Damning with Faint Praise

Debra J. Saunders thinks that Sarah Palin did well in last Thursday's debate with Joe Biden. She did well, Saunders argues in her latest article, largely by not embarrassing the campaign any further.

Sure, she had moments when she seemed to be working too hard trying to remember what she was supposed to say so she awkwardly regurgitated a string of campaign buzzwords. Who cares? She didn't crash. And she showed Americans a candidate who does not speak Beltway-speak.

Democrats used to crow about that common touch with Bubba. Well, meet Bubbette.

Yeah the difference was that Bubba was articulate. He could communicate well with people but he seemed to understand what he was saying. Palin on the other hand doesn't seem to know much about what she's saying.

Joe Conason, in an article over at Salon, has a harsher view of Palin's rise.

As Biden showed quite convincingly when he spoke about his modest background and his continuing connection with Main Street, perceptive, intelligent discourse is in no way identical with elitism. Palin's phony populism is as insulting to working- and middle-class Americans as it is to American women. Why are basic diction and intellectual coherence presumed to be out of reach for "real people"?

And why don't we expect more from American conservatives? Indeed, why don't they demand more from their own movement? Aren't they disgusted that their party would again nominate a person devoid of qualifications for one of the nation's highest offices? Some, like Michael Gerson and Kathleen Parker, have expressed discomfort with this farce -- and been subjected, in Parker's case, to abuse from many of the same numbskulls whom Palin undoubtedly delights.

Yeah but the key aspect to many modern Republicans is that allegiance to ideology trumps all other concerns. Biden is unqualified to be vice president not because of anything he's done, but because he isn't a conservative. Palin is qualified to be Vice President not because of anything she's done, but, again, because she is a conservative, and the right kind of conservative.

Predictably Depressing - Conservative on John Edwards

Three articles over at Townhall today on the Edwards Scandal - and more to come for sure. Chuck Norris, who has positioned himself as a Conservative Spokesperson, and who includes plugs for two of his books (one already out, one soon to be published) in his brief article. My guess is that he'd like you to go buy his books. He writes this.

I believe leadership should be above reproach. I believe those who govern should lead also in civility and decency and that their character should be congruent with their call to office. Like parents to children, a nation's politicians' integrity and character should supersede its citizens. But as long as we the people tolerate leadership immorality and elect corrupt politicians, we cannot expect the heart and character of our nation to improve.

One problem with that particular argument, as regards John Edwards. He's a private citizen. He is no longer a member of the senate and although he ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination, he didn't get it. So, as it turns out, he's not in a leadership position.

I certainly agree, though, that leadership should be above reproach. Hey Chuck, did you hear that the Bush administration might have forged one of the key documents in the run up to the Iraq war?

Debra J. Saunders article is notable mostly for it's meanness (it's entitled "Not so Pretty Boy") and the somewhat brazen way it brings up McCain's infidelity.

Yes, McCain was married when he met his current wife, Cindy, in 1979. The former prisoner of war did pay a political price for his behavior. Last month, the Los Angeles Times reported how the breakup of McCain's first marriage "fractured" his relationship with President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy.

Of course the fact that the media would spend time investigating the background of the Republican Presidential nominee is proof of it's bias. We'll ignore for a moment how many crazy claims that Media has repeated happily about Senator Obama.

Cal Thomas wrote an Edwards article as well, comparing the whole thing to Mamma Mia, which I guess he saw. Kind of dull for him, but he doesn't really get worked up unless it involves the "Muslim Menace."

Is Romney a Conservative?

With Thompson dropping out of the race and Giuliani yet to make an appearance, it looks like Romney and McCain are duking it out, with Huckabee around the edges. To a lot of Conservatives Romney looks like the better option; he's seen as a real conservative compared to McCain.

Not so fast, says Debra J. Saunders in her latest article.

. . . don't tell me Romney is the true conservative in the race. His record reveals a solid conservative -- when it has been in his interest to be one.

. . . Romney had liberal/moderate Republican positions when running for Massachusetts office, then far-right positions when they could help him win the GOP nod for the White House. And somehow he feels no hesitation in framing himself as the true conservative. Yes, thinking people's positions evolve, but Romney's evolutions have been too fast and too convenient.

She's not wrong. But of course since the alternative is McCain, this isn't a popular position. Her comments aroused a range of responses, largely based on the theory that McCain sucks. Which doesn't really respond to these comments, unless you assume that attacking Romney means you support McCain.

Deb - Part Of The Liberal Leaning MSM
She joins in with most of the "Drive By Media" (as Rush coined the phrase) who are shilling/pandering for their liberal in chief hopeful McCain. I said it once yesterday and will say it again, I will vote for Obama before I vote for McCain. I am still struggling with whether I could vote for Shrillery over McCain, I might have to join the write in's or go the Bloomberg route maybe.

Even though there is not an ouce of difference between McShame and the dems, I would normally vote for the republican on principle, however I am sick to the gut of the Debra Saunders/MSM agenda forcing McStain down my conservative throat.

McShame and McStain? This guy has strong feelings.

The John Doe Amendment

For those of you who don't know, Rep. Peter King was pushing for an amendment that would have provided protection from being sued to people who make accusations against other flyers. This arises from the flying Imams who were thrown of a plane for acting weird (according to the airline) or for being visibly Muslim (according to the Imams). The Imams are suing.

This amendment would make such lawsuits impossible. And Debra J. Saunders has written an article in support of it.

King wrote the immunity amendment to prevent the chilling effect that a lawsuit might have on passengers who see suspicious behavior, but fear losing their homes -- or being stuck with huge legal bills -- if they report it. After all, citizen involvement could be key in preventing another 9-11 attack.

I don't know though. False accusations could be a problem as well. "Hey that guys brown skinned. I don't want him on my plane, what if he tries to take over?"

But of course false accusations would only be a problem for the accused; and this bill exists to protect the accusers. The accused are on their own.

Immigration Bill Post Mortem - Those Opposed

Continuing from earlier.

Debra J. Saunders is clearly pleased at the failure of the bill, but spends most of her article discussing how it could have succeeded.

Wait until you've ramped up border enforcement and then take a stab at broadening citizenship. There are people who, like me, opposed this bill, but would agree to a narrow amnesty measure under the right circumstances. The fact is, many of today's naturalized citizens and legal residents at one point were illegal. Some overstayed their visas, then married. Others petitioned a judge for legal status so they could care for a legal resident. Congress has passed laws, now expired, which allowed qualified residents to apply for legal status if they paid a fine.

Pundits have been quick to call the bill's failure bad for the GOP -- and it was a loss for President Bush. Still, Democrats looking to 2008 should be afraid.

I'm not sure what this bill battle actually does for or to Democrats. Certainly those Republicans who are opposed to it will want to link it to Democrats (on the somewhat tenuous grounds that "Democrats like this sort of thing"). And Harry Reid was fully in support of it.

Perhaps Austin Hill is right in his latest article, when he says it's a setback for Congress as well as the President.

And with dismally low approval ratings from the American people, this very unpopular Congress needs to stop appearing as though they're working hand-in-hand with a slightly less unpopular President - - and begin working against him!

I know, it may sound crude or insensitive to describe these things in such raw political terms. But let’s be honest: the Democratic leadership in Congress worked in a very close, bipartisan way with their Republican colleagues AND the White House on the immigration issue - - and they are now paying a steep price for it, in terms of their popularity around the country.

The bulk of his article is on how the appearance of Executive Privilege as an issue is a boon to Congress; lets them look like they are resisting President Bush.

Meanwhile over in Rush Limbaugh's neck of the woods, he's taking credit for having defeated the Amnesty bill.




So that's comforting, eh? Of course Rush sees clouds on the horizon, because he's currently obsessed with the Fairness Doctrine.

In fact, I know for a fact that Democrats were telling Republicans in the Senate yesterday, "Well, just go ahead and vote for this thing, by the time you're up for reelection, we'll have dealt with talk radio." There were Democrats telling Republicans that they shouldn't worry about it because we're going to deal with talk radio. Now they're really going to deal with talk radio. This Fairness Doctrine stuff is going to really heat up. What's going to make it different this time, I think, at least on the side in the Senate is that Republicans are going to join Democrats in all this. But don't worry, folks, we are geared up for this and ready for it.

Rush Limbaugh really seems to believe himself the center of the universe.

I can't think of a good title for this post

Debra Saunder's latest article makes fun of some of the cliches opponents of the Iraq War have repeated over the year.

The Pottery Barn Rule: You broke it, you own it. There was a time you couldn't go a day without hearing an Iraq war opponent invoke former Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous warning about sending U.S. troops into Iraq. Apparently, these folks never really believed in the rule, because they now want America to disown an Iraq mired in chaos.

Well the rule was used in two senses, the political and the practical. Now that Iraq is a mess the practical effect is that we have a duty to do what's right by the Iraqi people (although we might clearly disagree on what that right is). We wrecked their country so we owe it to them to help rebuild. I buy that. I suspect most liberals would. The question is what is the best way to help our Iraqi victims. Should we stick around, continuing the cycle of violence? Or should we depart, learn a lesson about the limits of our power, and provide financial and humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people as they rebuild? Or something in between?

On the political side of the fence, which you would think Karl Rove will have at least considered, the Republicans blew the call on Iraq - the American people should keep that in mind when considering whether or not they want to trust Republicans with power.

Here's another

Impeachment is an attempt to overturn a popular election. The left used that argument repeatedly when the GOP House impeached President Bill Clinton. Funny, you don't hear the left making that argument when Democrats call for the House to start impeachment proceedings against President Bush.

She leaves out an article, which is probably a smart move all things considered. Impeachment should be a mechanism of protecting America from a wrongdoing President. In the 1990s Republicans felt that the union had to be protected from a President who had sex with an intern and lied about it. In the 2000s some Democrats believe that the Union has to be protected from a President who systematically deceived the American people into invading Iraq while committing several violations of their basic rights.

You might disagree with their assessment but at least the Democrats reasons seem a bit more serious, don't they?

Foley follies

Stories like Representative Mark Foleys exert a strange gravity. One the one hand flagging them up and talking about it seems like it's bad for the page hurt by Foley's wrong doing. And I certainly don't want to imply that Foley's reckless and evil behavior is indicative of all Republicans.

On the other hand, Speaker of the House Hastert's behavior is worthy of discussion, and is indicative of how the Republicans have handled their position of power. Some of them have a pack mentality, and they don't ask too many questions if you are a member of the pack. Now that this has blown up, some Republicans are questioning this mentality. Debra Saunders is one of them, in her latest article.

Former GOP Rep. Tom Campbell, now dean of the University of California's Haas School of Business, believes House leaders had a responsibility to heed the misgivings of "an underage person in their care whose parents have complained." Campbell believes Hastert and company should have followed up -- by putting Foley in counseling and removing Foley from his chairmanship of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. A chairman of that panel would know better than to ask for a photo out of friendliness.

. . . Still, the Dems' opportunism has been eclipsed by Hastert's sorry demeanor. At Monday's press conference, Hastert was defensive, when he should have been angry -- at Foley, and at himself for not doing more. He looked like a man who didn't want to know.

You can't confine this mentality of looking the other way to Foley though - President Bush took this country for a ride in 2002, selling us on an unnecessary Iraq war. Congress didn't do their due diligence at the time, and they haven't asked many questions since. You can make similar points about the warrentless wiretap program or other aspects of the War on Terror. If you are guilty and Republican, you can generally assume your fellow Republicans are going to look the other way (until you get caught, at which point a variety of responses will result).

On the other hand, good job Ms. Saunders for at least admitting some complicity on the part of the Republican House leadership.

Optimistic or pessimistic

As we close in on November the Conservative commentators face a dilemma. Certainly they would like to see the Republicans retain their majorities. But if they predict that the Republicans will retain their majorities and they don't, they look like chumps. On the other hand, if they predict Republican defeat, and the Republicans retain possession of the House and Senate, well that makes them look like chumps as well (and pessimistic chumps at that). So you have some conservative commentators painting the Democrats as dunderheads who nobody will vote for and some conservative commentators who are claiming that Republicans (and particularly President Bush) have screwed up enough that the game is over.

Well you can put Debra J. Saunders in the second camp, at least based on her latest article.

Two factors will work against Republicans trying to retain control of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in November -- and they both have to do with the downside of being the party in power in Washington.

First, there's President Bush. I've covered politics long enough to have lived through this cycle before -- the scorn that insiders in both parties heap on a White House in its second term, when every mistake made by an administration has been magnified and dissected. . . .

Then, there is the GOP House, which clearly saw its leadership corrupted by power. The prosecution of uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff revealed unholy ties between K Street lobbyists and congressional staffers.

She does go on to note that the Democrats don't have anything positive to answer - not exactly true, but plenty of Conservatoids feel compelled to say it.

Donald Lambro takes the opposite tack; he believes that the Republicans can pull off victory by, well, doing what they are already doing.

Last week's speech, part of a series of speeches to remind Americans of the increasing threat terrorism poses to this country, demonstrated several things that will have an impact in the war on terror -- and on the midterm elections. It showed how the president, despite his political weakness in the polls, can use his bully pulpit to put the spotlight on an issue -- in this case, the war on terror -- that his critics have tried to play down and diminish, but on which he and his party still command their strongest approval ratings.

It is clear what the Bush Strategy is - all terror all the time, and hope that nobody asks too many questions about Iraq and how it fits into the War on Terror. This could be a effective tactic. But my sense is that they are pulling this out a little earlier than they should (of course this is somewhat mandated by their desire to tie into the fifth anniversary of 9/11), and that it could backfire by making this very specifically an election about President Bush.

McCain vs. Lieberman

This is an interesting study of contrasts. Republicans want to slam Democrats for not loving and upholding their moderates (like Lieberman). And they want to slam their moderates (like McCain).

Meanwhile the Democrats want to slam Republicans for not loving and upholding their moderates. And we want to slam our moderates.

So there is some commonality among the parties. Debra J. Saunders notes this fact in her latest article, but of course she leaves out the negative feelings her party has for McCain.

She wants to paint Democrats, not comment on a relatively simply political calculation. You want people to come towards your position in politics. If a Republican moves towards my position, I like that. If a Democrat moves away from my position, I don't like that. Lieberman has moved away from his political bearings; he has sided with the President again and again. He has disdained his own party many times. And he continues to support our insane policy in the middle east. And he's threatened to run as an independent if he doesn't get the nomination, which is his right, but which would also weaken our chances in Connecticut.

So I don't think he is someone the party owes loyalty too, just because there is a (D) after his name.

That said, if he defeats Lamont, I hope he gets reelected.

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.

Slow News Day

There are two big stories right now in the political world. One is that we may or may not find Weapons of Mass Destruction, and what are the ramifications of either outcome. I already wrote on that this morning, but you might also want to check out Debra Saunder's latest article, in which she suggests that the fact that we haven't found the weapons of mass destruction will help President Bush win reelection. Apparently we Americans are too smart to believe that Presisdent Bush just overstated his case when trying to sell the war--we really believe that those Weapons of Mass Destruction have been moved into Iran or Syria (depending on who we want to invade next), and our fear of them will cause us to support President Bush even more. However, all of these articles, as interesting as they are, have one flaw--we don't know yet for sure what the answer is. It's still a bit early to declare that the weapons won't be found.

The other big story is the veracity of Ms. Hillary Clinton's memoirs. I cannot begin to express to you how little this story interests me. Anyway Conservatives continue to write staggeringly vicious attacks on Ms. Clinton. The entire book is assumed to be lies, and an attempt by the Clintons to knock the legs out from any liberal candidates in order for Ms. Clinton to run in 2008. At any rate, it's just dull to me. If you have any suggestions for an interesting idea or political theory or writing I could take on, please e-mail them here.

Support the Troops!

We find ourselves on the brink of war; a war that many Americans oppose. So the question becomes what is the proper attitude one should take if one opposes the war. One possibility, certainly endorsed by many conservatives commentators, is that once war begins (or even before) the only American thing to do is give unwavering loyalty to the President by keeping your mouth shut. Debra Saunders made the case that opposing the war is by its nature anti-America.

"If you oppose President Bush's Iraq policy, you're anti-Bush on Iraq. It follows then that if you strongly object to not only the Bush Iraq policy, but also the popular war on terrorism and maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and if you believe that the United States attacks other countries, not in self-defense, but as an act of hegemony, and if you believe the American people are the war on terrorism's willing dupes, sorry, but you're anti-American."

Ms. Saunders does make a lot out of a little. But perhaps she's right. Perhaps we need a group of people to sit in judgement and determine what American opinions are. Maybe you'd be ok, if you thought the American people were unwilling dupes. Or if you believed that the war in Afghanistan was justified, but not the war in Iraq.

I do love the idea expressed succinctly that we are invading Iraq out of self defense.

Another possible reaction to the war is to let it have no effect. Clay Evans, writing in the Boulder Daily Camera, supports this proposition. He states, " it's disingenuous to lay aside reasonable moral objections and "support the troops." One need not "support" the deaths of innocents simply because the government has started an unnecessary war." I don't know exactly what Mr. Evans means by the phrase "Support the Troops." In his essence he does state that he "would never treat with disrespect the men and women who defend us." But he's insistent the war movement not "Support the Troops." Does he hope that the US loses in Iraq? That we suffer large casualties? I also don't know what he means by the death of innocents. The far left for weeks has been making dire predictions over how the US will fight this war, suggesting that we will use a rain of cruise missiles on Baghdad or that we might use nuclear weapons on Saddam. Assuming you take all those predictions at face value I gather it will be pretty bloody. But I don't buy it. Our leadership knows that the rest of the world will be paying close attention to how we wage this war. If we inflict massive civilian causalities we will damage our credibility in the region for generations. So I gather most of the people who will die during the war will be the Iraqi National Guard. Certainly its sad, but it is part of war.

Truthfully I find Mr. Evans take on the situation rather despicable. Once troops are on the ground, I hope they succeed. I am an American, and while I certainly know that my country does things I wish it wouldn't, I still know what side I'm on.

So what is the proper response? As always somewhere in the middle. Don't make common cause with Saddam Hussein. He is a monster and he does oppress his people. But at the same time, don't stay silent about the unjustness of the men who brought this war to us.

Hollywood

Well, Debra Saunders is mad at Hollywood for failing to recognize the brilliance of the movie "Signs." As she says, ""Signs" is about real American beauty, the inner souls of regular folk. There's no preaching down to middle America. Instead, there is a real preacher. His name is Graham Hess (played by Mel Gibson), a Pennsylvania corn farmer/minister who loses his faith after his wife is killed in a freak accident -- and is sunk in despair be cause God is no longer in his life."

But rather than stay down in the dumps, Ms. Saudners offers several helpful hints for M. Night Shyamalan in his future search for an oscar.

1) First of all, the main charectar should end the story by discovering his or her sexuailty. Ms. Saunders suggests "gay, other wise, or why bother."

2) As an alternative, Mr. Shyamalan might have the main charectar sell his farm "in order to dedicate him self to a fight against bio-engineered corn."

3) You might borrow more from other alien invasion movies, such as Independence Day. Yes, Ms. Saunders suggests, the key to future Oscar victories: being more like Independence Day.

4) Preach to your audience, tell them what they should think. After all look at Erin Bockovich and Traffic, two big preachy movies that won Oscar Nominations (and then lost out to Gladiator).

On a side note I'm nominating This is Spinal Tap for the eighteenth year in row, because, once again, all the movies made this year sucked.