures in Parks' article are in any way a part of legitimate social discourse, as they are dripping with racist hate.

But the funny thing is that nobody's heard a peep from Kweisi Mfume, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton (the Curly, Larry & Moe of the race industry)...the same folks who complained when Trent Lott made some silly comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday party that had exactly nothing to do with race.

Dr. Rice is a Sovietologist, speaks fluent Russian, and has a foreign policy background of about two decades. She is a concert pianist, and after being told in early adolescence that her IQ wasn't sufficient to get her in the door of a college, she nonetheless enrolled in college at age 15 and graduated by 19. But to the left, those extraordinary accomplishments are mere details. The real issue to them is that Dr. Rice is a black woman who has not a shred of gratitude for them. If you ask any liberal, they'll tell you that left-wing quotas are the reason for the success of any black American and that Dr. Rice in particular owes allegiance to them by virtue of the tint of her epidermis.

And this is fetid cynicism is not an isolated instance of evil. When Rep Gary Franks of Connecticut, the first black Republican elected to Congress since Reconstruction, wanted to join the Congressional Black Caucus, he was shunned by the caucus members who are all liberals. Clarence Thomas, the first conservative black appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court was smeared by an unprovable and frankly implausible set of allegations that he had sexually harassed a former employee (who, most interestingly, never bothered to file suit) in order to derail his nomination, Maryland's Lt. Governor, Michael Steele, when running for office was pelted with Oreos by liberals who felt that blacks who are conservative are "white on the inside". Senator Robert Byrd, liberal from West Virginia, and a former Klansman gave an interview where he repentantly referred to the Klan as "white niggers". Not a peep from the race police.

Hate is ugly no matter who does it, but when the left has not the decency to police its own members, as it has consistently refused to do, it leaves what is becoming a more and more believable impression that they have no love for blacks who refuse to be their willing political tools.

Dr. Rice is owed an apology by her detractors, and frankly, it is about time that the left's racist record be piled up in their face.

I invite anyone reading this to post comments, with links if possible, evidencing racism by the American left. Because it is time conservatives to decry the double-standard the left and their cohorts in the media hold towards a population who have for too long been treated as a means to an end. And it is also time to spotlight black Americans who have made lives for themselves in the absence of racial politics, but as a result of hard work, perseverance and patience. Because that's what the American dream is all about.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

Watch your back soldier

The business over this Marine who blew away the dead or death faking terrorist combatants has reached the point where the media has already convicted this soldier as a war criminal because, as we know, every violent thing that U.S. soldiers do which the MSM does not understand is a war crime.

Break this down as succinctly as possible: these are not Iraqi rebels. These are international terrorists who, by their own admission, are allied with al Qaeda. Their dead bodies are booby trapped to kill soldiers who approach or jostle them. These people feign death, and then when the soldiers are upon them, they fire off a weapon to take out an American or two. The point is that shooting a dead body or one faking death for fear that the "body" may end up shooting you or detonating a bomb, is not only appropriate, it saves lives.

If winning this war is a goal that the MSM has in mind (and I am not at all convinced of that), here is the alternative to the soldiers risking their lives by entering and inspecting these buildings: they can simply open company fire on them. Launch mortars into them, pummel them with rockets from helicopters, raze them with bombs from a plane, and there will be no need to inspect.

Our military does what it does because of fear of killing innocents. The media cannot be heard to demand precision attacks and then accuse our soldiers of war crimes for shooting terrorist combatants who have been known to feign innocence before killing soldiers. Our military won't get everything perfect, but such is the nature of war.

But more to the point, the impossible standard the media is creating is one which will have soldiers less interested in doing their jobs, and more eager to protect their legal rear ends. Putting that kind of fear into soldiers' minds will result in greater danger to them. If they fear prosecution, they will be less likely to engage in the grim--and legal--tasks that save lives, such as this young soldier did. Some thanks he gets for protecting his unit and doing his job.

And one last note to the quasi-educated MSM...the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists. Stop pretending that it does.

More to follow with legal analysis as to just how the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists.

"Begun, the Joe Walton Clone Wars Have"

Not exactly the quote from Master Yoda, but it'll do. How do Joe Walton, discredited egotist, and clones go hand in hand? Because there are a ton of carbon copies of the guy wailing about undesired changes going on at Langley.

Stephen Hayes, the Weekly Standard's master of cloak and dagger issues has penned this rather neat article about just how swimmingly the transition is going at CIA. It seems that the new Bush-appointed CIA director, Porter Goss is finding as he moves in, that the house needs a good deal of work.

The CIA is, like any other arm of the federal government, prone to festering into a bureaucratic swamp. But unlike the Departments of Agriculture or Interior, it does work that affects people's safety. And look at how great their track record has been:

- They missed the downfall of the Soviet Union,
- They relied significantly more on ELINT (electrical/communications) than on human intelligence (spies and sources who get into bad guys' lairs and start reporting back what they find).
- They failed to update their operations to include people proficient in middle east customs and languages
- They missed the 90s terrorist attacks
- They missed 9/11

In all, not a great 15 years.

Now the new CIA director is coming in and is making himself wildly unpopular with the existing bureaucrats by shaking up the operations of the Agency. Of course, the Washington Post is quick to take sides, claiming that Goss is wrecking CIA and upsetting the entrenched Chardonnay crowd who have been there for years. The implication, of course, being that Goss should not be upsetting the complaining crowd. But there are a few problems with the fact and way this is being reported.

First, this stuff should never get out. The intelligence community is one requiring secrecy. When employees are upset, it is customary to just leave and not to air sour grapes in the Washington media.

Second, the Post is reporting the angry conclusions of irritated--and anonymous-- bureaucrats as facts without any investigation. Given that they report no details as to what Goss is actually doing to create such an unholy stir, save accusations from those who feel that their cushy positions are no longer safe, it seems that the MSM is once again taking sides with the feckless federal employee over the effective operation of a key arm of our national security machine.

Third, since when does the MSM have problems with change? They had no problem when Clinton turned the military into his own personal social laboratory (gays in the military, increased combat roles for women, slashes in defense funding, a president who didn't return salutes, all resulting in a lower retention rate for experienced soldiers and officers). But imagine what would happen if Bush appointed a Secretary of State who would actually push his foreign policy in a no-nonsense way, without kowtowing to Council on Foreign Relations and demanding a pro-U.S., U.S. State Department. Well, CIA has become infested with the same ilk as those that infest the State Department. So this is but an example of what will come if Condi Rice starts dares to exhibit loyalty to her boss.

Goss has begun part of what will be a painful de-lousing of the CIA. It will be messy to be sure, but if the MSM and the bureaucrats who come crying to them are rightly ignored, the CIA may actually get the chance to modernize into an effective part of the national security machine. But a failure will result in the CIA we have now--somewhat functional, somewhat helpful, but really an enclave of bureaucratic incompetence and territorialism. And an unnecesarily less safe nation.

Is that what the Post really wants to protect?

Monday, November 15, 2004

Happy things

The world is not all adversarial politics...

Yesterday morning, my daughter Carly came into the world at 9lbs 6oz 20in. Very sweet. She seems to look like her brother did. Were that not enough, she was born to the world's best mommy.

Now we're just praying that she figures out that nighttime is for sleeping.

Friday, November 12, 2004

GUILTY

Scott Peterson was found guilty. It's about time. Mark Geragos (Gera-gross as we say in my house) will appeal this until the end of time, but at the very least, it seems as if another OJ result was avoided.

Our condolences to the Rocha family. May God be of abundant comfort to you in this really unpleasant time.

Time To Bash Kerry

If you're asking the Democrats, it is. Check out the article by the great Jonathan Last who opines that Kerry wasn't such a bad candidate, as far as candidates per se go.

It was well written and argued, and I agreed with a good bit of it, insofar as Kerry was great on paper and on the stump, but his campaign was a wreck, where very talented communicators like Tad Devine, Chad Clanton and others were tossed to the sharks from August on.

The real death of Kerry was done by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, but more really his failure to respond to them. They would have harmed him nonetheless, but they could have been a flash in the pan if Kerry had countered them. It's not like the campaign didn't see them coming.

But more to the point of this post's title...Remember what I said earlier about the value of efforts done for a losing campaign. The Democrats throw flaming hot nails at members of their own party who don't win elections because they committed the cardinal sin of getting too few votes. Gore was excoriated for his failure to win in 2000, and the list of ways he blew the election were chronicled. Mike Dukakis was persona non-grata at the convention this year, and Walter Mondale, resurrected after his historic drubbing by Ronald Reagan in 1984, was finally euthanized in 2002 after losing to Norm Coleman for the Minnesota Senate. Shooting your own wounded isn't all that honorable a practice.

Kerry was a better man than his own party now gives credit for. But it makes you wonder why anyone would want to vote for any Democrat, given that his own party will barbecue him if he loses, no matter how close the election.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Death of a Murderer

Yasser Arafat is dead. As a result, the world is a better place. While it may seem in poor taste to celebrate the death of another, few mourned the death of Adolf Hitler. Arafat, however the MSM and the left may want to cast him, was a murderer of innocent people, including and often especially women and children. This was a man who worked death to achieve political goals. Powerline has an excellent synopsis and links to lists of Arafat's "accomplishments." Suffice it to say, the guy's legacy is in innocent people's blood.

Of course, the suggestion that Arafat died of AIDS as a result of leading a wildly homosexual life is a novel and questionable one, but when you catch accounts like this, it makes you wonder.

But more to the point is how the man changed the world. He was the first major terrorist leader, and as such legitimized the use of global terror against innocents to achieve political goals. In his footsteps, people such as Khomeini, Abu Nidal, Muammar al-Qaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and yes, Osama bin Laden.

And the Nobel Committee helped out with the image that terror is legitimate by giving Arafat the Nobel Peace Prize. Funny thing though, when he had the opportunity to once and for all set up that Palestinian State cost-free to the Palestinians, he refused. He was unconditionally offered almost everything he requested at Camp David by a rather naive Ehud Barak. But as abysmally stupid as the offer was, it showed that Arafat's goal was the elimination of Israel, and not necessarily a Palestinian State.

Of course, this Nobel Prize winner dragged his people across the Levant for five decades as nomads, and finally settled them in disgraceful refugee camps to augment the impression that his people were the victims of the displacement created by Israel. He directed people with bombs strapped around their bodies to blow themselves up in public places so as to maximize death among women and children. He single-handedly kept an unremitting state of war existing between the Palestinians and the civilians of Israel.

And his life has come to a rather grim end because of a mystery illness. And it is no great loss. This was a man who was evil to the core, and who created two generations of misery for millions of people for his own political gain. Unfortunate for him. An opportunity for peace for the rest of us.

Be Careful Little Mouth What You Say

Bill Clinton gave an excellent read on the status of his party's health on values issues last night when he stated that neither party has a monopoly on values. What he meant to say was that the Democrats are having serious problems in the values department.

Now remember my post of earlier when I stated that the liberal Democrats do indeed have values. There is nobody who exists who does not have values. But the values to which they refer are conservative, American mainstream values...God, family, friends, work, and individualism. The Republicans have taken these values pretty seriously, even when they weren't popular and when their promulgation could cost an election (see Dan Quayle, 1992).

Zell Miller warned them that this tsunami was coming. They ignored it. And it appears that it was one of the chief reasons they lost this election was that they look down upon the values common to a majority of Americans.

The problem for the Democrats is that it is pretty clear that they are serious about the left wing values they have preached since the 1960s. Given that, they'd need to have an epiphany over the next four years for any claim that they share the core beliefs of mainstream America to stick. But when Howard Dean places Job in the New Testament, I somehow think that the Democrats will try running on other issues in 2008.

No, neither party has a monopoly on values because such things, by their very nature, cannot be hoarded. But they can be abandoned. So if the Republicans have a monopoly on them it's because the liberal Democrats let them.


Wednesday, November 10, 2004

We need less justice!

Just ask Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). His comments on the resignation of John Ashcroft are as follows, taken from this article:
"We wish John Ashcroft good health and a good retirement, and we hope the
president will choose a less polarizing attorney general as his successor..."

To loosely parse this quote, Schumer means, "Please choose someone who does not have a sincerely held and seriously practiced faith, and someone who won't do any significant enforcement of the laws of the United States."

Not much of a secret here... the Dems don't like it when the laws are enforced because they don't like the statutes written by the Congress and approved by the President. They prefer politically reliable judges to re-draft the law to make it more congruent with their political beliefs. Since they cannot get their agenda through the Congress, they sneak it in through overreaching judges.

The flap over Ashcroft in 2001 and since was that he was too conservative and that he would not fairly enforce the law. Their fear was that he actually WOULD enforce the law. Because the more the law is enforced, the more real a part of people's lives it becomes and the further society is distanced from liberal goals.


We know the election was fixed--because we lost

The fever swamp needs a new bombing of Tylenol. Check this out. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a pretty feckless guy, is convinced that Bush (Jeb or George) fixed things in Florida. But you know that this is a buch of garbage when the likes of Donna Brazile, Gore's very adept and partisan campaign manager from 2000 (who has been known to take a dip in the fever swamp herself), says that the charge has zero basis in fact.

One question: If the Kerry had won, would we be hearing anything from Democrats about their registration of dead voters, fraudulent absentee votes, and the protection of people too stupid to know where their polling place is?

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

Close Doesn't Count In Elections

Check out this little piece on the post-election value of Fahrenheit 9/11. It seems that the Hollywood crowd is not willing to bend the rules even a little for Michael Moore, whose work they lauded just months ago.

Who would be hurt if they just gave this Beaver Cleaver the Hutt lookin' elitist a little plastic trophy?

If Kerry had carried the day on November 2, Moore would have been poet laureate, among other things, and the golden globes would have fawned over him.

But remember, it's not what you do for the left, it's whether what you do gets them in the positions of power they crave. The movie was just so much wasted film. How sad.

But all is not lost. The American Academy is prepared to consider his film. And he'll win. Further proof that Hollywood is an enclave of complete and utter morons.

Gettin' some values

Values, they're not just for smart shoppers anymore.

Now the Democrats, sensing--quite correctly--that their party has none, are wanting them. Note to Dems: You can't pick up values in Nordstrom or Tiffany's. Even if you condescend to go to the Piggly-Wiggly to be lookin' fer 'em, you'd still come up short.

No friends, you actually have to hold certain things to be important in your life before they become "your values." It's the whole "caught, not taught" thing. Of course, Bill Clinton didn't need values because he did a great job of pretending. Because Bill Clinton can do that. Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and John Kerry made things worse by faking it.

However, Democrats sell themselves short when they claim they have no values. They DO! They value abortion on demand. They value high taxes for the redistribution of wealth. They value bigger government. They value lavish public spending to resolve serious social issues. They value special rights for homosexuals. They value a society that excuses lawbreaking. They value teachers union members' rights over the children in schools who aren't being taught. They value lawmaking by politically reliable courts, not by a vast body of legislators who are constantly up for re-election. They value talk (called diplomacy) over a strong military that is necessary to back up any negotiation. And they value the U.N. over U.S. sovereignty. Make no mistake, those ARE values.

But to put as fine a point as I can to this: they want conservative values. Are we seeing a change of heart? Is it because they want to know Jesus, want to rub elbows with enlisted Marines in the absence of cameras, or want to see people take home more of their own paychecks? Don't get too excited kids.

They want conservative values because such things help get people elected. They know that they're locked out of the south. They know that the industrial Midwest hates them (by ANY conventional wisdom, Kerry should have won Ohio, which lost TONS of jobs under Bush's watch). It's just an effort to steal away the most salient support that the Republicans have: the values voter. Yes, the right-wing, ultra-conservative, Jesus-lovin', Bible-readin'/beatin', regular-church-goin' and actually listenin', backy-chewin', NASCAR watchin' Christians.

They tried to pick this group away from Bush by running Mary Cheney's sexuality up their own flagpole. They tried it when they wanted to make Lynne Cheney out to be a bad mom for coming to her daughter's defense. It was a tactic. And it failed. It didn't divide Bush from his constituency, but rather made Kerry, Cahill, Deshong and others look like creeps. The values voters, dim though they be, saw it for what it was.

Funny thing 'bout them critters...they can smell a fake a mile away.

The Democrats are free to get some values. But when the motivation to do it is driven by the ultimate goal of achieving power, and not a desire to become a person of real character, the effort is often doomed from the start.

Sunday, November 07, 2004

We're Divided...So what?

One of the complaints that John Kerry made to George Bush in his concession call was that the nation was heavily divided. Implicit in that complaint was that Bush needed to do something about it, and of course, that the division was something requiring correction.

No, again, the left gets it nearly 100% wrong. Kerry's complaint is directed at a phantom problem which he and other liberals have no credibility to discuss, even if it were a "problem". In fact, it's the sign of good things happening across America, and of changes, perhaps for the better.

The idea that a close election means that our nation is somehow splitting is like arguing that a nation of dog lovers and cat lovers needs to find a compromise between pets. It's a phony concern, and the fact that half the country votes for one guy and half for the other is evidence of nothing. In fact, the "division" cited by Kerry is one of personal opinions, not one of person against person.

Such difference of opinion has been the engine of much creation in our nation's history. Our House and Senate are the result of a compromise between divided delegates to the Constitutional Convention. The existence of our national capital in Washington D.C. was the result of a compromise between northerners and southerners, and just about every bill passed by our Congress is the result of compromise between conflicting visions. Our differences moderate or exclude the extremes of thought, create workable ideas, and sharpen our minds.

However, I would like to ask the left what the alternative is that they suggest to this division? Perhaps steering people's thoughts to a more tidy and uniform point of view? But is that really a goal that we as Americans should be angling towards? Certainly, our opponents in the Cold War demanded it of their people. And certainly our opponents now in the war on terror favor a population with a singe mind and a single set of opinions.

The division we experienced in the 1860s were indeed of a critical variety, but these aren't even remotely close. No, the divisions which Senator Kerry decried are the very things that have made our nation great over the years. People will think and vote differently. That's America.

But if the Democrats are looking to attach blame for any true divisions among the American people, they need look no further than the attendees to their convention this year. Anyone ever heard of John Edwards' "Two Americas"? How about Al Sharpton's signature tactic of dividing the races, and singling out Jews as a special group to be hated? How about John Kerry's claim that Bush and Cheney were the dirtiest bunch of liars he'd ever seen, or both he and Edwards using Dick Cheney's daughter's sexuality as an effort to divide the ticket from their conservative base? How about Elizabeth Edwards saying that Lynne Cheney's defense of her daughter indicated that she was embarrassed by her? How about the star of the left and guest of honor at the convention, Michael Moore who made the fact-free film-screed Fahrenheit 9/11? How about the tired old charge that tax cuts benefit the richest X% of society and took money away from other people (who weren't really paying taxes). How about the opposition of school vouchers for inner city kids because the improvement in millions of children's education is less important than members of the teacher's union? How about efforts in 2000 to prevent absentee military votes from being counted in Florida? If there are divisions, the liberals have nobody to blame but themselves. They are the party of class warfare and pitting group against group. Division is their game, and they should be proud of the divisions they have worked.

But the results of this and the last few elections mean something greater, I think. I think we are in the process of a realignment. Note the reasons people say they came out and voted. They voted for values. Terror was indeed an issue, but people came out to "just say no" to gay marriage. And note that abortion, a formerly taboo topic, became a big issue in the debates which Bush won. And note well that Bush increased his party's holdings in Congress, and won the Senate back in the 2002 midterm elections...something a Republican president had not done since 1902. So, things may be on the move. And change is often a good thing.

These are the whimpers of a party with no soul and no vision, other than gettin' power and holding it at whatever cost. We're not divided, just different. And that's still ok.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Mideast Peace Process has a shot

Arafat is likely on his deathbed, especially given that the Palestinians commenting on his care are saying that he isn't.

If he buys it, there is a very real chance for peace in our day. He has been the greatest source of the day to day death and murder going on in Israel. He relegates his people to fetid refugee camps, despite their desires to move out and live peacefully, and just to show that he has no concern for peace in our day, he scrapped the insanely generous offer by Ehud Barak to essentially give up land with no concessions in return--essentially a Palestinian State for free--and stated that it wasn't what he wanted. What he really wants is to have Israel move a little westward into the Mediterranean Sea, ceding their existence to the Palestinians. So with him at the helm, there would never be a chance for peace.

His expiration would allow more liberal elements to fill the gigantic vacuum he leaves, and open up a serious dialogue.

Arafat has never been serious about cooperation, and just to show how much a faker he has been, I popped in a tape of Christmas shows that I recorded eons ago in 1986 for the kids. I was showing them the smurfs, etc., and during a news break, the anchor stated as his teaser that Arafat was renouncing terrorism forever. Eighteen years later, we are no closer to peace, and actually, a state of low intensity war exists between the Palestinians and Israel.

The title, "PLO" is appropriate. The Palestinians need to be liberated from Arafat. It's never in good taste to gleefully toast the death of another, but Arafat's loss is to the gain of the Palestinians and Israelis both.

Stand by

Big election, great result, but the "divided nation" concept from the Dems is bunk. More on that later.