Real True Christians

One of the fixtures of recent elections has been the declaration that Liberal or Democratic Candidates are not really Christians, and this election is no exception. Today's example comes from Cal Thomas, who assures us that Obama is not really a Christian. For one thing he believes that all of God's children are reaching out to him through their various religious teachings.

According to Falsani, Obama thinks that "all people of faith - Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone - know the same God." (Her words.)

Evangelicals and serious Catholics might ask if this is so, why did Jesus waste His time coming to Earth, suffering pain, rejection and crucifixion?

You see believing that God and Christ select one group of people to be saved and condemn everybody else is "Christian." Believing that God loves all his children and reaches out to all of them is not.

Then there's this interesting line.

Falsani adds, "Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he's not sure he'll be going to heaven, either." Again, that is contrary to what Evangelicals and most Catholics believe.

I'm guessing that Thomas is saying most real Christians believe that some people will go to hell, but it reads like maybe they are sure that Obama is going to heaven? Or hell? It's not clear.

At any rate, these heretical beliefs are enough to declare Obama not a real Christian. Pretty sad, but on the plus side, the only people who are going to be swayed by such statements are people who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway.

The End of an Era

Maggie Gallagher's latest article basically says that Conservatism, as inaugurated by Barry Goldwater, is pretty much over, a victim of it's successes.

The Reagan coalition, that combination of anti-communist hawks, pro-growth low-taxers and social conservatives, has achieved great things: the fall of the Soviet Union, the resurgence of faith in market economies, a permanent reduction in the federal tax rates (including taking millions of Americans off the federal income tax rolls altogether), a striking reduction in crime rates, welfare reform and the largely unsung doubling of the per-child tax exemption that each year protects the incomes that families (especially larger religious families) need to raise their kids.

But all that is so yesterday.

Gallagher downplays the role of President Bush in weakening the Republican Brand, which I guess is par for the course. She also has this interesting line.

Meanwhile, the left never was defunded, creating a huge structural mismatch in the process of "culture creation": Massive government dollars fuel their organizations and ideas, while even tiny social conservative funding streams like abstinence education are under intense assault.

I guess she's talking strictly about Government spending. Most government spending, by definition, funds the left (since the right is opposed to government funding). But in the universe of funding, the Right certainly hasn't gone hungry in this country; organizations like the Heritage Foundation have done quite well for themselves.

That said, I do find myself wondering how Gallgher would defund the left if the right regains power.

Nostalgia

Dennis Prager's latest article is entitled, "When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place." That pretty much sums it up. It's an interesting mixture of the depressing and the bizarre. For example he's upset that people no longer dress up to go to baseball games and he misses the days when Lucy and Ricky had separate beds. But that's not all.

Today, people at work, to cite but one example, are far less free to speak naturally. Every word, gesture and look, even one's illustrated calendar, is now monitored lest a fellow employee feel offended and bring charges of sexual harassment or creating a "hostile work environment" or being racially, religiously or ethnically insensitive, or insensitive to another's sexual orientation.

Yeah back in the old days, Prager could have made minorities and woman feel uncomfortable; as a white male he was just better than everybody else and he didn't have to worry about having that truth challenged. Nowadays, he has to act like Black people and woman matter. I can see how that must be very difficult.

McBush - Fair or Not?

Douglas MacKinnon's latest article is about the idea that electing McCain represents a third term for President Bush, which many, including myself, have suggested. In order to refute this theory he sets up a false historical analogy to the 1996 campaign between President Bill Clinton and Senator Bob Dole, in which the Democrats portrayed Dole as strongly connected to Newt Gingrich. The difference this time is that Obama isn't as skilled as Clinton and can't pull it off. Also Bush is leaving politics so can't really serve as the power behind the throne the way Gingrich, still Speaker of the House, could.

Fair enough, but I don't say that McCain is a third term for President Bush based on those reasons. I don't think McCain and Bush like each other that much, and I strongly suspect that if McCain gets the Presidency he will keep his distance from the Bush's So MacKinnon is right, the two situations are not parallel.

That said, when I suggest that McCain is a continuation of Bush policies, I mean just that. McCain, while remaining a politically distinct person from Bush, will pursue very similar policies on the most important issues of the day; the War in Iraq and Foreign Policy. With the notable and noble exception of Torture, McCain is going to continue the policies that Bush has laid out, including extending our occupation of Iraq and probably expanding the war to include Iran.

MacKinnon also suggests that the Primary proves that working class whites won't vote for Obama, a tale I suspect Conservatives are going to tell themselves all summer long. He makes the claim that Hispanics won't support Obama because they want the first President of Color to be Hispanic, not Black.

What I have learned is that a number of Hispanics are not going to vote for Mr. Obama - period. When history is made and a minority becomes president or vice president, they want that person to be Hispanic. To those who would claim that this observation is false, petty or even racist, I would suggest they bury their partisanship or ignorance and start asking some off-the-record questions.

Well, it's certainly a unique argument; that said, the sort of Hispanics that MacKinnon is out talking to may not be representative of the Hispanic population as a whole.

History Moans

Paul Greenberg's latest article is about Barack Obama's problem with history. But his first example isn't all that convincing.

Barack Obama chose St. Paul, Minn., to stage his victory or at least near-victory rally Tuesday night. It was a good way to stick a thumb in John McCain’s eye, since the Republicans have chosen to hold their national convention at the same arena.

Yet he overlooked the historical connotations of that site. Beautiful downtown St. Paul is where Walter Mondale delivered his concession speech after one of the most lopsided defeats in the history of American presidential elections: Ronald Reagan’s 49-state sweep in 1984.

For his last hurrah of the primary season, he chose a place associated with one of his party’s great defeats. It’s as if admirers of George Armstrong Custer were to gather at Little Bighorn, aka Custer’s Last Stand, to proclaim victory.

The difference being that people associate Little Bighorn with Custer. You say Little Bighorn and people think Custer. Alternatively if you say St. Paul, most people don't immediately jump to "Mondale's concession speech." Unless of course you are writing an article and need a good intro.

The rest of the article deals with Obamas desire to use diplomacy rather than warfare in dealing with Iran and North Korea, and how foolish that is.

Katrina and Karl Rove

There's an excerpt from "Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove," over at Salon today, covering the Bush Administrations response to Hurricane Katrina. The darkest bit comes near the end, where Mary Landrieu was showing the devastation to George Stephanopoulos in a helicopter.

Then I said, 'George, before we finish I have to show you one positive thing because I can't send you back to Washington to produce a story that shows nothing but devastation and disaster.' So I told the pilot to tack right so I can show George the 17th Street Canal and the work that was going on there. I swear as my name is Mary Landrieu I thought that what I saw with the president was still there -- people working, trucks, sandbags, everything. Then I looked down and saw one little crane. It was like someone took a knife and stabbed me through my heart. I lost it." There, in the cabin of the helicopter, as they flew above the breached canal below them, Landrieu sat devastated.

"I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life."

The question of this election is going to be was President Bush an aberration, something out side the bounds of conservative, something alien that dressed itself up in conservatism. Or, after years of predicting and believing that the Federal Government is incapable and useless, did Katrina reveal the destructiveness at the core of modern conservatism?

Everything you need to know about Rush Limbaugh and Conservativism in 2008

This is from a pep-talk Rush Limbaugh gave yesterday, near the beginning.

I am not responsible for what's gone wrong. I am the rock. I am the bulwark. I have not wavered. What has gone wrong is not because of me. I'm not trying to absolve myself of having any involvement here or having a role, but in terms of having a role with what's gone wrong, it hasn't been me.

When you begin a pep talk by explaining that it's not your fault, well, that's not a very good pep talk. And then he gives this upbeat line (upbeat to me more than Conservatives).

Look, at some point, however it happens, the Republican Party, as it's currently constituted, is going to have to lose, and it's going to have to lose big.

Gosh that's inspiring.

His point being that the party is in the thrall of country club Republicans and Washington big government types, and they need to lose big enough to clear those guys out and replace them with more Conservative types.

Should Kid's be Allowed to Wallop Each Other? or Most People Were Kung Fu Fighting

John Stossel's latest article takes John McCain to task for not defending the right of parents to allow their kids to participate in mixed martial arts tournaments. Mixed Martial Arts is akin to the Ultimate Fighting Challenge, in which you are allowed to use any martial art to wail on each other but no weapons and no eye gouging or finger twisting. Apparently McCain has been critical of this sport. And that makes John Stossel angry.

Sen. John McCain -- yes, that John McCain -- once called the adult version of MMA "human cockfighting." He wrote letters to the governor of every state asking them to ban it.

Also, according to John Stossel all sports are dangerous, even cheer leading. So why shouldn't kids be allowed to beat the hell out of each other for their parents amusement?

I have to say I find this an odd angle from which to attack Senator McCain; but I would like to point out the vapidity of argument that all sports are dangerous by suggesting competitive Russian Roulette. Six kids. Six Chambers. That's a 83.3% survival rate. Since some kids get injured in all sports, why not competitive Russian Roulette? Because the odds that at least one kid will die or get seriously injured in Russian Roulette is pretty much one to one. The odds aren't as bad in this Mixed Martial Arts, but it certainly seems more likely to injure kids than other sports.

Even regular Martial Arts, for example. Martial Arts usually stresses discipline and safety (yeah there was that one bad teacher in The Karate Kid, but most teachers aren't like that (I hope). The bravado that saturates Mixed Martial Arts (hell just think Ultimate Fighting Championship), well, that's something else entirely.

I don't actually have that strong a feeling on this issue; I just don't think that McCain's position is so bizarre that it will hurt him in the election.

Victimhood

This is one of the right wings more persuasive arguments. We want to believe that America has changed and we want to believe that we have changed. We want to believe that we as a nation have moved on past racism. That we've cured ourselves of this cancer.

But Blacks and other minorities keep complaining about unfair treatment. Why is that? If we've fixed our problems why do we keep hearing them? Well because Blacks and other minorities are pretending to be victims to get some sort of special treatment. See how emotionally satisfying that argument is? You aren't the problem; Black people complaining are the problem.

This argument gets expression in Dennis Prager's latest article.

To an ever greater extent, schools and the news media do the same thing to African-Americans -- tell them over and over that they are oppressed. And the effects have been even more corrosive. Just think of the wildly enthusiastic receptions the NAACP gave to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and the black members of Trinity United Church of Christ gave to Father Michael Pfleger when he spoke of America being "the greatest sin against God" because it is so racist. The number of blacks who perceive of their lives as oppressed by whites can only lead to estrangement from the greater American society, not to mention anger toward and resentment of it.

That last line is particularly interesting. Either there are still racial problems in our society or their aren't. If we have solved our nations racial problems, than the line makes perfect sense. Black people should just get over the problems of the past and accept that nowadays things are fine racially speaking. Dwelling on imagined slights will just hurt them and hurt us.

But if there are still racial problems in America, well, that's just an encouragemen t for Blacks to accept "their place" in society. Which is probably a bigger problem than some white people being frustrated that solutions haven't been found yet.

Appeasers and Flip Floppers

Salon is good today; they have an article on the Appeaser Meme propagated by the right wing in which anybody who wants to talk to terrorists is an Appeaser. According to Gary Kamiya this isn't a reasonable line of attack.

The coming election is shaping up to be a referendum not just on Iraq but on that black-and-white mind-set. McCain and the GOP will relentlessly attack Obama as weak, inexperienced and cowardly, pointing to his willingness to talk to our enemies as evidence. But the fact is that what Obama is proposing is simply rational, realistic foreign policy. And the proof is that the rest of the world, including Israel, has defied the Bush administration and is talking to the "terrorists."

If it's appeasement to talk to "evildoers," we are all appeasers now. Everywhere you look, our allies -- or we ourselves -- are negotiating with members of the "Axis of Evil" and their allies.

Israel, whose U.S.-backed security theoretically could be most directly compromised by "appeasement," has been talking to the Palestinian militant group Hamas, using Egypt as an intermediary. Israel isn't doing this because it suddenly decided that "some ingenious argument will persuade [Hamas] they have been wrong all along," as Bush derisively commented in his thinly veiled attack on Obama, but because it is trying to reach agreements on issues critical to its security, including a cease-fire, prisoner exchanges and border-crossing arrangements. Israel has realized that pretending that Hamas does not exist, or wishing it would disappear, is not a viable strategy.

That is the most damning part of this attack. If it were really that bad and and that anti-Israel to talk to Hamas, why would Israel be doing it?

One answer is that Christian America's support for Israel is not motivated by the same desires as Israel's desire to keep existing. Christians support Israel, at least in part, because they believe it's existence is necessary for the Second Coming of Christ. Israel wants to survive because it wants to survive. Those two different motivations might lead to different approaches - Israel has no reason to want a conflict with it's neighbors. But many Christians believe that such a conflict will usher in the end times.

Salon also has a great post by Glenn Greenwald on Senator McCains change of heart on wiretaps.

Worse, when answering the Globe back in December, McCain said that "presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is." Yesterday, though, McCain said that the President and the telecoms did nothing wrong in spying on Americans without warrants and that such spying was "appropriate" and constitutional "in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001". How can spying in violation of the law possibly be justified by the circumstances of 9/11 (as McCain said yesterday) if (as McCain said in December) the President is barred from spying outside of the law "no matter what the situation is"?

McCain knows who he has to keep won over, and so he's got to take these extremist positions, particularly in regards to executive power. He basically has to uphold the Bush power grabs, or he feels like he has to, or he actually believes in a unitary executive theory (or something like it).

Or to put it another way, was McCain Lying when he said he thought the President had to obey the law or is he lying now when he says the President didn't?

Scott McClellen and his book

Scott McClellen has written a book, in which he claims that the Bush Administration propagandized us into war, he claims to have seen Karl Rove and Scooter Libby having a clandestine conversation, and he claimed that the media was overly deferential to the White House. Can you figure out which of those three claims the Conservative and the Mainstream Media aren't touching with a ten foot pole. That's right. Everybody knows we have a liberal media or an aggressive professional media; for McClellen to to claim they are just lapdogs is crazy!

So instead we get bizarre attacks, like this one from Mike Gallagher's latest article.

I often wonder if people like Scott McClellan ever stop and think about the pain and grief their money-grubbing antics cause the families of the brave men and women who are serving their country overseas. After all, if one accepts the premise that President Bush erred in going to war, then the mission of the United States military is absolutely in vain. Perhaps when McClellan cashes his hefty paychecks, he'll be like Ebeneezer Scrooge seeing the face of Marley on the door post and see the pained faces of men and women who simply cannot understand why a man like him would want to publish an anti-war book smack dab in the middle of a war.

Do you suppose Osama bin Laden will read McClellan's book? If he does, he's sure to enjoy it.

That's just down right nasty, isn't it? Telling the truth about this war is practically an act of treason and it stabs our brave fighting men and women in the back. Nasty. And untrue.

We have civilian control over the military and thus it is our duty as citizens and civilians to keep an eye on the military. We need to protect our military from being used unwisely, a task that we, as a nation, failed at in 2001. The fact that we were propagandized into invading Iraq is not a slur on the soldiers, as Gallagher asserts, but instead a condemnation on us and the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration for deceiving us, and us for letting ourselves be deceived.

For more on what I think is McClellen's most damning complaint, that the media was too compliant in the run up to the Iraq War, here is a post from Glenn Greenwald.

Just consider how remarkable that is. George Bush's own Press Secretary criticizes the American media for being "too deferential" to the Government. He lays the blame for Bush's ability to propagandize the nation on the media's uncritical dissemination of the Republican administration's falsehoods. And most notably of all, McClellan actually uses cynical scare quotes when invoking the phrase which, in conventional political discourse, is deemed the most unassailable truth of all: The Liberal Media.

How much longer can this preposterous myth be sustained when even the White House Spokesman not only mocks the phrase but derides the media for being "too deferential" to the right-wing Government "in regard to the most important decision facing the nation during [his] years in Washington"?

Yeah, I guess I can see why the Media and Conservatives aren't keen to talk about this.

I-Pod 10

1. Aldo Vanucci - "I Warned You Baby"
2. Beastie Boys - "3 MCs and 1 DJ (Live Video Version)"
3. Daniel Ash - "Spooky"
4. Paul Van Dyk - "Namistai"
5. Vangelis - "Tears in Rain"
6. David McCallum, "The Edge"
7. Death in Vegas - "One More Time"
8. The Beatles - "I'm So Tired"
9. The Glove - "Orgy"
10. The Leaves - "Hey Joe"

Wierd Mix today - these songs don't really go together. But they are good songs, more or less.

Balancing the Ticket

Matt Towery's latest article takes the progressive step of acknowledging that all of the various candidates have potential problems with how people see them. McCain is old, Clinton is a Woman, and Obama is a black. All of them are facing problems because of who they are. He argues that McCain should pick a good Republican woman to balance out the ticket and to pick up those women annoyed that Hillary Clinton didn't get the nod.

Then he makes this interesting statement.

There's another bias in this country -- regional bias. Though it's become less fashionable to say so out loud, many Americans still view the South as being knee-jerk racist, not to mention generally backward and unsophisticated. Southern accents still get plenty of good ribbing. After all, they don't call former President Clinton "President Bubba" for nothing.

I guess that's true - the South does get a pretty good rubbing on occasion. But, Towery, they dish it out too. I mean California is the land of homosexual kooks and New York and the North East practically a Communist Country down here. And frankly the attacks that the South has made on other parts of this nation are more hurtful then the attacks they've had to suffer. Hell you practically can't get to be president without being from the south - while Northeasterners have a lot harder time.

Depressing Regularity

Regularity is something I like. I'm a regular guy. I like things to happen in a regular ordered order. It makes me happy. But of course not everything is worth repeating. Take for example, the regularity with which Republicans attack Democrats for not loving the military enough. This is the subject of Ben Shapiro's latest article. His first point? Barack Obama made a speech at a College Commencement in which he praised public service but failed to praise military service. So that proves he thinks that some hippy community organizer or some peace corps goon is better than the brave men and woman who join the military.

Or maybe it proves that Obama was talking to college graduates.

Also, and this is a real shocker, Obama apparently prefers to peace to war, and will make it is goal as President to fight for peace. But our soldiers are there to fight war; so once again Obama is a military hater. It's almost like he doesn't want our soldiers to have the opportunity to die in glorious battle.

Also Obama apparently wants to make sure that money we spend to support our military is spent wisely. No really. That shows he doesn't love the military.

He is the man who actually ran a campaign ad bragging, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary defense spending . . ."

He wants to cut wasteful spending? He wants to avoid unnecessary defense spending? Doesn't he realize how bad that is for Hallib. . . our American Fighting men and women?

Fortunately for young Ben, there will be plenty of people with a bit more skill than him following this theme as the summer goes on.

The Creeping Menace - Scarves

Just so you know, eating at Dunkin' Donuts might be taboo if Michelle Malkin has her way. Apparently she feels that annoying TV Chef, Rachel Ray (I'm sorry Ms. Ray, but it's true. Your recipes are good though), is wearing a salute to Palestine around her neck in a Dunkin' Donuts ad.

So if you are going to continue eating Terrorist Donuts, just make sure not to wear a Scarf while doing so.

A Voyage of Discovery or Ann Coulter's Nuttier than Five Squirrels

Michael S. Adams has made a remarkable discovery in his latest artice; that Ann Coulter, she might not be all there.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed that Ann was unusually angry. Neil noticed it, too. And he asked her why she was so angry. She responded by accusing McCain of lying on a regular basis. Neil then asked her why she had a more favorable opinion of Romney who has been accused of lying about his positions on abortion and gay rights. Coulter quipped that he had to lie in order to get elected in Massachusetts, adding that trying to get elected there was like trying to get elected in North Korea.

Strange as those comments were they were tame in comparison to Ann’s next assertion; namely, that John McCain “has no honor.

Interesting. Comparing one of our States to a repressive dictatorship is "odd" but what really pushes Ann past the boundaries of reasonable discourse is her attacks on McCain. Now for the record I agree that saying McCain has no honor is not accurate. I won't be supporting him for President, and I think that those who will be are making a tragic miscalculation, but he served his country.

On the other hand where the hell has Adams been the last few years? Lots of people have said far worse things about McCain, many of them Conservatives. And Ann Coulter regularly says far crazier things than that. But I guess he's got his eyes on the main score; electing McCain.

Parenthetically, I'll be surprised if Ann Coulter doesn't respond to this sort of criticism, probably by implying that Adams is some kind of Nancy boy.

More on Appeasement

Where there's smoke, theirs fire. If people get upset at getting called Appeasers, maybe that's because the accusation strikes close to home. This is a popular explanation of why people are upset over President Bush's comments in Israel. For an example let's check out Emmett Tyrell's latest article.

The mere mention of "appeasement" apparently sets off paranoid tantrums amongst members of the political class. Once deemed a very enlightened tool of statecraft, "appeasement" has become a slur, a hate term. Speaking before the Israeli Knesset, President George W. Bush associated appeasement with those who "believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along." Kapow! The Democrats went on the offensive, though they had not been mentioned.

Kapow? Did the Democrats punch President Bush? No they disagreed with his characterization. As for the theory that President Bush didn't mention the Democrats, everybody on both sides of the aisle knew who he meant.

With this kind of partisan hackery you can't win for losing. If Democrats don't respond to attacks like this, they are pansies, if they do respond they have guilty consciences.

I Heartily Endorse this Article

This article is by Paul Roberts and it's entitled "Your Friend, the Kitchen."

If we’ve lost our kitchen skills and our connection to food, both can be regained. Schools are bringing back home economics classes. Cooking classes are gaining in popularity, and some cookbook publishers are simplifying recipes to help novices find their way.

Yes, we’ve heard about kitchen renaissances before. But this one comes with a potent incentive: When done thoughtfully, home-cooked food is not just healthier, safer and better tasting but much cheaper than the factory version.

Yep. I love to cook myself, and I enjoy cooking food as well. Cooking is great!

McCain's Role and the Core Issue of the Day

It's hard to know what the core issue of the day is; it seems to change from minute to minute. But certainly near the core has to be the issue of Iraq and the War on Terror. Anmericans are questioning whether or not President Bush's approach to the War on Terror has really made us safer, if the war in Iraq was really necessary.

Today's article by Tony Blankley is intended to cheer the Conservative Masses by encouraging conservatives to remember how great Conservatism is and how Conservative American's are. But then he gets to this interesting section.

Moreover, the Democratic Party has not even advanced its programs to a plausible credibility yet. Their argument is almost completely a negative one: "Kick the Republican bums out." Thus, their central theme is the credulity-strained slogan that a vote for McCain is a third vote for Bush. Whatever McCain is, even the Democrats know he has almost been the anti-Bush (and anti-Republican) these past many years. Not too many elections are won on an obvious lie.

First of all, of course it's nonsense to say that Democrats haven't put together a positive agenda. If you visit the Democratic Party Website or the Websites of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama you will see all kinds of positive things they want to do. The fact that such proposals don't have the same media juice as Reverend Wright says more about the media than it does about the Democratic party.

Secondly, the statement that electing McCain is a third term for President Bush is really quite fair. If you consider their entire career and positions, well yes, there are some real differences between President Bush and Senator McCain. But when it comes to the key issue of the day, Iraq and the War and Terror, there aren't that many differences. Both Bush and McCain think invading Iraq was both necessary and desirable. Both favor a "get tough" approach to Iran which probably involves military strikes if not a full scale invasion (now they may not get this, but they want it). Both oppose negotiations with Iran or Syria or the Palestinians. The only area they disagree is on Torture, and even there McCain's opposition is somewhat weaker than he portrays it.

The Terrorist Monkey Can Not Be Negotiated With

Or so says Uspace, who posted on a post down below. I agree. Monkey's, like many Republicans, lack the cognitive abilities to rationally discuss with. On the other hand but the United States and Israel have been negotiating with our non-monkey enemies for decades, as Pat Buchanan noted in the article referenced below.

The dingus has a website as well, basically it's abstract questions that aren't quite as clever as he or she thinks they are.

Sometimes Agreement is worse than Disagreement

Patrick Buchannan's latest article takes President Bush to task for his appeasement comments in Israel. This is not as enticing a prospect as it first appears. First of all he takes Presiden Bush to task for criticizing Hitler's reasonable demands to get back Danzig and the Sudetenland. Not an auspicious start.

But then Buchannan notes how Ronald Reagan, a Conservative Hero, didn't seem to think it a foolish delusion to meet with the Communists. And Israelis seem to think sitting down with Palestinians, like Arafat, isn't the world's worst idea either. He concludes with this interesting argument.

. . . JFK's diplomacy in the missile crisis may have averted a nuclear war. And Eisenhower, Nixon, Gerald Ford and Reagan all met with foreign dictators with blood on their hands, without loss to America, and sometimes with impressive gains.

What has Bush's refusal to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran done to make either Israel or America more secure?

That's a damn good question.

Momentary Intermission

I am on the road so you are going to have to think for yourselves today. Don't worry, I'll be back tomorrow.

Appeasement

Thanks to President Bush's speech in Isreal the other day, we are back to Appeasement. A subject I'm sure I've talked about before. Apparently 57 times, although some of those may be repeats. Here's the quote I'm responding to, from David Limbaugh's latest article.

. . . when Mr. Bush, in addressing Israel's Knesset, compared those who want to negotiate with today's terrorists and tyrants to an American senator in 1939 who lamented that Hitler's march into Poland might have been avoided "if only I could have talked to Hitler," Obama, other Democrats and the mainstream media went ballistic.

. . . Democrats can choose to interpret everything through their partisan prism, but Bush was wearing his presidential cap in Israel and was stumping not for John McCain, but for the United States of America. It's too bad, but understandable, that Democrats so often find themselves on the wrong side of our national interests. President Bush was acting abundantly presidential and in furtherance of our national interests when assuring Israel and warning Iran that we will stand by our closest Middle Eastern ally.

I'd like to point out that whatever you think of the practicality of invading Iran, President Bush and Senator McCain would like to take military action against Iran.

Well let's see if I can recycle something I wrote previously. Here's something that fits the bill, responding to David Limbaugh's brother Rush.

Rush practically froths at the mouth when it comes to what he calles Appeasers and "the appeasement crowd." By this he means all those who question the impending war with Iraq. Of course the term Appeasement is totally bizarre in this context. The term arose in Inter-war Europe where England (particularly) and other Europeon powers acquiesed to Hitler's desires to increase his terroritory. In other words the appeasers gave Hitler concessions in hopes that he would not attack them. The policy stands as a pitiable failure that strengthened a vicious tyrant and weakened the west.

So what concessions do Modern Appeasers offer Saddam. Well we aren't ready to kill him. That's about it. Are we offering him land? No. Are we giving him anything? No. The situation is akin to two muggers holding up a guy (admitadly the guy in this case is a vicious monster). The "Appeasers" say "Do as we say or we'll blow your head off." Rush would rather hear, "We are going to blow your head off no matter what."

Still holds up.

Of course in this case President Bush was trying to imply that if our ally of Israel was invaded, there's a good chance that a President Clinton or a President Hillary would do nothing but try to appease Iran. This is nonsense, and the Republicans know this is nonsense.

Your Weekly Rush - Everybody Sucks but Me

Here's Rush on his Presidential Candidate, John McCain.

. . . this, ladies and gentlemen, is why we conservatives are in a very difficult state right now. We can't vote for socialists. We can't go out there and vote for socialists like Obama or Clinton.

But, hell's bells, the Republican Party's nominated a candidate who spent decades pandering to these very people and these very elements and is still doing it as our nominee! He spent decades undermining our party. McCain-Feingold, amnesty, McCain-Kennedy. And this is the movement he now claims to be part of and whose support he seeks?

Rush is also concerned that if McCain wins the Presidency it will show the country that being doing these kinds of things, being kind of a liberal, is what wins elections.

The Evangelical Manifesto

Pointing you towards Slactivist's discussion of this document. He finds a lot to like in it and other things he is not so keen on, but his analysis does seem well reasoned.

The other bogeyman word here seems to be "secularism." Making this a bogeyman word leads to some serious confusion in the section of the manifesto subtitled, "A civil rather than a sacred or naked public square." What they're advocating here is secularism, but they've decided they can't call it that, so instead we get a page and a half endorsing secularism and the separation of church and state while simultaneously condemning "secularism" and the "strict separation of church and state." It isn't pretty.

Well worth reading.

Our Inspiring President

For those who don't know, President Bush has given up golf to support the Iraq War.

His [President Bush's] decision to give up golf in 2003 was a result of the war, he said. "I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. . . . I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

Not sure what to say about that; but it does lend itself to bitter joking, doesn't it?

The Most Liberal Senator in Congress

I'm keying off of an article by Brent Bozell III here. It's his typical drivel; the left wing media is in the tank for Obama and hates McCain. Parenthetically that view is so at odds with reality that I am curious to see if people outside of Right Wingers are going to buy it.

But that's not my main point. In the middle of his dopey article, he makes this statement.

He was asked if he could handle the coming "assault" from the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that could be heard manufacturing its wicked armaments off stage. What lies will they stoop to tell? Blitzer suggested told Obama they're going to "paint" him as a tax-and-spend liberal.

"Paint" him? Who needs to add any paint to that picture? That is the truth -- he's the most left-wing senator in Washington -- and they know it.

How is Barack Obama the most left wing Senator in Congress? Well the National Journal keeps track how Senators votes and based on their votes assigns them a score. Four years ago John Kerry beat out all of his colleagues to become the most liberal in the senate and this year Obama somehow got the brass ring. What are the odds that two Presidential candidates are the most liberal in the senate?

Pretty high actually, when you consider both men had to balance their congressional duties with the rigors of the campaign trail. When you are running for President you can't show up for every single vote (which is why Presidential candidates often get dinged for absenteeism as well as Liberalism). Obama and Kerry had to pick their votes, and naturally picked those votes that mattered most to them. And theirs a natural tendency for those votes to be more liberal.

The National Journal knows this. I would guess many Conservative Commentators know it too; but that won't stop them from saying, over and over again, Obama is the most Liberal Senator in the Senate.

I-Pod 10

1. Oingo Boingo - "No One Lives Forever"
2. Supreme Beings of Leisure - "Sublime"
3. Bob Dylan - "Dink's Song (Home Recording)"
4. Nirvana - "Milk It"
5. Daniel Ash - "Walk on the Moon"
6. The Beatles - "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (Takes 1 and 2)"
7. The Beatles - "Money (That's What I Want)"
8. George Jones - "The Grand Tour (Clean Version)"
9. Fatboy Slim - "Talking Bout my Baby"
10. Cornershop - "Spectral Mornings"

Two Beatles songs in a row. Number 6 though is only a minute long and doesn't contain the song just some false starts.

McCain on Judges

Dylan Loewe over at the Huffington Post has an article today about McCain's position on Judges. Apparently McCain addressed this last week in a major way in a speech that got overshadowed by the primary battle between Clinton and Obama.

With so many Clinton supporters suggesting they would rather vote McCain than Obama, few issues could be more central than McCain's judicial philosophy. As we saw on Tuesday, though unsurprising, his views underscore yet another example of the McCain of 2000 withering into an unrecognizable and incoherent McCain of 2008. McCain said he would appoint judges in the same mold as Roberts and Alito, arguing that, "The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it."

It is hard to understand what John McCain, or others that repeat similar phrasing, could possibly mean by such a statement. Our justice system is based largely on common law, case law in which justices make decisions that do, in fact, become the law. One cannot interpret the law without making it. A judge, no matter his philosophy, when presented with a case in which the law is not explicit, will have to glean from somewhere other than the Constitution what the law ought to be. Even Justice Antonin Scalia must participate in such a practice. The distinction between strict constructionist and activist is a political one more than it is a legal one.

McCain's formulation seems to indicate that though he knows what the Republican talking points are, he does not fully understand what they mean.

I particular agree with the statement that the debate between strict constructionist and activist is political rather than legal. The strict constructionists aren't suggesting we throw out every judicial decision that's come about since the constitution. They aren't suggesting we move back to slavery for example. Rather they are picking and choosing which parts of an 18th century America they like and which parts they don't.

They just dress it up as Strict Constructionism so as to make it seem like their particular interpretation is the only rational one. And McCain apparently agrees with them, or at least that is what he is saying. I suspect that he knew nobody would be paying attention to him last week, least of all Democrats and Undecideds, so he took the opportunity to try and appease his base.

The Fearmongering

I was going to title this the fearmongering has started, but that wouldn't be accurate - after all Conservatives have been fearmongering for decades now. But they are going to step it up for this election. They kind of have to. McCain isn't a candidate the right wing likes very much, and what they like most about him is his devotion to the War in Iraq and his promise to continue killing scary Muslims. Unfortunately the Iraq War and the promise of new wars in the Middle East aren't exactly going to win over undecided voters.

So they need a two tier strategy. Strategy one is portraying McCain as a reasonable Republican, willing to listen to the middle, a thinker and a far cry from President Bush. That will win over soft-minded liberals and some moderates who don't ask the obvious questions ("If McCain is so different from Bush why has he been so enthusiastic in supporting Bush's wars?", for example).

Strategy two is scaring the hell out of the base. This will keep them voting for McCain even as McCain doesn't court their vote. They can't sell their man to both the Conservative base and the moderates/undecideds at the same time, so instead of selling their man to the base they are going to scare the hell out of the base, by painting grim fantasies of an Obama presidency.

And for exhibit one of this second strategy, let's take Dennis Prager's latest article, which promises that a victory for Democrats in the fall dooms America.

But if "headed in the wrong direction" really does mean for most Americans that voting Democrat will put our country on the right track, it is hard not to conclude that America has begun the decline that has ended all great civilizations. For if the Democratic Party -- given how far left it has become -- comes to control Congress and the presidency, America's values will soon stray so far from what they have been since its founding that it is difficult to imagine ever being able to undo the change.

Yep - vote for America and end America. Gosh with that choice I guess a good conservatoid will have no choice but to vote for McCain.

You can tell that this article is intended strictly for the base, because it has this laugh inducing bit.

George W. Bush has passed legislation -- such as prescription drug benefits for the elderly -- that Democrats would pass; he is a personally decent and honest man who has led perhaps the most scandal-free eight years in modern American history; . . .

Yep. Not to many outside the Conservative faithful believe that any more.

Look for more articles of this stripe all summer and fall.

What kind of Conservative is McCain?

David Limbaugh's latest article takes on Senator McCain and his comments on Global Warming. He starts with an interesting statement.

If John McCain were truly a maverick, he would publicly break from the politically correct culture that demands obedience to its global warming narrative. But sadly, he continues to do the opposite.

Liberals have denominated McCain a maverick because he has taken so many positions contradictory to his party's platform and to the conservative ideology that undergirds it. Now that he is the putative Republican nominee, you don't hear much about his maverick nature, but it's certainly not because he's changed his ways in opposing his party.

McCain is kind of out of the spotlight, what with Clinton and Obama still duking it out for the Democratic Nomination. But McCain continues to annoy Conservatives of the Limbaugh ilk.

As always though remember that Limbaugh and McCain agree on a lot more than they disagree on - particularly the major issue of the day which is what kind of role should America play in the Middle East. Both Limbaugh and McCain believe we should invade Iran and both proudly supported and continue to support our debacle in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton and Iran

For those of you who don't know, Hillary Clinton has pledged to wipe Iran out if they threaten Israel. This is not going over very well, and several liberal commentators have noted the foolishness of these words.

What would she do, as president, if the Iranian regime ever strikes Israel with nuclear weapons? First she could have noted that the question's premise is wrong, at least according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran neither possesses nuclear arms nor is likely to acquire them anytime soon. Then she might have answered as all presidents (or aspiring presidents) should when asked about such hypothetical military scenarios: "Our adversaries know very well that we have the power and the resolve to respond if one of our closest allies is attacked."

Alluding to the potential use of justified force is far smarter than blustering about an act of genocidal brutality.

Joe Conason, "Hillary Plays the Crazy Card."

In the increasingly unlikely event of a McCain-Clinton election, folks who care about the peace issue would have serious reason to worry. Both of these candidates are inveterate hawks, and what we would be up against is a choice between the neoconservatives and the neoliberals as to who could be more adventurous in getting us into unjustifiable foreign wars.

Both not only voted to authorize President Bush's irrational invasion of Iraq but also have failed to apply those lessons to the real challenges we face, particularly concerning Iran. On the one hand, we have Sen. John McCain's wildly inane "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" singing refrain, and on the other, Sen. Hillary Clinton's commitment to "totally obliterate" Iran in response to any nuclear attack by Tehran on Israel.

Clinton has stood by her implicitly genocidal threat against the 70 million innocent Iranians, who have no effective control over their government's policy, a threat made in response to a question raised in the heat of primary day in Pennsylvania.

Robert Scheer, "Battle of the Hawks."

Doesn't look that good for Hillary Clinton. Which is maybe why she isn't doing as well in the Primary.

Back from the Dead

Well I'm back. My work situation has improved considerably since I realized I just don't give a damn.

Today's first article is by Bret Prelutsky, which has the promising title "Why Jews Vote the Way They Do."

If I am asked one question by my readers far more frequently than any other, it’s why do so many American Jews insist on aligning themselves with the far left. Believe me, being Jewish myself, it’s the question I most frequently ask myself.

It’s certainly not because Jews are stupid, evil, unpatriotic or dependent on government handouts for their survival, four reasons that certainly explain why millions of my fellow Americans will eagerly line up to vote for any political crackpot so long as he or she is running as a Democrat.

Yep - if you are a Democrat you are probably stupid, evil, unpatriotic or dependent on the the Government, unless, and this is very important, you are Jewish. Not being Jewish myself (as far as I know) I guess I have to assume that I'm stupid, evil, unpatriotic, or dependent on government handouts. If you want to guess which, use the comments section below.

In case you are curious, Prelutsky's theory is that Jews over identify with the underdogs, so they tend to want to defend criminals, Blacks and Muslims, even though those groups aren't friendly to them. This leads them to do stuff that makes no sense.

At times, it seems as if we exist in some surrealistic universe in which, with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter, American Christians are often more devoted to Israel’s survival than American Jews are. At the same time, many Jews feel they have more to fear from fundamentalist Christians than from fundamentalist Islamics!

By devoted to Israel's survival, Prelutsky means a dedication to the most right wing approach to the Palestinian question. Many Israelis are opposed to that as well, but I guess that's due to Jews extreme devotion to helping the underdog.

And isn't that argument a more respectful way of saying Jews are Crazy?

Blog Temporarily Shut Down

Work situation has forced me to take a break here. I'll be back eventually, I don't anticipate this lasting more than a week or so.

Maps and Legends

I kind of like this story, about New York Subway Maps. I always liked the abstract maps which worked fine for me. It did give you a weird way of looking at a city, but they were clean and cool looking.

Townhall publishes an article in Praise of Plaintiff's Lawyers

It's an unusual day. The article is written by Hugh Hewitt, and is interesting.

From watching those arguments over the years, I have come to appreciate the relentlessness of the best of the plaintiffs’ bar. It can take years to bring a case to a successful conclusion, especially when a foreign company is involved and especially when that foreign company is protected by a foreign government. When the foreign government is itself the defendant, well, the trail is long and hard.

This is mostly in relation to lawyers who are suing companies for bringing in defective products from China; the villains are the Chinese. So that makes it a little more palatable to Hewitt; presumably he's still against suing American companies for, say, abusing their workers or bringing crummy products to the market. Still you have to note the good when it comes along, and it's nice that someone over at Townhall recognizes that occasionally the Plaintiff lawyers are on the sides of the angels.

What is Wright all about Anyway?

To understand the Wright Controversy, let's check in with Michelle Malkin's latest article.

Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard -- decades ago -- in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere." Yet, only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

Welcome to the Jive Talk Express.

Jive Talk Express? And some people question whether or not their might be a racial component to this furor over Jeremiah Wright.

I also like Malkin's that, "decades ago" the description of Apartheid and Apathy would be a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in the truth. Has Ms. Malkin heard of South Africa? Decades ago, they actually did have something called Apartheid. Maybe she should read up on it. And conditions here in the United States for Blacks, "decades ago," weren't all that great either.

Who's up? Who's down?

I am once again linking to a post by Glenn Greenwald for his analysis on the sudden "discovery" of Obama's sins.

When the Right and the media assumed that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable nominee and that Obama couldn't win, the Right just "loved" Obama, and people like The New Republic's Jason Zengerle marveled at what they actually believed was the astonishing (and real) phenomenon that no "conservative writer [is] able to withstand Obama's charms." Now that it appears that Obama rather than Clinton will likely be the nominee, that has, quite predictably, reversed itself completely: suddenly the Right hates Obama and has great respect for Hillary Clinton.

And, as always, the media follows along exactly the same path. When it looked to them as though Hillary would win, the media hated her and was largely deferential to Obama. Now, the reverse is true. As Thomas Edsall wrote last week: "In a blink of an eye, the media has jumped ship from the Obama campaign and become a crucial Clinton ally." One can trace the media's complete reversal regarding Obama to exactly the moment when it appeared he would actually win.

One of the more annoying aspects of this Jeremiah Wright stuff is listening to Conservative Commentators pretend that the media are a bunch of jerks for ignoring all this stuff. They ignored it to. Rather it looks like the media and the right wing commentators were sort of in lockstep. When it seemed important to tear down Hillary Clinton, both the Media and the Conservatoids did it; now that Obama is ahead, well they are both tearing him down.

Revolutionary Fears

More on that Rios article mention above - I find it amusing that one of the posters agrees with her attack on revolutionaries by, well, calling for a revolution.

In some out-of-the-way small town in the so called "flyover" portion of the country, Federal agents will attempt to implement the new gun control laws. The person, or persons, they pick will probably be members of some right wing gun club or "militia" group. The person, or persons, will decide to fight it out. Word will spread (via cell phones and the internet) quickly.

While the fight is on-going, citizens from the surrounding area will head to this small town. Some of the local police and sheriff's deputies will resign and join in with the citizens. The Federal agents will be vastly out-numbered. A "running" battle will take place as these Federal agents try to retreat. There will be deaths on both sides.

. . . Once the fighting starts, everyone will start picking sides; and the fighting will continue.

If all of this sounds familiar, you are correct. It happened in 1775. I am afraid it is about to happen again.

Yep. Those dam hippies want to kill us so we gots to kill them - sort of. I also find it amusing that he's "afraid" that we will have another 1775 style revolution. I can't speak for conservatives, but I am proud of the American Revolution, and the sacrifices our ancestors made so that we can be free.

Oh and here's the standard disclaimer - this is just one nutcase conservative and is in no way indicative of the right wing movement. No matter how many people post or repeat these types of contacts they are of no significance to the conservative movement as a whole.

The Sixties

I always looked at the Sixties as kind of a romantic time. I love the music for one thing. But just the idea that people could organize and change the world, like they did in the civil rights movement or in the protests against the war, is very romantic to me. I know there's a dark side to the sixties, of course. But I'd rather have hope than people explaining to me that we can't really make things better for all of us.

So I'm not the target audience for Sandy Rois's latest article. She sees the sixties as a very dark time indeed.

But it’s the underlying, dark vision for America that they share that concerns me most. While Ayers and Dohrn hate capitalism, Barack chooses careful terms like “fairness” to hint at evening the score on the “wealthy.” In the ’70s, the Weather Underground wanted “smash monogamy.” Group orgies were their attempt to break down all sexual taboos. Today William Ayers is a powerful advocate for “Queering Elementary Education” and advancing the cause of gay, straight, transgender and lesbian rights. The gay journalist Andrew Sullivan has declared Barack Obama the dream candidate of the homosexual movement.

“Revolution” versus “change.” “Capitalist pigs” versus “the wealthy.” “Smash monogamy” versus “other definitions of family.” The revolution of the ’60s and ’70s was bolder in language and action, but today’s manifestation is in some ways more threatening because terms are hidden, intentions blurred and the “opiate of the masses”—at least right now—is not religion, but Barack Obama.

I remember the fifties myself. The late 40s and the 50s when men like McCarther and Nixon roamed the land tarring every progressive and every liberal with the same brush - communist. And they used language very similar to this, as I recall. Moscow might talk about smashing the state, while American leftists might talk about economic justice but it's the same thing. You see if all progressive impulses lead inexorably to the darkest aspects of the 1960s, to bombed ROTCs and "group orgies" well, any liberalism, any progressivism must be stamped out.

Which I guess is Ms. Rios's point.

Pennsylvania

Well Hillary Clinton won in Pennsylvania. Obama couldn't "close the deal" as the media are putting it. I have to admit I find it kind of frustrating. Part of it is that I support Obama over Clinton. Part of it is the role personality or character seems to have played in this race. I'm not an expert; I can't dissect exactly why Obama lost. But I suspect it has something to do with this kind of thinking, exhibited in Hugh Hewitt's latest article.

The Ayers-Dohrn rhetoric of late last year was rotten. Some of the Jeremiah Wright sermon excerpts have been rotten. Dohrn referred to America as a “monster” last year. Ayes accuses the country as it exists today of a litany of terrible sins. Pastor Wright said G-D America.

Barack Obama seems like a very nice guy with a good heart and a wonderful family. He is obviously bright and extremely well spoken. He's a down-the-line leftist with the most left-leaning voting record in the Senate from 2005-2006.

Obama has some friends that the Hugh Hewitts and the other conservative leaning people of this nation don't like (and in Ayers case it's just a person he met with). That's not going to change. And if Hillary is the candidate, well, we'll be hearing about Vince Foster, shredded Law Records, and Whitwater. And if we'd of put up Edwards we'd be hearing about Channeling Dead people in court, expensive haircuts, and how rotten trial lawyers are.

We can put up anybody we want; no liberal or Democrat will ever win when the election is about "Character." Which puts McCain, basically promising to continue the unpopular Bush Policies, in the White House.

Listening to the Commanders

For years people supporting President Bush have praised him for listening to the generals. As opposed to nasty liberal presidents who don't listen to their generals. Well lets see how William Kristol spins the elevation of General Petraeus to be head of U.S. Central Command.

Bush has done the right thing, overriding opposition from within the Pentagon. He deserves congratulations--and thanks.

So apparently listening to the Generals is good and overriding the Pentagon (largely run by Generals (and those who hold the equivalent rank)) is even better.

See what Republicans like about Bush is that he listens to the generals when they tell him what he wants to hear!

What Planet is Michael Medved writing from?

Michael Medved writes a pitying article about how hard it is to be a Republican believer, but his observations don't line up with reality.

Imagine that George W. Bush told a public forum that he had “felt the enveloping support and love of God” since childhood, and that on “many, many occasions” he “felt like the Holy Spirit was there with me.”

It’s not hard to imagine the derisive tabloid headlines: “Bush: God Is With Me” or “Prez Sees Spirits” or “W. Talks About His Imaginary Friend.” Howard Dean might comment: “It sounds like Bush is once again saying that he talks to God, so we better watch out. The last time that happened, he took us to a war based on false intelligence.”

First of all Bush talks about his faith all the time, and usually without comment. He's a lame duck President with a failed Presidency; unless God tells him to invade Iran, who cares what he believes?

Secondly Bush's presidency is a good example of why we should be concerned about the religiousity of our Presidents. The existence of a religious feeling, such as Hillary Clinton expressed, isn't the problem. The problem comes when, in Bush's case, it becomes a metaphysical get out of jail free card, an excuse and exoneration of any dumb and evil thing that Bush wants to do. McCain, while a very bad choice for President, at least doesn't suffer from this particular malady.

I Got a Headache This Big

Actually I really do have a headache. Very busy day today. But I did want to point you to an article by Robert Scheer on McCain. I agree with him in the whole, although I think he points too much to the racism/sexism angle. Yeah there are people who just won't vote for a black man or a woman, but I don't know how large a block they are. And it's hard to tell, because the sort of people who wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman are also the sort of people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat.

By so unabashedly embracing the most glaringly failed U.S. president ever, McCain has surrendered the right to be considered an independent candidate, judged on his own merits and personal history. A vote for McCain is a vote for that rancid recipe mixing religious bigotry, imperial arrogance and corporate greed that he had stood against in the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, when he challenged George W. Bush, but to which he now has capitulated.

Yep, that's pretty much right.

I-Pod 10

1. R.E.M., "Oddfellow's Local 151"
2. Tori Amos, "After All"
3. The Velvet Underground, "Oh! Sweet Nuthin'"
4. Eurythmics, "I Need A Man (Remix)"
5. Daniel Ash, "Sea Glass"
6. The Art of Noise, "L.E.F. (The Mark Brydon Mix)"
7. Curve, "Coast is Clear"
8. Buffalo Springfield, "Special Care"
9. Tom Petty, "Don't Fade on Me"
10. Lost Witness, "Song to the Siren (Did I Dream)(Fable Mix)"

Ask the Real Questions

I'm kind of torn on this article from Media Matters from America on the last Presidential Debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On the one hand, I totally agree that the debate was awful. On the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with their diagnosis of what should have been asked.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos didn't ask Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton whether they would continue the Bush administration's torture policies, or their views on wiretapping Americans without a warrant or on the validity of Dick Cheney's assertions that he is a separate branch of government.

And yet -- after yet another presidential debate came and went without a moderator asking a single question about some of the most serious issues of our time, issues that go to the heart of who we are as a nation -- some in the media defended ABC's focus on political controversies by asserting that substantive issues have already been hashed and rehashed.

Those are key Constitutional questions. But I don't know that a debate on those issues would be very revealing. Rather I'd rather see McCain get asked those questions; he'd tied himself pretty closely to a rule breaking and constitution ignoring administration. How does he feel about rule breaking and constitution ignoring?

On the other hand asking Clinton and Obama those questions just gives them an opportunity to condemn the Bush White House - which they both have done in the past. It doesn't really go to the differences between these candidates.

Free Ride

There's a book put out by Media Matters about John McCain's relationship with the Press. Specifically how comfortable he is with his press cronies. Salon did an interview with one of the authors recently, and it's worth checking out. It's interesting that they go to some length to point out that they are critiquing the Press more than McCain. That said, it's hard to write this kind of book without mentioning the negative stories you think the Press is ignoring. That's one of the differences between the Liberals and Conservatives. A Rush Limbaugh or an Ann Coulter is gleeful at pointing out the flaws of Liberals - they live to tear down Liberals. While a Liberal going after a Conservative has to kind of apologize for it. Consider this;

With McCain, what you see when the character question comes up is three letters: POW. And that, as far as many in the press are concerned, is the beginning and the middle and the end of John McCain's character story. All you need to know is he suffered greatly and showed courage as a POW in Vietnam. That's certainly part of his story. But it's only a part.

The fact that McCain has this volcanic temper and can be extremely vindictive is something that people in Washington know, people in Arizona certainly know; both places are littered with people who have been the target of his ire, and if we're going to talk about character, then that's part of his story too. We should be able to see the good side and the bad side. One of the things we see about McCain which is different than the way other candidates get covered is that he gets defined by the most noble thing he ever did, the most praiseworthy parts of his character. Other candidates often get defined by the stupidest or least noble thing they ever did.

He's not wrong. Liberal politicians (even moderate liberals like Clinton or Obama) are defined by their worst moments; John McCain is defined by his most noble. Forever and ever.

Image over Substance

Carol Platt Liebau's latest article argues that the American people want and deserve style over substance.

Normal Americans are tuning in to get a gut feel for the candidates – to decide whom they like and trust, whose views they generally agree with and, of course, whom they can best tolerate seeing on television every night for the next four years.

That’s why last week’s debate was actually the most informative of the entire season. For once, along with all the wonky canned policy responses, it offered real, new insights into the candidates as human beings, and forced them to answer the “character questions” that are central to shaping everyday voters’ gut-level decision making.

Of course these kinds of "character questions" have given us eight years of George Bush and are poised to give us four years of John McCain (who would sure like to invade or bomb Iran). Because of course it is only the Democrats who have "character questions." The sainted McCain, despite having very bad policies and programs, doesn't have to worry about having his character questioned.

So when Liebau writes in praise of the idea that character matters and that these kind of gotcha characters reveal character, well, she already knows that the press is disinclined to go after her candidate.

Screw Conservatives

Another crowd pleasing post title, I'm sure. But this is a continuation of a post on Monday in which I speculated it would be nice if we treated candidates, like the war-mongering John McCain who wants to invade Iraq, with more charity. There's a reason why we won't actually do it, and Glenn Greenwald brings it up in his latest post.

When the Right inserts personality-based trash into our political discourse -- and when they build up their leaders based on mythological themes of heroic, morally upstanding character imagery -- it isn't an "ad hominem" attack to highlight the deceit that lies at the heart of those claims, to document the actual character of those individuals. It's a necessary response for debunking the manipulative, substance-free character themes that are outcome-determinative in our elections, for neutralizing the twisted attacks that predominate.

Put another way, where someone advocates "Principle X," one can either (a) contest the validity of Principle X or (b) insist that Principle X be applied equally to its advocate. Opting for (b) does not preclude (a), nor does it make one hypocritical to insist upon equal application of a principle to which one objects. To the contrary, method (b) is a means of advancing (a); that is, one way to demonstrate the depravity of a principle it to apply the principle to its advocates.

Here, "Principle X" = the Right's notion that our elections should be decided based on petty personality-based themes -- euphemistically known as, justified and glorified as, "character issues." Decrying that principle while simultaneously subjecting the Right to it is not "hypocritical" or "contradictory" but, instead, is a means -- the only means -- for undermining it.

He's not wrong.

And more to the point, I firmly believe that what McCain wants to do is wrong, both morally and practically. He clearly desires to continue the war in Iraq until we achieve some sort of transformative victory and he clearly desires to invade Iran. He might not be able to, but he wants to. And he might get to. And both of those desires will weaken our already struggling country and will cause untold misery to our own troops and the people of Iraq and Iran (and probably elsewhere). So it's a moral imperative to do what we can to keep McCain out of the White House.

So while I oppose violence or illegal activities, and favor democracy, I'm pretty ok with a little name calling and pointing out McCain's weaknesses.

Tuesday Beats

Actually this isn't a normal beats column because I am pointing you to a website and a Podcast. It's good! The website is Resident Advisor, and it's an Electronica/Dance website. The podcast is their regular podcast, in which a rotating string of DJs comes in and mixes a mix for them. The latest is Todd Terje, and it's great. I mean this is a solid mix of like nu-disco, I guess I'd call it. Starts with MIA doing "Paper Planes" and ends with one of the few Bruce Springsteen Tracks I like --> I'm on Fire. So check it out. You can get the Podcast off of I-Tunes, just go to the Podcast section and search for Resident Advisor. There's a whole slew of them, many quite good, but this one I really liked.

What is the Measure of a Man?

William Kristol's latest article for the New York Times compares Barack Obama to Karl Marx, in a backhanded kind of way, dealing with some comments that Obama made last week.

. . . it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

. . . What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped.

I don't know the full specifics surrounding Obama's poorly chosen words. I do know that if you poll Americans on issues, taking out the politicians and parties, "liberal" positions tend to do well. And yet many people have a very negative opinion of liberalism.

I am interested in the idea that this offhand comment of Obama's is somehow more revelatory than all of his other comments. The assumption in politics is that anything noble or admirable about a politician can be ascribed to stage dressing; they want to look admirable. Whenever we see anything base or mean about a politician that's their real self. Thus Obama's unfortunate comments are the real him; his comments on believing in an Awesome God are fake.

Do we have that tendency in other people we come in contact with? Or with ourselves? Is the real me the one that trips over Lupita (my dog) and then yells at her? Or the one that plays with her and her pink stretchy thing?

There's something called charity which allows you to believe that your friends at their best are the real them. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad thing if we had some charity for our politicians as well.

Why does Kevin McCullough Hate the Truth?

Kevin McCullough despises the truth. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.

Kevin McCullough's latest article, for example, takes Barack Obama to task for despising marriage. What is his proof? Well Obama is opposed to work place discrimination, he is in favor of allowing homosexuals to work openly in the military, and is in favor of repealing the defense of marriage act.

Or, in short, Obama does not hate gays sufficiently to love marriage.

No Atheists for President

According to Michael Medved's latest article. Apparently because most of us believe in Christianity and because some of our public ceremonies (notably the Pledge of Allegiance) invoke a creator, an atheist President would either not do those ceremonies or would be a hypocrite. Then he says this bit.

On one level, at least, the ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing. Modern secularism rejects the notion that human beings feel a deep-seated, unquenchable craving for making connections with Godliness, in its various definitions and manifestations. For Osama bin Laden and other jihadist preachers, Islam understands that yearning but “infidel” America does not. Our enemies insist that God plays the central role in the current war and that they affirm and defend him, while we reject and ignore him. The proper response to such assertions involves the citation of our religious traditions and commitments, and the credible argument that embrace of modernity, tolerance and democracy need not lead to godless materialism. In this context, an atheist president conforms to the most hostile anti-America stereotypes of Islamic fanatics and makes it that much harder to appeal to Muslim moderates whose cooperation (or at least neutrality) we very much need.

What's hilarious here is that even the mention of making some of the substantive foreign policy changes that might make us slightly less hated in the middl east provokes cries of caving to terrorists, and the reminder that these people are crazy and we must accomedate them. Hell even the election of Keith Ellison, Muslim, to the U.S. Congress was portrayed in some right wing circles as a foolish capitulation to animals who would never stop hating us no matter what we do (and of course the only reason to elect a Muslim is to appease fanatics. It's not like Mr. Ellison could actually appeal to voters any other way).

So when it comes to invading their countries, maintaining bases over there, supporting oppressive regimes, supporting Israel, ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people and electing Muslims to the U.S. Congress, well we shouldn't let the terrorists affect any of those decisions because they are just animals and unreasoning. But elect an atheist President? We better not do that if we want to stay on their good side.

War Without End

I should say one thing about John McCain. I disagree with him on policy. His policies, are, for the most part, those of his party and the current President. And they are policies that have done enormous harm to this nation and it's citizens. So I cannot support him, and won't. But his political style is certainly an improvement over the current occupant of the White House. He seems to actually believe that his colleagues on the left are patriotic Americans who can serve this country. Coming from the Party of Ann Coulter that's quite a nice thing to see.

Unfortunately I don't know if his party is going to let him stick to it. Consider Rush Limbaugh's response to speech McCain gave on Friday (I believe).

He [McCain] said, "Let us argue with each other then. By all means, let us argue. Our differences are not petty, they often involve cherished beliefs, and represent our best judgment about what is right for our country and humanity. But let us remember, we are not enemies." Yes, Senator McCain, they are our enemies. The left is the enemy of freedom and liberty in this country and they don't need to be worked with. They need to be defeated. It's just that simple.

I've often wondered how Limbaugh thinks they are going to defeat the left in this country. But let it go - that is what the Rush Limbaugh's in McCains party want to see. They don't want the slightest hint of compromise with Democrats. They want to see the Democrats (except Lieberman of course) defeated and humiliated, their beliefs mocked, their policies eliminated. And if McCain doesn't want that (and they seem to think that he doesn't) well he's not the candidate for them.

So there's the calculation. Should McCain woo the base by going after the Democrats or should he try to get the centrists by sticking to his guns?

Sometimes things are Complicated

Just finished reading Sean Wilentz's latest article for Salon (well I finished it sometime in the last two hours) and I'm not sure what I think. It is about how if the rules in the Democratic Party Primary were more like the rules in the general election, Clinton would have already won and Obama would be out to lunch.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats in primary states choose their nominee on the basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates that varies from state to state and that obtains in neither congressional nor presidential elections. It is this eccentric system that has given Obama his lead in the delegate count. If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257.

My initial response was very negative. I don't like the winner-take-all approach because it puts the minority under the rule of the majority, particularly in the large states. In a state like California or Texas or Florida, you could have millions of votes essentially not counting because they had the temerity to vote for the wrong person.

But upon reflection, that is how our general elections are done. You can't win half a state in the General Election; it's winner take all (except in Maine and Nebraska where the electoral votes go to the candidate who eats the most Cod and Corn respectively (no just kidding, here's the real answer). So are we kneecapping ourselves as a party when we run our primary process differently from the general election? I mean if we know that Florida is going to be winner take all in the general election, and we know that the majority of the voters in Florida prefer, say, Hillary Clinton, what is the strategic value of giving those of us who prefer someone else a voice?

But perhaps there is a moral value to it. The Democratic Party Primary process of proportional representation is more democratic than a winner take all system. So perhaps the Democratic Party is leading the way towards changing the way we settle presidential elections. One can only hope.

The Court of World Opinion

I know this is kind of pointless, but I am going to point it out again. Mona Charen's latest article takes the old canard that Democrats want to be hippy dippy buddies with all the terrorists of the world, while Republicans are hard headed realists.

Well, everyone likes to be loved, but Democrats seem more than a little obsessed with America's international reputation. Recall that in 2004, John Kerry described the matter as "primary" to the presidential race. "Foreign leaders" were apparently tapping Kerry on the shoulder at restaurants to express their dim view of his country.

Why is it so important to win an international popularity contest? If America is not popular in the world, what are the other nations going to do to us? Stop buying our products? Kick us out of the U.N.? Vote us off the island?

Actually, some of those consequences, particularly the U.N. bit, don't sound so awful.

OK, once again, it's not about being liked. It's about having allies when we need them. We are the biggest baddest nation on the planet, but we are not all powerful. Hell our military adventures in just Afghanistan and Iraq have strapped our resources, both military and economic. We need allies, nations who share our goals and who want what we want internationally. And we aren't going to get that by insulting and belittling them. We aren't going to get it by adopting a "go-it-alone" attitude.

The truth is, it's the Republican's go it alone attitude, their childish machismo that is pathetic, not the Democrats willingness to work with other nations.

Chucking Eggs at Exclusionary Republicans

OK so I have a new hobby - chucking eggs at Republicans. Not the verbal eggs I've been chucking at them for a few years now. No I'm talking about the straight from a chicken eggs. Little white pearls of culinary versatility.

My only problem was that I don't know who is a Republican Party member by sight. Nope. But I have a great solution to this problem; I'll just go to the local Republican Party meetings - sure to be plenty of Republicans there. I called up the local Republican Party Chairperson and asked if I could attend and chuck eggs in the middle of the meeting.

He refused to tell me when and where it was.

Can you believe it? Those Republicans are exclusionary. They want to exclude people who are going to throw eggs at them. This is like Selma Alabama all over again.

I'll tell you something else - it's Stalinist! Stalin wouldn't let anybody throw eggs at him. He wouldn't let any disrupt his meetings. The Republicans are just like Stalin.

One other things, I'm sure I will see the support of Rush Limbaugh for my attending Republican Meetings and chucking eggs at them. Look at these remarks on his "Operation Chaos."

Lake County Elections Supervisor Michelle Fajman said challenges to voters can be made by party officials armed with voting records for the past 10 years. The challenge process would work like this: Voters must declare their party affiliation in spring primary elections. Local party officials watching the polling locations then could check the names of voters against a list of all registered voters that shows past party declarations. Fajman said any voter whose party affiliation is challenged can either decline to vote for the party in question or sign an affidavit, swearing under oath that they voted in the last election for a majority of the regular nominees of the party."

This is incredible! This is Stalinist! Party officials at the polling place trying to read your mind and determine your intent by comparing your votes and your registration for the past number of years? "She said a grand jury could investigate anyone who signed a false affidavit, but challenges are rare. Fajman said she hasn't received any indication of state or local Democrats mounting a serious voter challenge at present." So there you have it. The Democrat Party. I don't know if they all wear brown shirts in the Democrat Party in Indiana or not.

Yep. You see Rush wants to disrupt the Demcoratic Primary Process; that is his stated aim. Screw up the Democrats. And he's aflame with rage that the party seems inclined to resist his disruptive plans. So naturally he would be equally angry at my local Republican Party Chairperson's exclusionary tactics to keep me from chucking eggs at Republicans.

Learning Our History

Nina May's latest article is addressed to Barack Obama and it encourages him to learn American History; specifically the history of Blacks in America. If you find it a bit odd for a white woman to lecture a black man on his history, well you aren't alone. But let's look at what she says.

There was a big problem with Barack’s mea culpa speech in Philadelphia, defending his racist pastor, Jeremiah White. He failed to mention that over 300,000 white Americans gave their lives to end slavery. He didn’t mention that in 1854, abolitionists left the Democratic Party and founded the Republican Party specifically for the purpose of ending slavery and giving equal rights to all those who had been in bondage. And when he does mention the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution, he totally got it wrong, the way most Americans do. News flash . . . it was the abolitionists who insisted on it so that the slave holding states could not have their slaves counting as constituents so they could get more pro-slavery representation in congress. This is one of the most powerful battles fought by whites, to end slavery, which has been mischaracterized as being racist.

OK let's tick this off.

1. You think it's wrong that Obama failed to mention the 300,000 White Union Soldiers who gave their lives to free the black man. What about the 258,000 White Confederate Soldiers who gave their lives to keep the black man a slave?

2. You reference that the Republican Party was created, in part, by abolitionists seeking to free the slaves. But don't you think it's also notable that following the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and the 1960s, Southern White segregationists quit the Democratic Party in droves, to join the Republican Party? Why is that? Unless, perhaps, the Republican Party's character had changed between 1860 and 1960?

3. Finally you defend the 3/5s compromise as a victory for abolitionists. What tripe. A victory for abolitionists would have been, well, abolishing slavery. What the 3/5 compromise was was a compromise, a compromise necessitated by the overall racism of the United States at that time. It was certainly better than counting slaves equally would have been; and of course there were noble people of that time fighting to end the abomination of slavery. But the culture as a whole wouldn't accept it.

To put it another way, if America had been as noble as May paints it, the 3/5 compromise would not have been necessary. So maybe it's May that needs to take another look at history, without the ideological blinders of Conservatism.

There's Nothing Left to Say

Ann Coulter's latest column compares Barack Obama's book, "Dreams from my Father" to Mien Kampf.

Has anybody read this book? Inasmuch as the book reveals Obama to be a flabbergasting lunatic, I gather the answer is no. Obama is about to be our next president: You might want to take a peek. If only people had read "Mein Kampf" ...

At this point, it's important to point out that Ann Coulter is a lone lunatic who's antics do not relate to the millions of fine upstanding Republicans who buy her books and keep her on TV. Beyond that, what else can you say? Ann Coulter is desperate; whatever they try to convince themselves, they know that both Obama and Clinton are strong candidates and their guy has an up hill struggle ahead of him.

Why Clinton Is Still Running

This is from a post from the consistently brilliant Talking Points Memo a few days ago.

Hillary doesn't want to run for president in 2nd or 3rd gear. It's beneath her dignity. And I don't mean that sarcastically. It really is. She's a powerful United States senator, former First Lady, etc. She wants to win. And if she's still in it she wants to run full bore with the money you need to run a serious campaign, the crowds, poll numbers, etc. She's not some Huckabee figure who's going to hang around with little chance of winning

It really is all or nothing. You've got to convince your supporters, donors and to at least some degree the media that you're really in it, and in it with a shot. Otherwise you face the classic problem of a cascade failure. Poor fundraising generates bad press stories, which depress turnout at rallies, which create more bad press stories and eventually no press stories, etc. It's no different from the precarious position any campaign faces when the odds aren't looking good.

And so we have this vicious cycle in which the longer Hillary's odds become the further she has to up the ante to keep her candidacy credible -- in other words, the more forcefully she has to question the legitimacy of the nomination process and the more aggressively she has to push the idea that Obama can't win the general election or is not qualified to be president.

There it is. Clinton can't afford to play nice; if she stays in she has to play to win. And since she's determined to stay in, she's going to bloody Obama up before the election pretty good.