Having watched the second Republican debate the other night, it's clear to me the subject today is Fred Thompson, the man who wasn't there. While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear--boxers, briefs and temple garments.
He is running a great campaign. It's just not a declared campaign. It's a guerrilla campaign whose informality is meant to obscure his intent. It has been going on for months and is aimed at the major pleasure zones of the Republican brain. In a series of pointed columns, commentaries and podcasts, Mr. Thompson has been talking about things conservatives actually talk about. . . . These comments and opinions are being read and forwarded in Internet Nation. They are revealing and interesting, but they're not heavy, not homework. They have an air of "This is the sound of a candidate thinking." That's an unusual sound.
Most illustrative was what started this week as a small trading of barbs with provocateur Michael Moore, whose general and iconic dishabille is meant to show identification with the workingman, though in America workingmen bathe. Ouch!
Mr. Moore was back from Cuba, where he made a documentary on the superiority of Castro's health care system. Mr. Thompson suggested Mr. Moore is just another lefty who loves dictators. Mr. Moore challenged Mr. Thompson to a health-care debate and accused him of smoking embargoed cigars. Within hours Mr. Thompson and his supposedly nonexistent staff had produced a spirited video response that flew through YouTube and the conservative blogosphere. Sitting at a desk and puffing on a fat cigar, Mr. Thompson announces to Mr. Moore he can't fit him into his schedule. Then: "The next time you're down in Cuba . . . you might ask them about another documentary maker. His name was Nicolás Guillén. He did something Castro didn't like, and they put him in a mental institution for several years, giving him devastating electroshock treatments. A mental institution, Michael. Might be something you ought to think about."
You couldn't quite tell if Mr. Thompson was telling Mr. Moore he ought to think more about Cuba, or might himself benefit from psychiatric treatment. Maybe both.
It seemed almost . . . deliberately unclear. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
05/18/2007 13:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Whatever your position on the merits of the bill, pay attention to the lady 'cause she's got some important points to make.
Longtime readers know that I am no hard-liner on immigration. I lost lots of readers (and got de-linked by some bloggers) because I have never been able to hold with the ship em all back idea that engages some conservatives.
Probably thats because deep down, Im still more of a classical liberal than a conservative, although those who identify themselves as liberal would strongly disagree. Whatever the truth is that liberal does not mean the same thing today that it meant when I was coming up.
Anyway, I think this immigration bill is a start. I absolutely agree with Ed Morrissey when he writes:
Heres the problem with the hard-liner arguments, which amounts to theyll never engage the border-security and workplace enforcement portions. Well, that could be true of any immigration bill, even if it completely matched the conservative position on immigration. Its an argument that only supports no action whatsoever on illegal immigration, including border controls. In fact, it applies to everything Congress passes. If thats our concern, its an argument for non-engagement in the legislative process which necessarily works through making compromises that the majority in the end can support.
As I wrote yesterday, this is about as good as we will get in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats probably had enough votes to pass something much more like a wide-open amnesty, given a few Republican votes in support of that and the relaxed attitude of the White House on immigration reform. The GOP did a pretty good job of holding the line and forcing the Democrats to include the border-first triggers, the reduction of the family interest, and the rest of what Kyl managed to retain.
Its not great, and its not even very good. Its not bad, though
I think it takes more wisdom than any of us have, to know what is absolutely the best solution but we need to start somewhere. This is a start.
And to be honest, Im much more concerned about the house passing a huge tax increase, a story thats flying under the radar because the right sphere is all about the immigration bill, today.
Ronald Reagan used to say that you argued for what you could get, even if it was 60% of what you wanted then youd fight for the rest later. . . . The truth is, the hard-liners were never going to get what they wanted, and some steps finally need to be taken. One step would be revamping our choked INS, which doesnt really work, anymore. . . .
I will remind some of the conservatives who insisted on an all or nothing, our way or the highway immigration bill, or that doing nothing would be preferable to not getting your way, well doing nothing is NOT an option - it never was - and all your sitting out the election to teach a lesson to the GOP while waiting around for ideological purity has done is put you in a very difficult minority. Lose in 06 to win in 08″ sounded a stinker of a plan back then. It has proved to be a stinker of a plan, I think.
I have seen a lot of people, including many I greatly respect, proclaiming that they're so steamed that they're going to never vote for a Republican ever again, even Tom Tancredo; or they're gonna vote for the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists or the Pat Buchanan/Lou Dobbs ticket, or they'll never vote again, or some such.
Please think carefully before you leap. If significant numbers of us sit out the next election, or vote for some fringe bozo who has not a snowball's chance of winning (*cough!* Buchanan *cough!*) as a protest vote, the 44th President of the United States will be someone named, oh, say, Hillary. Under President Hillary:
1. We'll retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan and hand the terrorists an unearned victory.
2. The SecDef will be someone with a name like "Murtha" who thinks only Americans commit war crimes, and only Americans are subject to the Geneva Conventions.
3. We'll dismantle our missile defense system as a gesture of goodwill toward North Korea.
4. Iran will get the bomb, and the civilized world will be out a few cities.
5. Your taxes will go up to pay for decontaminating the ruins.
And in return for all that, you'll get an immigration policy that's probably just about on all fours with your worst nightmare. If immigration is your #1 or #2 issue, I do not think this is the result you want.
Our adversaries on the Left have a strong sense of tactical discipline. Remember 1996? They were screaming white-hot furious at Bill Clinton for signing on to welfare reform--but they still stuck with him and got him re-elected. Why? Because however disappointed they were in Slick Willie, they knew that he was more likely to give them more of what they wanted than Bob Dole. They were willing to accept suboptimal results in the short term to keep their team in control for the long term.
We need to show the same discipline. There's a war on, and al-Q needs the Left in power in order to win.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/18/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
$2.9 trillion budget plan that promises big spending increases for party priorities such as education and health care
Yeah, instead of budgeting, this will go directly for all the illegal health care we've been paying out. This really needs to stop. Emergency medicaid has been paying for alot more than true emergency care. It's been covering antepartum care as an example for all the months of a pregnancy. Encouraging the anchor baby. Come to America we'll pay for your health care and for your baby for the next 18 years plus now that he's an American by birthright.
While I have to pay out of state tuition for my kids to attend college in another state, the illegal will be able to pay in state tuition? Did I miss something? Where is this fair, who came up with this crap. Actually not many graduate from high school, another problem being that our country is having a higher percentage of undereducated folks. We don't need that many people to flip burgers. Although we don't have many other jobs here these days.
Stop this insane flow of cash to illegals for all of the free handouts. There are folks that were born here and now are in their 20's and they still don't speak English and have no intention of learning, why do they have to, we pay for interpreters. They aren't here because they want to assimilate, they are waving their flags and having the Mexican anthem sung at local sports here in the Denver area. I have patients that have several names, on one form they only use one name, on another form they may use a hyphenated name with two surnames. When I ask which is correct they don't want to discuss it as this way they have two names to get double the services. I'm on the front lines so to speak seeing this first hand and it just kills me.
This is so wrong on so many levels, my head is spinning.
Posted by: Jan ||
05/18/2007 1:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't forget O'REILLY's "talking point" on the FAR LEFT + SP's, etc agenda in America > they and aligned want the USA to give up its sovereignty and be suborned to a governing coalition of world nations, a coalition or group which must include RUSSIA-CHINA in order to allegedly counter
"arrogant" US policies, decisions, and influence, WHETHER BY DIPLOMACY, ECONOMICS, OR MILITARY FORCE.
Lest we fergit:
*"THE USA MUST OBEY THE UN/WORLD COMMUNITY"
*"THE USA MUST BE CONSTRAINED", andor
"CONTROLLED", andor "RESTRAINED".
#3
Mike, you tremendously overstate the probable disposition or ability of a Dem admin to f**k up the GWOT. Sure, they'd do their worst, and their instincts are as unsuitable as they could be, but inertia, cowardice, and other things would limit the damage. (I take second place to no one in fearing or loathing the return of the likely suspects on the staff/appointee side, many of whom I worked with in the 80s before the Clinton years raised them up way beyond where they ever should have been)
Besides, you and whose electorate or GOP admin. are gonna do jack-all in the GWOT anyway? Noticed the collapse of public will lately? The astonishing public cowardice and classlessness of even GOP politicos WRT Iraq? Seems like you're assuming the Bush admin. that existed for about two years after 9/11 will somehow re-emerge under any of the possible GOP heirs. Uh uh. That temporary appearance of common sense and resolve is long gone.
This Anchoress doesn't understand classical liberal. That tendency reveres rule of law - it doesn't tear it up and cross its fingers. Even people like her are clearly vulnerable to the preposterous insecurity that being rational about illegal immigration will be interpreted as intolerance or xenophobia. Free clue: rule of law and immigration are as separate as the space program and farm price supports. They have no inherent linkages. You can be clear-headed enough to focus on rule of law and 1) favor 100 million new immigrants a month 2) oppose all immigration forever. Totally. Separate. Issues.
Oh, and you can be as internationally oriented in your work, travel, food, languages, and female company as possible - and yet still, somehow, think rule of law is important. Imagine that. So the Anchoress should grow up and stop worrying that anything other than support for disastrous chaos on illegal immigration brands her as "racist" or "intolerant".
As I noted above in a separate comment/rant, any familiarity with federal enforcement capacity and willpower renders this "good start" approach a farce of the lowest order. There's not the slightest chance that any of the enforcement provisions would be even partially implemented. I'm not talking probabilities - there is not the slightest chance, period. And this is well known to anyone with any contact with this issue or the relevant federal agencies. This is the equivalent of depending on enforcement by "UN peacekeeping forces" - ain't gonna happen, period.
So your tactical political analysis is solid - but sadly, because of the underlying situation, it's mostly or entirely academic.
#4
Here's one problem with the amnesty: how many of us have paid more than $5,000 in taxes over the course of our working lives?
Well, now, people who broke the law, never paid taxes, can now just hand over $5,000 and they're scot-free.
Where can I get myself declared an illegal and get my taxes refunded?
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/18/2007 5:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Whatever is written in the bill still needs to be enforced. I mean they can write in sub-paragraph 10 of sub-sub-section 29, buried on page 855 that there will be a 2-mile high fence made of adamantium stretching the entire distance of the Mexican border.
Bills are cheap. History shows that enforcement is not. And I don't have much confidence in the ability of the government to do anything like what has been leaked so far.
Oh, and a $5000 fine is likely going to piss off a lot of immigration attorneys who, I have a sneaking suspicion, charge a bit more than that to do things the right way.
#7
"Our adversaries on the Left have a strong sense of tactical discipline. Remember 1996?"
You don't have to go back even that far. You don't even have to go back a month.
After the VT shootings, there were a few screeches for gun control from some of the usual suspects. But overall, the DNC, as well as the bulk of the other forces on the left, showed remarkable discipline in not using the event to push for something they know alienates voters. I'm not saying that they don't want gun control or won't try and get as much of it as they can (up to and including a total ban) as soon as they think they are able, just that they've showed remarkable discipline both in the rank and file and at the leadership level in keeping their mouths shut. The Repubs could learn a lot from this sort of discipline, as they could from the discipline showed by the Dems in '96.
I've mentioned this several times here on the 'burg over the past couple of months - having the best and most functional ideas is not enough to prevail. Conservatives have the correct ideas - history has shown us to be true. But simple faith in those ideas and a thin skin when one doesn't get everything he wants will not guarantee those ideas can prevail. Having a good spokesperson (think Reagan, NOT W) is also a requirement. We do not live in an era (due to our inability as a species to really get a grip on the role of mass media) where the strength of ideas by itself guarantees their successful implementation.
But beyond that a mature, realistic sense of what can be accomplished is also necessary. Pursuit of ideological purity has been the undoing of the Repubs.
It's easy to sit at your computer and type, "Well, since the spending in D.C. is more than I think optimum, I will sit this election out to 'teach them a lesson' or 'maybe being out of office will make the Repubs reform themselves'." It makes you feel oh-so-lofty and powerful, no doubt. But when you take this approach you ALWAYS hurt yourself more. Always. How proud you must be, now.
All those who, in 2006, stayed home because the Repubs weren't "pure" enough in their conservatism to suit you, blame for this immigration bill falls as squarely on your shoulders as it does anywhere else. It never would have happened with R majorities in the House and Senate, despite the fact that some Repubs were for it. I doubt that any bill could have been passed that would have pleased the purists, no matter what, but now we have something really dreadful. And if the spending we've had until now bothers you, wait until the Clinton/Obama team take over in '08.
Just remember, you engineered this - in your "lofty" quest to be "pure."
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/18/2007 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The entire reason that the Senate has been able to write such a horrible piece of legislation, virtually destroying the United States as we know it if passed, is becasue of apologists who are convinced that something is better than nothing. The political calculus for Washington Republicans is simple, they win or lose elections by factors of 15% of the voters in their district. Party regulars will vote party ticket most of the time, and most states are not hugely gapped between Republicans and Democrats for states that voted in Republican Senators. (Democrats own some states like California in the Senate, and will for all time now given the demographics of immigration that have happened here.) So Republican Senators make support decisions based on that middle 15% that they need, taking for granted the base, confident that they can always use the apologist line to hold the base in. Well, this immigration thing should tear it....
This sells out the value of citizenship, national soverignty and national integrity. We are rewarding and acquiesing (for the 7th time) to people who invaded out country illegally for the expressed purpose of taking advantage of the blessings of our system that belong exclusively to citizens. We have been treating those rights and benefits with impunity, giving them away to whomever sneaks in, always terrified that racism will label us if we refuse to be robbed by some illgal who is here for the money.
SO this immigration bill simply tears it for me. I won't lift a finger for one of these b*st*rds, they have sold out my heritage and my wallet for the votes they need in that 15% to keep their jobs. Criminal, dishonest, dis-honorable and worthy only of contempt. Every Democrat in the Senate knows that this single act will make our county a one-party socialist state within a decade, overwhelmed by third world thieves who stole our nation, unoppossed by elected cowards who calculate when principle should have mattered.
#9
"Well, now, people who broke the law, never paid taxes, can now just hand over $5,000 and they're scot-free. "
So if the law included a provision to calculate back income and SS taxes unpaid (presumably theyve paid sales, and indirectly, property taxes) and they had to pay that instead of the $5000 youd be cool.
#10
"Every Democrat in the Senate knows that this single act will make our county a one-party socialist state within a decade, overwhelmed by third world thieves who stole our nation, unoppossed by elected cowards who calculate when principle should have mattered."
theyre just folks who come looking to work. Are they breaking the law to do it, sure. Would you break the law so your kid could eat?
That doesnt say we have to legalize them, or support this bill. We dont if we think its bad policy. But it would be a mistake to think most of them are any more immoral personally than our own ancestors who came over legally. Some of whom (one of my grandparents included) broke the laws of the countries they were leaving by emigrating.
#11
So if the law included a provision to calculate back income and SS taxes unpaid (presumably theyve paid sales, and indirectly, property taxes) and they had to pay that instead of the $5000 youd be cool.
That, and healthcare costs, incarceration costs, costs related to death and injuries caused by illegals, costs incurred having to track adown and remand illegals, education costs...
#12
Classic liberal equivocation liberhawk....
a criminal is a criminal, but I can change the focus if I talk about other criminals, somehow leveling the issue.
They are here for the benefits you and I created and pay for. The jobs, the welfare, the hospitalization, schools, clean air, good stores, safety, etc. But they broke in to get it, and they are stealing it from the hands and mouths and lungs of our fellow citizens. lessening our treaure and national wealth, crowding our jails and hospitals and schools, taking our benefits. They are thieves! and they are criminals who are looting my childrens heritage and I'm damned if I'm going to stand for it. You shouldn't either. If it was your house and they were raiding your icebox uninvited, how hospitable would you feel?
Without much notice and even less discussion, civil war has become the new abracadabra phrase for American foreign policy. Sen. Joe Biden leads the magicians whove seemed to convince everybody that it never makes sense to get involved in a civil war. In March, he screamed from the Senate floor: Im so tired of hearing on this floor about courage. Have the courage to tell the administration, Stop this ridiculous policy you have. Were taking sides in a civil war!
Bidens not alone. Its become a standard talking point for most major opponents of the Iraq war. The Democrats Iraq-withdrawal point man in the House, John Murtha, says were caught in a civil war in almost every interview, as if this is the geopolitical equivalent of Ive fallen and cant get up. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said last week that, We stand united ... in our belief that troops are enmeshed in an intractable civil war.
The assumption behind this gambit is obvious: Declaring it a civil war is like blowing a whistle at the end of the game. Theres nothing left to do but pack up the equipment and go home.
Al Qaeda in Iraq (and perhaps the Iranians) have clearly figured this out. Thats why they consistently try to stoke sectarian passions by, for example, bombing the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraqs holiest Shia shrine. . . . OK, but heres what I dont get: Why? Why is it obvious that intervening in a civil war is not only wrong, but so self-evidently wrong that merely calling the Iraqi conflict a civil war closes off discussion?
Surely it cant be a moral argument. Every liberal foreign policy do-gooder in Christendom wants America to interject itself in the Sudanese civil war unfolding so horrifically in Darfur. The high-water mark in post-Vietnam liberal foreign policy was Bill Clintons intervention in the Yugoslavian civil war. If we can violate the prime directive of no civil wars for Darfur and Kosovo, why not for Kirkuk and Basra?
If your answer is that those calls for intervention were humanitarian, that just confuses me more. Advocates of a pullout mostly concede that Iraq will become a genocidal, humanitarian disaster if we leave. Is the prospect of Iraqi genocide more tolerable for some reason?
Then there are those who take the fatalists cop-out: Civil wars have no good guys and bad guys. Theyre just dogfights, and we should stay out of them and see who comes out on top. But thats also confusing, because not only is it not true, liberals have been saying the opposite for generations. They cheered for the Reds against the Whites in the Russian civil war, for the Communists against the Fascists in the Spanish civil war, and for the victims of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia and Sudan. Surely liberals believe there was a good side and a bad side in the American Civil War?
Ah, but Im missing the point, they might say. Its not that there arent good guys and bad guys, its that we cant do anything about it, and therefore its not in our interests to try. Then they point to, say, the civil wars in Lebanon or, closer to their hearts, Vietnam.
Lets stipulate Vietnam was a civil war. So what? There were certainly good guys and bad guys, and let the record show the bad guys won, which was not in our interests. This in turn led to many humanitarian calamities. And, recall, another superpower intervened in that civil war, and it worked out pretty well for the Soviets.
More to the point, its ludicrous to believe America has no interest in who wins or loses various civil wars, including Iraqs. The 20th century would have been a lot more pleasant if the Bolsheviks had lost the Russian civil war, and the 21st will be a lot more ugly if Sunni Salafists or Iranian pawns win in Iraq.
Im not saying a civil war is a desirable environment for anybody. But nor is it a geopolitical black box absolving all concerned from moral and strategic discrimination. And yet that is exactly what advocates for withdrawal from Iraq want everyone to believe but only when it comes to Iraq.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/18/2007 08:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Because we have a group of people in Washington that are duplicitous schemers, that's why. This war has been the most fantastically lucrative development that the dems could ever hope for. No matter what happens they can bitch and moan. No matter what does happen they WILL bitch an moan. National security,national pride, regional stability, life and limb, those mean nothing to a liberal. Only the pursuit of their "enlightened" agenda matters, nothing else. There should be sedition trials for all the subverters of this cause.
#3
This is a point I've been making - with great effect - several folks ever since the latest teen fad took off. If anything, Goldberg understates the case. Our interests, our strategy, and judgements to effect them are all that matter - whether it means intervening (or not) in a civil war, non-civil war, food fight, towel-snapping contest, or anything else. Nothing magic about "civil wars" - in fact, often they represent good pickins': if the stronger side also happens to be the better one for our interests, then likely we can advance our cause on the cheap (comparatively).
It is a measure of the silliness of "debate" on most national security topics that Goldberg (an amusing and sharp-eyed generalist) has to point out such an obvious thing. One more item the administration and the few intelligent people in Congress should have picked up and settled when it first arose. The ignorance and unseriousness of the "debate" on war issues in DC is stupefying.
#4
Verlaine: This is a point I've been making - with great effect - several folks ever since the latest teen fad took off. If anything, Goldberg understates the case. Our interests, our strategy, and judgements to effect them are all that matter - whether it means intervening (or not) in a civil war, non-civil war, food fight, towel-snapping contest, or anything else. Nothing magic about "civil wars" - in fact, often they represent good pickins': if the stronger side also happens to be the better one for our interests, then likely we can advance our cause on the cheap (comparatively).
I think the idea that civil wars were "internal affairs" got some traction with the Treaty of Westphalia, which considered the nation state sacrosanct. The problem with this premise is that few states are actually composed of singular "nations" (tribes or ethnicities) - just about every state is actually the end product of wars that attempted to fit square pegs into round holes - meld people of different ethnicities and languages into a single state - i.e. an empire - to maximize the power and wealth of the ruler to whom it all belonged. The reality is that even after the signing of the treaty, states/empires continued to go after each other's territories for population and resources, or failing that, tried to assist rebels within their neighbors' empires in order to break them up.
My view is that a civil war within a state is no more an "internal affair" than the imperial wars that created the state were an internal affair. The concept of permanent fixed borders came about only with the advent of Pax Sovietica and Pax Americana. The day of Pax Sovietica is done. As Pax Americana fades, out of morale issues rather than physical or economic exhaustion, I expect borders to become fluid once again. Geographical features are more or less permanent. Political boundaries are not.
When the security cabinet meets Sunday to finish its discussion on how to grapple with the Kassams from Gaza, one hopes that beyond dealing with the very acute problem of how to reduce the rocket attacks on Sderot, it will also take up the issue of how Israel will react if the Palestinian Authority collapses.
For the spiraling anarchy inside Gaza is not something Israel can watch from outside. A collapse of the PA as a government, something that the events of the last few days have shown is a real possibility, would have far-reaching strategic ramifications for Israel and could fundamentally change the two-state concept that has underpinned Israeli policy since 1993 and the Oslo Accords. A long overdue change. Palestinians are not People---they are a Jihad flow: like the rest of Muzzies living outside Dar. There's no more justification---in fact, a lot less---for giving Muzzies a state in the Land of Israel than there is for giving them New Jersey.
#3
No PA no Oslo. No water no electricity. It will be ugly on the other side of the border. A Humanitarian Crisis, but of the Paleo's doing. You cannot expect people that supply water and electricity to put up with rocket and suicide bomber attacks, despite the most twisted logic from EUniks.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/18/2007 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
read the whole thing. It explains pretty well why a PA collapse would be a disaster for Israel.
The Pals arent going away, and the Israelis arent shutting off the water. That leaves 3 possibilies 1. A two state solution 2. A one state solution 3. The territories go to Egypt/Jordan
2 is a formula for an Arab state between the Jordan and the sea. Its fooling oneself to think its not
3 would be great. Maybe a Pal collapse would force the hands of egypt and jordan. I wouldnt count on it, and Im not sure a Jordan that ends up controlled by Pals and also holds the West Bank is a much better idea.
#5
#4 Just because the author thinks something doesn't make it true.
Anarchy in Paleoland encourages: (i) decrease in birth rates/increase in mortality and (ii) outmigration.
And that's good because peace is only possible without Arabs.
It seems that I ought to respond, at least briefly, to all those who have expressed confidence in me both here and in other forums. I do not take that confidence lightly. . . .
Whether or not the Internet can elect any particular candidate in any particular race, its clear that all of you and our many friends across the blogosphere and the Web are part of a true information revolution. Thats why so much of my effort has been focused on talking to Americans through this medium. By empowering individuals and building communities, the Internet provides a way of going around the inside-the-beltway crowd to reach people in numbers unheard of not that long ago.
I believe this direct communication and discussion is going to have an enormous impact on our political process. Our nation is facing unprecedented threats, and the challenges of globalization. We have a 70-plus trillion dollar entitlement shortfall and a government that is not effective in important ways.
To solve our problems, we have to realize that our country is pretty evenly divided along party lines. With close numbers in the House and the Senate, there will be no real reform without real bipartisanship. Too often, what we are seeing isnt an effort to find solutions, but rather insults and purely partisan politics. There are many good and responsible people in government who are willing to work together but the level of bipartisanship needed for real progress can only be achieved when politicians perceive that the American people demand it.
I talked about this a bit a couple of weeks ago out in California. I talked about how Id recently run across an old clipping of a Thomas Sowell editorial. In it, he pointed out that Wendell Willkie received the largest vote of any Republican for President when he lost to Franklin Roosevelt in 1940. After the election, though, he never let partisanship turn him into an enemy of the administration. Instead of trashing the president, he served as Roosevelts emissary to Winston Churchill.
In the same editorial, Sowell also told a story about Churchill. When British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain died, early in the Second World War, Churchill delivered his eulogy. Though Chamberlain had turned a deaf ear, for years, to all of Churchills warnings that could have prevented that war, Churchill praised him. He acted with perfect sincerity, Churchill said. However the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honor when we have done our best.
Compare that magnanimity to what is going on in Washington and much of the Internet today. Sowell asks us, In this day and time, cant we have a responsible adult discussion of issues while the nations fate hangs in the balance in its most dangerous hour?
Thats the question. If the answer is going to be yes, it will be due in large part to sites like this one. So thank you for all youve done here and for all the encouragement youve given me. Hopefully, well continue this conversation.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/18/2007 08:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If he doesn't run, I'm gonna be pissed.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/18/2007 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He needs to declare soon, like shortly after Memorial Day. People are starting to get annoyed and he can't run a "front porch" campaign forever. Once Ron Paul, Jim Gilmore, and the other also-rans drop out we can have some real debates, and he needs to be there.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
05/18/2007 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He's going to run. 2nd week of June o there abouts.
Will not be in the debates until they get the gnats out (Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Paul, etc).
Then again, missing all the debates before October didn't hurt W in winning the nomination.
But notice something?
Who is the ONLY candidate blogging, posting to YouTube directly, podcasting, responding with blog entries on Redstate, etc...
Fred Thompson is the only one at that level of politics who seems to inherently understand how the internet works.
A British stand-up has been accused of spreading racist hate speech in California.
Pat Condell has faced a barrage of criticism after links to his anti-Muslim monologue on YouTube were circulated to commissioners in the city of Berkeley.
In the five-minute video, Condell condemns Islam as a religion of war and its prophet Mohammad as some rambling ancient desert nomad with a psychological disorder.
He attacks fundamentalist men as primitive pigs whose only achievement in life is to be born with a penis is one hand and a Koran in the second and accuses women who wear veils of their own will of being mentally ill.
If God had intended for you to cover your face then in His wisdom He would have provided you with a flap of skin for the purpose, he said.
Jonathan Wornick, who is on the peace and justice commission adivisng Berkeley city council emailed his colleagues with the link, saying it was an honest attempt to bring dialogue.
But his actions have caused a political storm. Commissioner Michael Sherman said Condells views were stunning because of his stereotyping and bigotry of the tone and the language.
And commissioner Elliot Cohen called the tape insulting, degenerating and racist.
People should not be allowed to spew racist propaganda without others being able to respond, Cohen said. Its not about free speech - its hate speech.
Condell, an atheist, has released a number of monologues on the internet, criticising all religions. The anti-Islamic video has been seen almost 16,000 times on YouTube and more than 190,000 times on another file sharing site, LiveLeak.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Ah, but Im missing the point, they might say. Its not that there arent good guys and bad guys, its that we cant do anything about it, and therefore its not in our interests to try. Then they point to, say, the civil wars in Lebanon or, closer to their hearts, Vietnam.
