New Quote

Changed the quote at the top to an old Woody Allen quote, back when he was a comedian.

Your Weekly Rush : An Acceptable Bigotry

Reading Rush Limbaughs comments on Senator Kerry's call to oppose judges who will overturn Roe vs. Wade, and noticed this key phrase.

The French-looking, French-speaking Vietnam veteran, said, "I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the Constitution right to privacy on civil rights to individual liberties and the laws protecting workers and the environment."

Initially his choice to emphasize Senator Kerry's Frenchness bugged me, but the more I think about it, the more OK I am with it. There's nothing wrong in America with hating someone because of how he looks or because he speaks a certain language.

Just a quick reminder--I speak French, and half of my birth parent parentage is French. So if some of you were wondering why you hated me, well that's why.

Well that does it!

First we had the Operation Iraqi Freedom decks which I thought were ok. I mean it's not something I would buy, but I can understand why others would. I think it's great that such a "collectible" item is available in pretty much every drugstore in America.

Then you had the Axis of Weasels deck, which was a lame attempt to cash in on the popularity of the Operation Iraqi Freedom decks. Although obviously a successful attempt.

Now you have the Deck of Hillary from those people at News Max. Always in a hurry to turn a profit. First became aware of it through an add on that "liberal" website MSNBC.com. So in response I pledge to you to go out today and buy a copy of Hillary's new book. I am going to see if I can get it on tape which puts even more money in Hillary's pocket and allows me to listen to it while I drive around. So there!

Harping on it

An article by Joel Mowbray today, expressing an opinion on the state department he's expressed before and that I've commented on before--so stop me if you've read this before.

He is writing about some student demonstrations held in Iran, and, more to the point, how lousy our State Department is for continuing to talk with the government of Iran.

Here are the standard points

-- President Bush is the President of the United States and he has the power to control the State Department if he wants to. He can remove Colin Powell should that be his wish, and he can put a stop to these meetings. He has chosen not to. I know you want to, Mr. Mowbray, but you cannot attack the State Department without also attacking our beloved President.

-- You state, “Engaging” leaders in any way is a tacit acknowledgement of legitimacy, particularly when their very basis for rule is being challenged from within." This is patent nonsense, and would basically eliminate the need for a state department, except in so far as they can round up support for the next country our military is going to invade. It commits us to a policy of war with all countries who we disagree with, as any discussions with them would lend legitimacy to their Government.

-- What about the 9,000 pound gorilla in the room? Isn't there a nation we don't really agree with that has nuclear weapons and a similar size army to the United States and internal dissent? Somewhere in Eastern Asia? What do you propose we do about the Chinese, if we are not going to engage them?

Mr. Mowbray might be willing to throw away the lives of American soldiers in a mad effort to deny "legitimacy" to the mullahs of Iran, but perhaps President Bush feels differently. I know I do.

Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator, Makes Yet Another Prediction!

Those of you with weak hearts might want to skip down to the next article. Ben Shapiro, writing, as every conservative must, on Hillary Clintons new book, Living History. Well, according to young Ben, this book signals the end of Hillary's career. As he puts it, "But finally, Hillary has hit her Watergate. Her new book, Living History, is a cover-up in purely Nixonian fashion."

He goes on to predict, "Like Nixon, she will fall. Unlike Nixon, she does not have the personal strength to rise alone." Quite a prediction there, Ben. So she will fall, but if she comes back, it will be because she has help. That's going out on a limb there, Ben. Anything that happens to Hillary now you can claim is an answer to your vague prophecy.

My Secret Life as a Non-Hillary Hater

Interesting article by the conservative writer Linda Chavez in which she admits that she doesn't hate Hillary Clinton. I'll pause a moment while you try to get your heads around the idea of a conservative not hating Hillary.

At first I was skeptical myself, figuring it was some kind of rhetorical trick. But then I got to her last few paragraphs (where one would expect the old switcharoo to take place). Instead I found this;

Frankly, I've often thought that conservatives might be partly responsible for Hillary's success. Conservatives and liberals are locked in a weird, symbiotic dance with Hillary. By demonizing her, we've elevated her importance and encouraged liberals to rally around her. And there is no question that all the vituperative attacks on her book have increased sales.

In truth, Hillary Clinton hasn't been nearly the wild-eyed radical some predicted she'd be if elected senator. From a policy standpoint, I doubt she'd be a worse president than John Kerry or Howard Dean or John Edwards, or any of the other Democrats running.

Ms. Chavez's comments have the virtue of being largely true, but still it is gratifying to see.

What the Democrats Should Do

Some Good Advice from Tony Blankley, conservative commentator. He points out a flaw in the Democratic strategy. "To add to the sense of unreality, the Democratic Party seems to be staking the remnants of its national credibility on behalf of the crackbrained project of trying to convince the public that the most trusted, straightforward, honest president the country has seen in quite a while is actually a devious manipulator of mass opinion."

You see the Democrats would be better served by ignoring the deceit issue. They should instead spend time praising the President, while offering constructive criticism on some of the presidents minor points. That way they are sure to regain the White House.

Wait a second; which team is Tony Blankley playing for?

The Deceit Issue

Helen Thomas has an important point about the run up to next years election, which is, should the Democrats make the failure to find weapons of Mass Destruction a key debate in the next election. "Democratic presidential aspirants might have a monumental issue for their 2004 campaign against President George W. Bush -- if they don't go wobbly.

It's based on growing doubts that Bush was on the level when he tried to whip up public support for a U.S. attack on Iraq by claiming that the Saddam Hussein regime had a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. "

What's interesting about the way Ms. Thomas thinks is the way she phrases her assertion. "If the Democrats pass up the chance to make the war an issue in the campaign, they will be playing into the hands of the Republicans. And the voters will lose out on a much-needed debate."

The voters would miss out on a debate? Even a much needed debate would be less welcome than a sane foreign policy (and economic policy, for that matter). I like Ms. Thomas, and think she has done some excellent work, but there is an element of inside the beltway bias in that statement that I hope is plain for all to see.

It also contrasts with the Republican way of looking at things. For Republicans (and to be fair, some hardcore Democrats), all the answer shave already been settled. What is needed is not debate, not discussion, not exploration; but an acceptance of the truths that have already been discovered. In that climate, the Democratic desire for debate seems week when compared to the Republican zeal for action.

That said, I do hope, that if WMD's are not found in the next six months or so, that the Democrats do make an issue of it.

Confusion

I have to admit to being a bit confused in my reaction to Mona Charen's latest article.

On the one hand she says things I agree with, and that are, by inference, very critical of the Bush Administration. She rights about the overly incestuous relationship we have had with Saudi Arabia. No person better exemplifies that relationship than President Bush, who seems unlikely to ever hold Saudi Arabia to task.

On the other hand her article is filled with the "Islamic Menace" rhetoric that drives me up a wall. In particular she points to the African American Islamic community as something fearful. And, parenthetically, her article begins with the standard, "I know what really happened to Ms. Clinton better than she does, even if I haven't read the book."

The problem is that some conservatives seem unable to understand that one can support actions against Islamic Terrorists without wanting to condemn Islam.

Pat Buchanan and Sour Grapes

Pat Buchanan wrote an interesting article at Townhall about Media Bias. He uses the same flawed test that conservatives always used to prove media bias; which percentage of the newspaper community endorsed Gore vs. Bush? Of course, as you all know, that's not an ideal test. In truth, the main conservative bias is a bias in favor of corporations and against workers. But let's let that one go, and move on to the interesting part of Buchanan's essay.

He writes, "The House of Conservatism is a house divided. Conservatives of today are not the conservatives of yesterday. Many embrace the foreign policy of Wilson, the trade policy of FDR and the immigration policy of LBJ. They have made their peace with Big Government.

Can anyone name a federal agency George W. Bush or his father shut down, or a single federal program they ever abolished?"

Some of you may not remember it, but Pat Buchanan ran against President Bush and Gore in the last election. He didn't get as much press as Nader, but he was there. He left the Republican party to seek the Reform nomination (and had the honor of presiding over the Reform Party meltdown). Some would say, including Rush Limbaugh, that he left conservatism behind when he did that (of course he also had the nutty idea that shipping jobs overseas willy-nilly might be bad for America). So it's easy enough to read in this condemnation of President Bush an attempt to be more conservative than thou.

Commentation by Caleb

Here is some more political science talking by Caleb.

People have been whining about taxes for as long as I can remember. Income taxes are unconstitutional, blah, blah, blah. Who cares, if rich people, as an organized group, didn’t want to pay taxes they wouldn't, and the government would crumble. Yes, everyone wishes they could keep just a little more money, and who can blame the rich for cringing every time that money that they with good conscience gave the government in order to maintain an ordered society is handed to a chronic ne'er-do-well, or public menace. For clinching fists at the thought of feeding, clothing, entertaining, providing state of the art medical care, educational training to the dregs of society because they chose to BE the destabilizing force that they pay the government to hold at bay?

Some of you may be aware that I have at various times voiced my support for a more Roman system of citizenship in which the right to vote is granted through military service, or wealth, although in the early days wealth was not a free pass. Many of you will now complain that that is not democratic, but lets face it. YOU DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. That's just a utopian pipe dream. This is a republic, and in a republic we have the right to reject the right to vote to any who do not qualify. We rejected slaves as property, minors as mentally and socially deficient, foreigners for obvious reasons, and for a long time anyone who couldn't read. (How could they fill out the ballot?)

Don't like that? Well let's see if you like this. Rome in addition to being a Democratic Republic in its most successful days was a Patrician Oligarchy. In other words, all of the poor, the week, the huddled masses could walk up to a rich man and beg for financial or material aid. (Not the government until Rome took a downward turn.) This rich man had the right to snub you, or grant you your fondest wishes. If you got snubbed you went to the next rich guy. These rich men kept hordes of commoners fed, clothed and sheltered in return for; you guessed it, a constituency. The richer, the kinder, the gentler the man was, the greater his constituency. This likely wouldn't get him elected, his constituency couldn't vote, but I did make him an effective force in business, the arts, and culture in general. Is there a difference here?

There wasn't in the early days of the United States. At the turn of the century a seat on the senate was a bought position. That's how the robber barons got there, although later when the dissolving of their life’s dreams left them plenty of time for more humanitarian pursuits.

The difference now is that the government has made this an inhuman function of society in which the hopes and dreams of the masses fall through the cracks of massive bureaucracy. He/She whom destroys our future no longer has to look us in the face to do so.

Talking with Caleb later, he clarified that his key point was that the wealthy and powerful have always had to support the systems within which they live. That is the nature of society. In America, we may have diffused the power a bit more through society by giving everyone the vote, but it is still the wealthy and the powerful who we vote for.