Wednesday, December 24, 2008
To President Bush: My gift to you is something that you’ll not get from many; a heartfelt “Thank you”. Thank you for doing whatever you have done to protect us from another horrific attack for more than 7 years. Though I have disagreed at times, thank you for following your core beliefs, rather than the polls; it’s been refreshing. Thank you for taking action to actually change the world rather than just talking about it; a free people in the center of the Middle-East will change the world as we know it and you have shown remarkable tenacity toward that end. Yours is not a failed presidency; I believe that history will prove it just the opposite. Thank you for being an honorable and decent man and for fighting the good fight. You were right on the central issue of our time and everything else simply pales in comparison.
To Barack Obama: You have spoken ad nauseum about Hope and Change, so that is my gift to you; my sincere hope that my worst fears will not be realized and that you, somehow, will change for the better. I did not vote for you and, if I had it to do again, I still would not. I simply do not believe in your political philosophy or your purported agenda and I never will. I hope that you will do what needs to be done and do nothing when doing nothing is the best option and I hope that you will have the wisdom to know the difference. I hope that the American people’s collective confidence in you will not be misplaced, for your success is inexorable tied to our own. Greatness is often bestowed upon ordinary people placed in extraordinary situations; I hope that you understand that and see crisis, not as an opportunity to be exploited, but the reason that you're there.
To Congress: A lump of coal - a small one. You have been uninspiring and unhelpful at best and irresponsible and destructive at worst. You have continued to spend OUR money like drunken sailors on liberty in an attempt at self-aggrandizement and buying off your constituents with shiny baubles. You have consistently failed police your members as they behaved like common criminals and, as a whole, you have sunk to new lows of corruption and greed. You are public servants, not members of the ruling class and your behavior as the latter is an embarrassment to those few honorable individuals that I hope are still among you. You have treated the American people with contempt and in the process have earned our scorn. Ponder your lump of coal and try to do better in the future with the knowledge that it’s unlikely you could do any worse.
To The American People: As a nation, we asked for Hope and Change but what we really need is a break. Whether it’s inept financial institutions or inept automobile manufacturers, we are always the ones that get the bill and the bill gets bigger by the day. Unfortunately, I don’t see that break coming any time soon and as for the Hope and Change, well, be careful what you wish for. We’ve just elected a new president who, in addition to the government Bailout du Jour, also has a long wish list for expanded government and a compliant Congress. Who’s going to get the bill for all of this? Hope and Change is expensive and we are about to find out just how expensive it is.
A Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!
Friday, December 12, 2008
The reckless and “in-your-face” nature of this type of corruption leaves one groping for superlatives; “blatant” and “brazen” simply do not seem up to the task.
As for Barack Obama, he has stated unequivocally that he had no conversations with Blagojevich and has called for his resignation. Perhaps they spoke, perhaps they didn’t. Though Obama served as an advisor and assisted Blagojevich in his campaign for Governor in 2002, to his credit, he appears to have distanced himself from Blagojevich shortly thereafter.
I find it difficult to believe that Obama would not have sought, at least from an intermediary, to offer input as to his own replacement, given the Senate is integral in his “change” (whatever that is) agenda. I find it impossible that someone, at least in Obama’s orbit, would not have had contact with Blagojevich on this important issue.
It should be remembered that Barack Obama is, at the very least, a product of the Chicago Political Machine. I’m not saying that Obama is necessarily corrupt, but the system in which he arose from “Community Organizer” to State Senator to U.S. Senator and now to the next President of the United States (in an extraordinarily short period of time) has, over generations, raised corruption to an art form. I can not believe that Mr. Obama’s meteoric rise to the Presidency happened without (at least) the express consent of “the Machine”.
Though Obama swam through the unsavory Chicago political sewer for his entire career, he has shown an amazing ability to come away with nary a whiff of its fetid odor.
Yes, perhaps Mr. Obama was blissfully unaware of the system around him, even as it was consistently promoting and advancing his career. After all, he says he was unaware of the hateful, racist rhetoric that spewed from the mouth of his “spiritual mentor” of 20 years, Reverend Wright. He also seemed unaware that one of his early benefactors, Bill Ayers, was an avowed Communist and legendary domestic terrorist.
Rather I think that Obama has used the system and those around him to his own advantage in the furtherance of his career. When someone who has helped him in the past gets in the way of his current ambition, or proves to be a personal embarrassment, he jettisons them without a second thought. Personal loyalty does not seem to be one of Mr. Obama's virtues.
There is no direct evidence of corruption on Obama’s part in this Blagojevich affair, at least not at this time. There is, however, evidence that Barack Obama is a coldly calculating and cynical politician to whom ends clearly justify means. There is, admittedly, a lot of that characteristic in all politicians but Mr. Obama seems to have considerably more than most.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Capitol Visitors Center, which opened this morning, may have tripled its original budget and fallen years behind schedule, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found a silver lining for members of Congress: tourists won't offend them with their B.O. anymore.
"My staff tells me not to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway," said Reid in his remarks. "In the summer because of the heat and high humidity, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol. It may be descriptive but it's true."
Maybe he should have taken he staff's advice on that one.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
We all have personal reasons to be thankful (as do I) regardless as to how many tribulations we have endured during the preceding 12 months and we can contemplate those with our families and loved ones.
On this Thanksgiving Day, 2008:
I give thanks to our founders, who envisioned this country more than two centuries ago and for those who gave their lives to establish it.
I give thanks to the men and women who today, and since our nation’s founding, have given their all for the preservation of our liberty and to bestow liberty upon, and to preserve the liberty of, people around the world.
I give thanks to live in a nation of plenty, where obesity is a problem and starvation is not; this is truly an exception in the history of mankind.
I give thanks for forums such as this, where I can freely express my opinions without fear of retribution.
I give thanks that I live in a nation where immigration is a problem and emigration is not.
I give thanks that we have just elected a new president in an election unmarred by violence and, though nearly half of the people voted against him, he will take power on January 20 and that transition will take place with the full cooperation of the outgoing president.
We are all truly blessed to live in a country such as this; so long as we continue to recognize and recognize its virtues, it will continue to be the “last, best hope of mankind”.
Happy Thanksgiving, to all.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
What, exactly, is the "Office of the President Elect"? Well, it appears that there is no such thing.
After being widely criticized for use of a "faux Presidential Seal" earlier in the campaign it would seem that he would have curbed his appetite for affectation.
Alas, that would not seem to be the case.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
A leading Russian political analyst has said the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.While we do have some serious problems here, I think he fails to factor in that we are united by choice, not by coercion, invasion and tyranny, as was the case with the USSR (the model he's obviously using). While we have regionalism, our Americanism comes first. The Great Depression probably strengthened our unity, so his use of economic upheaval as an impetus for dividing the country shows some basic ignorance as to what we are about.
Russia is dialing up the Cold War rhetoric, complete with sabre-rattling and war-game playing with the usual suspects. There are some serious challenges ahead as everything old becomes new again; Russia, China and Venezuela - the new Cuba. These are perilous times, with a young, inexperienced incoming president.
On Inauguration Day, Obama needs to convince the world that he knows how to use the big stick and that he's willing to do so, we already know he can speak softly.
Then there's this little tidbit from the same piece on Drudge:
He even suggested that "we could claim Alaska - it was only granted on lease, after all." Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.Whoa there buddy, you might want to read the facts on Sarah Palin before you even think about messin' with Alaska!
Also, I hope someone at NSA has read those books on "information warfare"........
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
MOGADISHU — Islamist fighters threatened to attack Somali pirates Sunday in an effort to rescue a Saudi oil supertanker carrying $100 million worth of crude oil that was hijacked last week, the Agence France-Presse reported.
This creates quite a dilemma; who am I supposed to be for in this battle? On one hand you have Islamist terrorists, who kill innocents in the name of their religion. On the other hand, you have pirates who are simply in it for the money.
Of course, in the eyes of the terrorists, it's a clear-cut case:
Piracy, which is a capital offense under Islam, has reportedly angered the Shehab, a militant Islamist group that controls much of southern and central Somalia and rejects an internationally-backed peace process.
I think in this particular fight, I'll have to go with the pirates; their motivation, no matter how vile and criminal, is at least something that I can understand.
Let justice be delivered to the pirates by someone who actually has a grasp on the concept.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
(A banner (to the right) will remain to commemorate this day and it will also take you to the website explaining this acclamation.)
On a personal note, I must add that this is also my mother's birthday. Though she departed more than 25 years ago, she was a World War II veteran, I am sure that she would be proud that her birthday would coincide with such a symbolic milestone in the history of our country. In her own time, she also made a significant contribution toward the liberation of the world from tyranny. Happy birthday, Mom and thanks for everything.
Coincidentally, this is also the 45th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy; a day that I remember well, even though I was but a child at the time. President Kennedy has been shown, by history, to have been many things, but first he was a patriot who believed the role of the United States was to ensure liberty throughout the world. I offer his own stirring words as testament:
Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
We have paid the price, borne the burden and now, let us take a moment to enjoy our success in assuring the survival and success of liberty in Iraq - and to thank those who made it possible.
May God bless all who have paid the ultimate price for this success and may God continue to bless the United States of America.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Had I wanted a Senator that would use President Bush as a "whipping boy" I would have voted for a Democrat.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A top Republican said on Friday that Democratic U.S. President-elect Barack Obama is "off to a good start" and indicated he was pleased to see President George W. Bush get ready to leave.
"Our members, in one way, are kind of relieved by the departure of an administration that became unpopular and made it very difficult for us to compete," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Capitol Hill.
So what's the point of this, Mitch? Trying to suck up to the new administration in the hope that they'll like you and make life easier for you up there in the Country Club we call the U.S. Senate? Since a lot of your old buddies got thrown out, are you trying to make some new friends, or are you just welcoming your new overlords?
Whatever your reasons, your statement was shameful, cheap and wholly undeserved. Showing some initial magnanimity toward the incoming administration is laudable, throwing your President under the bus in the process is unacceptable.
Hey Mitch, have you noticed that the approval rating for Congress is 18%? The fact is that YOU and the rest of the Congressional Republicans screwed up so badly that YOU lost BOTH houses of Congress in 2006, but it seems you have conveniently forgotten that. President Bush didn't make it difficult for you to compete; YOU made it difficult for YOU to compete.
It's YOU and your colleagues who have saddled us with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now Barack Obama.
President Bush is a good man and a good President who put his country's good above his own - it's called character and leadership, qualities that YOU seemingly lack. The sad truth is that he led and YOU and the Republicans in Congress failed to follow. Maybe if YOU and the rest of the Congressional Republicans had shown some backbone and stood up for your President, we may not be in the situation in which we currently find ourselves.
You and your ilk are not even men enough to take responsibility for your obvious failure, so you've chosen to hang that failure around your President's neck like an albatross and give him the toe of your boot as thanks for his service.
I'm sure you and Harry Reid will get along just fine, you have different letters behind your names but you're both weasels.
Anyway, to the subject at hand. Jonah Goldberg, in his own inimitable fashion, explains that expectations are being reduced:
In an attempt to dial down expectations for his administration, President-elect Barack Obama’s supporters have dropped much of the “messiah” talk.
No more talk of him being The One (Oprah), or a Jedi Knight (George Lucas), or a “Lightworker” (the San Francisco Chronicle), or a “quantum leap in American consciousness” (Deepak Chopra). Instead we have more humble and circumspect conversation about the man. Now he’s merely Abraham Lincoln and FDR and Martin Luther King, combined.
It’s a step down from divine redeemer, but you have to start somewhere.
Is he Abraham Lincoln?
OK, how about (God forbid) FDR?
According to the various Obama-as-Lincoln narratives, including those from the president-elect himself, Obama is a new Lincoln because he is a “uniter.” In several of his most famous speeches, Obama insinuates that he wants to bring the country together the way Honest Abe did. Newsweek and others tout his fondness for Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book Team of Rivals, in which Goodwin argues that Lincoln displayed his political genius by inviting adversaries into his Cabinet.
There are real problems with this model; it didn’t work too well for Lincoln. Moreover, who looks at how Lincoln staffed his Cabinet as the defining feature of his presidency? Saying Obama is the next Lincoln because the two men share staffing styles is like saying George Bush is Thomas Jefferson because they both liked chicken soup. If I wear a pointy hat, can I call myself John Paul II?
Lincoln was Lincoln because he fought and won the Civil War and freed the slaves. News flash: That ain’t what America is like today — and thank God for it.
I think Lincoln was just about the greatest president in American history, but I sure don’t want to need another Lincoln. Six hundred thousand Americans died at the hands of other Americans during Lincoln’s presidency. Lincoln unified the country at gunpoint and curtailed civil liberties in a way that makes President Bush look like an ACLU zealot. The partisan success of the GOP in the aftermath of the war Obama thinks so highly of was forged in blood.
Likewise with FDR. Listening to liberals gush over a “new New Deal” and Obama’s call for us to emulate the “Greatest Generation,” you’d think they want another Great Depression and World War.
Indeed, liberals have long idolized the 1930s as a decade of great unity. It wasn’t. The 1930s was a miserable decade of poverty, domestic unrest, labor strife, violations of civil liberties and widespread fear. If liberals really loved peace, prosperity and national cohesion, they’d remember the 1920s or 1950s more fondly. And yet they don’t. Why? Because liberals didn’t get to impose their schemes and dreams on the country in those decades. Behind all the talk of unity and bipartisanship and shared sacrifice lies an uglier ambition: power. The audacity of hope behind all this Lincoln-FDR-Obama blather is the dream of riding roughshod over the opposition, of having their way, of total victory.
The Chinese curse and cliche “may you live in interesting times” is on point. Liberals (and a few conservatives as well, alas) seem desperate to live in interesting times. Not me.
You know what I hope? I hope Obama is another Coolidge or Eisenhower. But I’m not holding my breath.
There's simply not much more to be said is there? Actually there is. The one bright spot in these "interesting" times is that there are great blogging opportunities in store for the future.
I, for one intend to seize those opprotunities.
Maybe it could be one of those annoying, hard plastic "Clamshell" packs that are really hard to open........
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team is exploring a swift, prepackaged bankruptcy for automakers as a possible solution to the industry's financial crisis, according to a person familiar with the matter.
A representative of Obama's team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy-law firm to say that Daniel Tarullo, a professor at Georgetown University's law school who heads Obama's economic policy working group, would call to discuss the workings of a so-called prepack, according to this person.
U.S. lawmakers yesterday delayed until December a vote on whether to give General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC a $25 billion bailout. GM today said it would idle production at four plants an extra week and return some corporate jets to conserve cash.
Automakers could use a judge-supervised bankruptcy to reduce debt and reject expensive contracts. "It creates the environment to deal with GM's problems but limits government financial commitment,'' said bankruptcy lawyer Mark Bane of Ropes & Gray in New York.
Bankruptcy is just one option being examined. Obama told CBS News's "60 Minutes'' on Nov. 16 that government aid to automakers might come in the form of a "bridge loan,'' advanced if the industry could draw up plan to make itself "sustainable.'' The president-elect earlier urged Congress to approve as much as $50 billion to save automakers, using the model of Chrysler's bailout in 1979.
Oh my! They're going to have to "return some corporate jets to conserve cash"! What unabashed arrogance, particularly given that they actually had the temerity to fly to Washington in those very jets to fly to Washington to beg for financial help .
Actually, a provisional "bridge loan" based upon an actual plan provided by the industry is more palatable than bailing them out; the Chrysler loan in 1979 actually did work - for a while.
I'm still adopting a "wait and see"attitude because even though the Chrysler plan worked nearly 30 years ago, Chrysler is trouble again and again they are looking to the government for help; this time, they're joined by GM and Ford.
Propping up a corpse doesn't make it any less dead and this this whole thing has a very peculiar smell. It seems that everyone feels we should "do something" when maybe "doing nothing" may be the best long-term solution - for everyone.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Magic Pinata. For decades, the UAW has treated their employers like a "magic pinata" that they whack during every contract negotiation for the purpose of extracting goodies. The pinata, in hopes of not breaking entirely, releases some goodies in exchange for the UAW's cessation of the whacking. The "goodies" have been increased wages and benefits and, over time, more job security. The periodic whacking has been enormously successful as employees at all of these companies have become the highest paid and most secure automobile manufacturing employees in the world, far out stripping the Japanese and the Germans (whose companies, incidentally are actually making money). Now, we find that those whackings have, over time, left the collective pinata empty. The unions, just as any other Socialist entity, had no foresight and no conception of the source of their largess and now they have to face the fact that there never was a "magic pinata" after all. Pardon me if I cannot muster any empathy for them or their plight.
The Profit Motive. The companies in question seemingly have lost touch with THE basic premise of business; the profit motive. They continued to sell cars at a loss, thinking, apparently, that they could "make it up on volume". This is insanity, squared. The graph below, from a "Corner" post by Jim Manzi, sums up very clearly the automakers' current situation (click on graph to enlarge).
The sad truth is that even if these automakers were intending to invest the profits from the millions of SUVs they have been foisting upon the American public for the past few years into into research and development, there never were any profits to invest!
Both the UAW and The Automakers have lived in a fantasy world for far too long. Each has forgotten the basic rules of the game and each has operated under the notion that they are "too big to fail". They are not.
It's time for both of these dinosaurs to either develop into viable and productive inhabitants of the 21st Century, or sink into the tar pit of history. They have the option of taking Chapter 11 bankruptcy which will force both the UAW and The Automakers to either embrace a workable business model and cooperate in the interest of their common survival, or die.If they reorganize into a viable and profitable enterprise, they will be a shining example of what can be accomplished with common sense, common purpose and the true miracle of capitalism. If they choose death, let them be a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of excess. Either way we, as Americans, win.
UPDATE: While not in the same words, it appears that Mitt Romney has a similar stance.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
From everything that I'm seeing these days, it did. In fact, Iraq is looking more like a complete success than "the quagmire" that we have been led to believe.
Will Obama seize defeat from the jaws of victory in order to keep his promise to The Left to immediately end the war, or will he put his country's interests ahead of his own? If he stays to see this thing won, will he give credit to Gerge W. Bush for his fortitude? I think we will be learning much about the character of Barack Obama very early.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
In the interest of fair play, I will begin this new chapter in our collective history with a healthy dose of magnanimity; a quality that has been in short supply among the Left, particularly the media, during the nearly 8 years of the Bush Administration. I would also add that the degree of hatred toward President Bush was tawdry, shameful and wholly undeserved. This was a good man who put his country's best interests ahead of his personal popularity and paid a terrible price. He has kept us safe for 7 years and changed the face if the Middle East for the better - a feat that even the most optimistic among us doubted was even possible. I believe that history will judge him well, providing that history is not written by the small -minded and short sighted verbal snipers that have come to define "journalism" in contemporary America.
First, I want to say that I think that it's a positive development that Americans have elected a black man, African-American (or whatever is the currently acceptable description) as President of the United States. I think that it proves that America as "an inherently racist society" is a not only a myth, but a destructive slur against our great country.
Speaking of slurs, the title of this post is Mr. Obama's full name. If you consider it a slur, you should get over it - it's his legal name. From the beginning, Obama has overtly used his ethnicity and somewhat exotic Kenyan roots as a selling point. He has been surrounded by a mystique and, in my opinion, that mystique has been central to his appeal in the eyes of his supporters. Had he been "Jerome Wilson" from Cleveland, would he be where he is today? My guess would be no. In short, if you want the mystique, it's all or nothing.
On the subject of mystique, I also have to say that the weird imagery and messianic overtones that have been a large part of the Obama campaign, still creep me out, even more so now that he's been elected. I believe the site that I just linked to is satire, and it's a good source for all things "ObamaMessiah". Explore it, it will scare the crap out of you.
At any rate, Americans have buried an ugly chapter in our history and that fact, alone, should be a source of pride for all of us - the weirdness not withstanding.
That said, I wish that the subject of this historic milestone had been someone other that an crypto-socialist product of the famously corrupt Chicago Political Machine. I wish our selection had not not been someone who believes that dialogue with monsters will curb their monstrous deeds - that's dangerous naivete'. I wish our selection had been someone who had a passion for capitalism as a centerpiece of American exceptionalism, rather than a just a necessary means to finance The State. I wish that we had elected someone who sees Iraq as a worthy mission to be completed rather than a mistake to be corrected. I wish that it had been someone that projected strength and continuity, rather than weakness and seemingly yet-to-be-defined "change". I wish that our new President would have been elected based upon "the content of his character rather than the color of his skin". I wish that the new Leader of the Free World would have been someone who sees "hope" as the very definition of America, rather than a vague (and may I add, vacuous) political slogan.
Alas, in judging Barack Obama by his own words, we have not done any of the above. I believe that we have elected the wrong man and, in the interest of my country, my fondest wish is that I will be proven wrong. Heretofore, I have judged Barack Obama on his words. Henceforth, I will judge him on his deeds. I'll not indulge in the naked hatred that the left has heaped upon George W. Bush for the past 8 years; we, as conservatives, are better than that. I'll not utter the words "he's not MY President" as I have so often heard of George W. Bush. Barack Obama, for better or worse, was elected by the American people and therefore he IS my President. He is NOT my messiah.
The Office of President of the United States, and history, have a way of bestowing greatness upon seemingly mediocre men. I hope that will be the case with Mr. Obama. In a dangerous world, his fate is inexorably tied to all of our fates, so I, as should we all, wish him well.
Make no mistake though, I consider myself a member of the "loyal opposition", though my opposition will not be reflexive as has been the case for the past 8 years - "Obama Derangement Syndrome" should not be a response to "Bush Derangement Syndrome". If I believe his decisions are sound, I will note them. If I believe him to be in error, I will shout it from the rooftops because the margin for error in this job is slim. This is the Big Leagues; it's not "community organizing" or being 1% of the Senate.
As for what the future holds, we shall see. Let the games begin. I might also admonish Mr. Obama that God is jealous and I think He may not take kindly to Messianic pretenders.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."- Obama, Super TuesdayThe more I see and hear of Barack Hussein Obama, the more he creeps me out. The adulation and the unabashed worship of and gushing about this somewhat unaccomplished first term Senator make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. I will be writing more on the Obama phenomenon, but I just read an interesting stream of consciousness from Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism blog on Obama that I would like to bring to your attention.
Here is another website called "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?". There is serious weirdness afoot.
Like I said, much more will follow on this subject. Much more.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.Tolerance of this type of foolishness must simply come to an end. If Muslims cannot function in the modern world then they should leave it and go back to the medieval hellholes from which they came. There is a reason that Muslim countries are socially, technologically and culturally stunted; Islam is a retarding agent and will continue to be as long as its backward precepts are left unchallenged.
Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be "bare below the elbow".
The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.
Minutes of a clinical academics' meeting at Liverpool University revealed that female Muslim students at Alder Hey children's hospital had objected to rolling up their sleeves to wear gowns.
Similar concerns have been raised at Leicester University. Minutes from a medical school committee said that "a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate
Sheffield University also reported a case of a Muslim medic who refused to "scrub" as this left her forearms exposed.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But the Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam.
"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," it said.
Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said: "Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said twice Sunday that Iraq “is a failure,” adding that President Bush’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.”I like the way she threw a bone to the troops, as an obvious afterthought. She's an absolute disgrace to her country and to her office. Along with far too many members of her party, she has chosen to put electoral politics above the good of her nation. There are any number of terms that can be applied to that type of action, many would be considered overwrought and inflammatory. Instead, I'll just say that she is beneath contempt and wholly unfit to be Speaker of the House.
"The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.”
The speaker hastened to add: “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.”
Saturday, February 09, 2008
In a display of anti-military sentiment and sheer political tone-deafness Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner asked the Marines, who were scheduled for exercises days in advance, to leave immediately.
A company of Marine Corps Reservists received a cold send-off from downtown Toledo yesterday by order of Mayor Carty Finkbeiner.
The 200 members of Company A, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., planned to spend their weekend engaged in urban patrol exercises on the streets of downtown as well as inside the mostly vacant Madison Building, 607 Madison Ave.
Toledo police knew days in advance about their plans for a three-day exercise. Yet somehow the memo never made it to Mayor Finkbeiner, who ordered the Marines out yesterday afternoon just minutes before their buses were to arrive.
"The mayor asked them to leave because they frighten people," said Brian Schwartz, the mayor's spokesman.
"He did not want them practicing and drilling in a highly visible area."
I am proud that Republicans are a party of principle; a diverse group to which ideology is paramount. I wonder though, if this is harmful helpful to the cause.
At some point, we will have to come together and do what's best for America. At some point, we have to concentrate on what unites us, rather than ewhat divides us. The sooner we get to that point, the better chance we will have.
While this is not necessarily earth-shattering news (who else would he support?), the fact that he's doing so publically shows he's doing his part to heal the GOP - a party in dire need of healing:
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee.Thompson as VP? Could be; it would certainly go a long way in mollifying conservatives. At the very least, I would like to see Fred in a highly visable position in a McCain administration (as I would Giuliani) - should that come about.
"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.
Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain.
The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party
around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years,
is thought of well in the South, an area that McCain has not done well in.
I also think that McCain needs to reach out to Romney in order to show some magnanimity and show that he is also willing to do what it takes for the good of his party. This personal enmity he has for Romney hinders his cause and validates the concerns as to his temperament.
Friday, February 08, 2008
In news that is sure to stun Nobel Prize winning climatologist Al Gore (he's not really a climatologist, but he does stay at Holiday Inn Express), the earth may well be headed for a period of global cooling:
Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.Oh well, Al Gore is in good company; the guy who developed lobotomies won a Nobel Prize as well. While I'm not a climatologist, the sun having an enormous impact on the Earth's weather patterns seems like a no-brainer to me. Then again, I've been staying at Wingate Inn quite a bit lately.
To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.
And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.
John McCain is not the likely Republican nominee; he is the Republican nominee. The time is now for the supporters of all of the previous candidates to get behind McCain and start thinking about your country rather than your ideological purity. In short, get over it.
The howling from conservative ranks has been deafening. Many are indicating that they will “never vote for McCain” and will sit out the election. I am sure that the Democrat nominee is counting on them doing just that and will be deeply grateful for their support – even if the support is passive. Make no mistake, regardless of intention that will be the outcome of such an electoral boycott. Go ahead, make their day.
To those who will take this course I ask: is your ideology so important to you that you would sacrifice your country on its behalf? I would expect this from a liberal, I would not expect it from a conservative.
McCain wasn’t my first choice, in fact, he wasn’t even close. I have serious problems with any number of his positions over the years, his temperament and his propensity to poke his fellow Republicans in the eye and the particular (and peculiar) glee that he seemed to take in doing it.
I have long noted that, for me, the winning of Iraq and the larger war was the main issue and I must say that my position on that has not changed. Well, as they say, be careful what you wish for. I believe that John McCain is right on that issue and I have no reason to believe that he will not deliver as president. He was a vocal critic of Rumsfeld and the previous strategy in Iraq, but our current level of success may well indicate that he was correct in doing so. While I still have enormous respect for Don Rumsfeld, he would be the first to admit that he is not infallible. The point is that we are now winning and McCain, for all of his faults, was a major proponent of our current successful strategy.
Again, on any number of other issues, I have enormous apprehension as to a McCain presidency. He does have an 82.3% rating from the American Conservative Union, which should dispel the charges that he’s a liberal. Unfortunately, those issues on which he has strayed from conservatism have been very high profile and sensitive, particularly immigration and campaign finance. As it is a key component of our national security, I am deeply concerned about his position on immigration, but I am concerned about Bush’s as well. Still, without a vigorous prosecution of the war in Iraq and the wider war on Islamic fundamentalism, many of these issues become rather moot.
The fact is, the next president will be John McCain, Clinton v2.0 or (shudder) Barack Hussein Obama. The gulf between McCain and either of the Democrat candidates is enormous, regardless of what his critics might say. If you feel that your principles are so sacrosanct that you feel forced to hand the White House over to Hillary or Obama, it’s your right to do so.
As for me, I will support McCain with all of his faults. I will set my philosophical differences aside and do so for the good of my country. I will do so secure in the knowledge that I am doing the best I can do, given the choices available.
Should you be of the mind to “sit this one out”, I only ask that you consider the consequences of your inaction. I ask you to put your country first.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Unbelievable. All of this hand-wringing and national soul searching was over this technique being used on a grand total of 3 terrorists?
At the same hearing, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly confirmed for the first time the names of three suspected al-Qaida terrorists who were subjected to a particularly harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding, and why.From the coverage this has received, you would think that it was something that was being used as a general rule, on at least hundreds.......but 3?
“We used it against these three detainees because of the circumstances at the time,” Hayden said. “There was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were inevitable. And we had limited knowledge about al-Qaida and its workings. Those two realities have changed.”
Hayden said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed — the purported mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States — and Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were subject to the harsh interrogations in 2002 and 2003. Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that critics call torture.
Waterboarding induces a feeling of imminent drowning with the restrained subject’s mouth covered and water poured over his face.
“Waterboarding taken to its extreme, could be death, you could drown someone,” McConnell acknowledged. He said waterboarding remains a technique in the CIA’s arsenal, but it would require the consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.
If we don't have the stomach for something as reletively benign as this, we simply do not have a chance against the barbarians.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Oh yeah, that eases my mind. Thanks for clearing that up for me, Chelsea.
"She makes the best applesauce. She reads to me still when I don't feel well. I've never doubted that I'm the most important person in the world to her."
Well there you have it! What more do we need in a President?
Friday, February 01, 2008
What is a political party about, if not about political philosophy? It's not about gender, it's not about race, as neither of these factors is relevant, nor should they be. Since I can remember, the Democrats have talked about their "big tent" where all were welcome as they portayed themselves as the "party of diversity", but I find that portayal increasingly suspect, and their tent becomes smaller by the day. If you want to talk about ideological diversity in the Democrat party, talk to Joe Leiberman.
From where we find ourselves at this point, it would appear that the "big tent" that the Republican Party has sought for so long has indeed been pitched and diversity abounds. One need only to look at the Republican hopefuls in the 2008 Presidential race to see a wildly divergent field of candidates in terms of philosophy:
John McCain: A foreign policy hawk whose commitment to the military is unquestioned. On the flip-side however, he also has a history of pandering to the left on domestic and social issues which has infuriated conservative purists. His commitment to fiscal conservatism seems questionable as do many of his stands on domestic issues. Lack of executive experience is a minus.
Mitt Romney: The clear candidate of fiscal conservatives, whose business acumen is unquestioned. While there has been some questions regarding his stance on some social issues in the past, his foreign policy stands have seemed well in line with those who see foreign policy as a paramount concern. Domestically, he seems to be, at the very least, center-right. Good executive experience in both the private and public sector is a big plus.
Mike Huckabee: The social conservative candidate who is a favorite among the evangelical crowd , who seem to be his main constituency. He's a foreign policy neophyte, and his domestic policy seems questionable, at best. While being governor of Arkansas does qualify as executive experience, the fact that it was Arkansas is a mitigating factor.
Ron Paul who is technically still in the race is little more than a curiosity, whose main contribution to the debate has been comic relief.
Fred Thompson, who was probably the clear all-around conservative in the race, has, unfortunately dropped out. His mature and common sense views will be sorely missed as the selection process moves forward, but he and his campaign never seemed very determined and that was unfortunate.
Rudy Giuliani, who has also dropped out, was an interesting contradiction: a foreign policy hawk, a fiscal conservative with centrist domestic views and rather liberal social views. I liked Rudy and I think that he may well have been able to unite manyof the main factions of the Republican Party and would have have had pretty broad appeal in the general election.
This is a pretty varied field of individuals, philosophically speaking, with no one candidate being the embodiment of all the needs of all Republicans. The debate has been vibrant, indeed even hostile at times, but such is the nature of intra-party politics. Most importantly, the debate has been centered on policy and political philosophy, which is, and should be, the nature of politics in general.
In contrast, among the Democrats we have the following field of contenders:
Hillary Clinton: Could become the first woman to be nominated by a major party for the office of President who is a foreign policy dove, but has dabbled in periods of hawkish platitudes when it suited her ends. She's fiscally, domestically and socially liberal. She's an unreconstructed 60s-type leftist who believes in the power of the state in all matters and whose basic views have not changed in more than 40 years. Her role while her husband was president was to pull him to the left, while his better instincts (to his credit) pulled him to the right. During that time, her claim to fame was the design of a top-down government takover of the nation's health care system which, thankfully, failed miserably. She was elected to the US Senate as her first elective office, almost exclusively due to her last name. Save the health care debacle, she has no executive experience and her claim to the highest office in this country seems to rest upon the fact that she's a woman, and her husband was president for 8 years.
Barack Obama: Could become the first black to be nominated by a major party as a candidate for President of the United States. He's been a US Senator for 3 years and previously was an Illinois State Senator. Obama is, admittedly a great speaker who has chosen "change' as is campaign slogan, but offers few clues as to what that change might be. He speaks in flowery oratory which is rooted in little substance. He was recently named the most liberal member of the US Senate for 2007 by the National Journal. He has been a consistent opponent of the Iraq war and favors withdrawl - a position that he has consistently maintained. Obama has no executive experience, few concrete ideas but has garnered the support of such bastions of liberalism as Ted Kennedy. He has captured the imagination of many on the left, presumably because imagination is a key component in understanding why he is a candidate in the first place. Oh, did I mention he was black?
Yes, there was also John Edwards who has recently pulled out of the race. Edwards was always a bit of an empty suit who was never a serious contender.
The Democrats seem intent on 2008 being the year of identity politics as they pin their hopes on either the leftist woman, or the leftist black man. Where does a moderate or conservative Democrat go? There is actually a place for liberal Republicans, such as Giuliani, in the Republican Party, is there a place for conservative Democrats in the Democrat party? If so, where are they in the field of contenders? The Left rejoices in the idea of diversity, as long as the diverse identities are philosphically monolithic. While the Republicans are debating a variety of policies and ideas, the Democrats seem to be mired in gender and race.
From my perspective, the party of "diversity" is, and continues to be the Republicans - for better or worse.
At the time of this writing, John McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. While the race is far from over, it's clear that the nominee will be either McCain or Romney and McCain does seem to be in the driver's seat.
I've often said that the narrow war (Iraq) as well as the broader war (the war on Islamism in general) is the defining issue of our time and is, quite simply, the single most important issue in this race. I believe that John McCain will prosecute the war on both fronts and will do so admirably.
Alas, I disagree with him on practically every other issue.
Like I said, be careful what you wish for.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
That's really the only question that you have to ask yourself. It's not about abortion or healthcare or any of the other ancillary issues that we currently face, though these are all important. It's about the ongoing war that is being waged on our civilization. It's about Iran obtaining nukes, it's about the security of Pakistani nukes. It's about radical Islam and its commitment to the destruction of western civilization. It's about our survival and who you trust with that survival. All else is secondary.
Remember how your priorities were reordered on 9/11, and how what was truly important achieved a clarity heretofore unknown to you? In the past 6 1/2 years, much of that clarity has been replaced with a murky preoccupation with the narcissistic navel-gazing to which successful and prosperous societies such as ours are subject. Many of us want to tell ourselves that such a thing simply cannot happen again and have chosen to throw that day and the painful feelings that accompanied it down the memory hole. Do so at your own risk.
Call me a panic monger if you wish, but if the unthinkable does happen I hope that you will have chosen an individual who has the capacity and the will to do what it takes to defend and save our civilization. I hope that on your personal list of issues that "survival" has a prominent place, for without survival all else is worthless fantasy. Think carefully and choose wisely.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
From Drudge: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA RIPS INTO BILL CLINTON MONDAY DURING ABC INTERVIEW WITH 'GOOD MORNING AMERICA' HOST ROBIN ROBERTS... SAYS HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS... Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'
So where's Obama been for the last 16 years? If he thinks it's bad now, he ain't seen nothing yet. Oh, as far as directly confronting Bill Clinton on his inaccuracy, good luck with that one.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Bobby Fischer is dead at 64. What can one say about Fischer? He may have been the greatest chess master who ever lived. Aside from that, he was just another hateful loser and a thoroughly miserable human being.
UPDATE: John at Powerline has a more comprehensive obituary, that comes to pretty much the same conclusion.
I haven't posted much (if at all) on the the cloning/embryo research issue, but this is an idea who's time should not come. While I'm sure that the purpose, as the article states, is research into disease and to make the world a better place and all of that, it's creepy in the extreme.
Cytoplasmic hybrids, they call them. The name itself make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck
That they say that "they will not be used in therapy" and of course, "It's illegal to implant them in the womb". Oh sure, that makes me feel better.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Has everyone in this country gone lost their minds? There was a time when the garbage that is spewed at DailyKos would have been reviled by ANY decent person, Democrat or Republican (feel free to peruse the comments to see the true face of the left; it’s not pretty). The filth that is allowed to be written on that digital rag is enough to make any reasonable person ill. Freedom of speech is one thing, sedition is another. Yes, I know that sedition is a bit of an antique term, but it seems to be a very modern practice these days, alas.
There was a time when a freak like Ron Paul would have been standing on the corner handing out poorly mimeographed copies of his drivel and promptly dismissed - now he stands on stage as though he's legitimate presidential candidate. The sad part is that in some polls he drawing 5% and that's far too much for the madness he's peddling.
There was a time when a State Senator like Barack Obama would never have been elected to the US Senate, much less be a serious presidential candidate scarcely 3 years later. And that's just speaking of his profound dearth of experience...don't get me started on his far left fantasy politics. No one seems to care whether he has the timber to sit in the Big Chair, he speaks well and he's black and that seems to be good enough. Voting FOR someone because of their race is just as racist as voting AGAINST someone because of their race.
As for Hillary Clinton, if sleeping with the president qualifies you for the job by some sort of weird osmosis, then there should be a number of female candidates in the field. That's aside from the fact that she's another dyed-in-the-wool, unrepentant leftist who's never really done anything, despite her sanctimonious claims to the contrary.
There was a time when George "Darth/Blofeld" Soros would have been seen for the real threat that he is. My God, the man had made billions screwing around with the values of world currency and he's financing the very subversion of the United States. He's like a villain out of a James Bond movie.
There was a time when a group of terrorist thugs like Hamas called the President of the United States "the Anti-Christ", there would be outrage expressed from the Left as well as the Right - now, I fully expect many on the left to publicly agree, and probably vote to increase their stipend. Hugo Chavez called our president "Satan" on the floor of the UN and a steady stream of celebrities rushed to Venezuela to break bread with him. I guess they figured that if the Speaker of the House could go to Syria to suck up to the "chinless one", then any type of loyalty to the US was well out of fashion. There was a time when that was called treason.
There was a time when neither political party would brazenly favor snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as the Democrats STILL favor doing. Their hatred of Bush far outweighs the success of their very nation - for them defeat is victory and victory is defeat. There was a time when that was called being an enemy of the United States.
There was a time when love of country superseded Democrat and Republican, because in the end we were all Americans. It would appear that time has passed.
I read the Gingrich's dissertation that was part of the course that he taught before he became Speaker of the House. One of the points that he made is that a nation can lose it's culture in a single generation. That has stuck in my mind ever since. We carry much of our culture and our history inside of us, building on what came before and expecting our children to build on that. Respect for the past and accepting the knowledge that has been gained from that past, both good and bad, is part of that culture. We write our history on a slate, and expect future generations to add their chapters and the whole of that slate is our culture.
We don't seem to be doing that anymore.
We live in an age when much of what many people believe is fantasy. Schools seem to be more intent on teaching the history that suits their political bias that what actually happened. Too many people get their information about the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone movies and their information about 9/11 from crackpot websites and they believe all of this to be true. They know little or nothing about World War II, or even what happened 30 years ago. The gulf that used to exist between fact and fantasy is becoming far too narrow and many of us are simply forgetting our history and this is why we may well be losing our culture.
We are choosing to forget many of the struggles, the victories and the defeats that brought us to this point. I have a feeling that the slate is being wiped clean and our culture is being erased with it, all in the name of “peace”. There is no peace as long as evil exists in this world, and it always will exist. Our only hope is to counterbalance it and to rrender it impotent. Years ago, some very smart men determined that maintaining enormous power in the hands of good men and denying that power to evil men was as close as we could come to lasting peace, at least in terms of the United States. It has worked pretty well in that within the confines of the U.S., life has been placid because no one dared attack us for fear of the consequences.
It seems that we have no taste, in many quarters, for maintaining the enormous power that has protected us for so long and incidentally has protected the world for so long. In certain quarters, within our own country, there are those who feel that relinquishing power is the way toward world peace and some of them are running for president. I believe that to be a mistake of epic proportions and one that cannot easily be corrected once made.
A scant 6 1/2 years after 3,000 innocent American citizens were murdered in the most heinous act of war in our history, it appears that a majority of this country is satisfied to let bygones be bygones, even as new plots are drawn against us. There was a time when that was called capitulation.
An ill wind is already blowing against us and the isolationists and the pacifists-at-any-cost are poised to assume power just as the thick of the storm arrives at our shores.
May God help us.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
January 13, 2008
A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.
Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal. Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. (Emphasis mine)
Typical strategy of the far left; control the conversation and if the facts don't support your argument, then manufacture facts that do. The sad truth is that, even today, that 650,000 figure is still bantered about and taken gospel by a good number of people and when it's refuted, the fall back position is that the refutation itself is an attempt to suppress the truth.
Facts and truth seem to hold decreasing value in an environment where whatever shallow beliefs people still hold can be backed up on fringe websites that produce "theories" on everything from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 based completely on fantasized "facts" designed specifically to support the so-called theories. If one tries to interject the voice of reason, they are shouted down as "tools" or "fools" because of their acceptance of the obvious and their rejection of the ever-complex web being woven by the paranoid conspiracy "theorists".
As for Soros, he understands all of this and plays these poor, ignorant souls as a puppet master would marionettes. He well understands that the lie will stay out there forever and no matter how many times it is proven false, it gains currency because people believe it and as long as that is the case, in some perverse way, it becomes "truth".
Soros like to use his personal story as a Hungarian refugee from Nazi oppression to lend credence to his obsession with left-wing causes. In practice though, he seems to have learned well from his former masters - Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
6 1/2 years after the most devastating attack on American civilians in the history of our nation and an equal amount of time since the "The War on (Islamic) Terrorism" was launched in defense of our country, we could well be on the threshold of electing Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States.
What, exactly, does this say about us, as a nation?
Is it an example of our enormous capacity for inclusion and fair play? Or, is it another illustration of our enormous propensity toward gullibility?
Friday, January 11, 2008
In the corporate world, when a person has devoted their life to the business, has made their mark and is ready to retire, they are thanked for their years of service, given a nice party and some token of esteem by their peers.
It seems that in the GOP, they are given a presidential campaign that's doomed to failure.
In 1996, the Republicans offered up Bob Dole. Bob was a good man, a legitimate war hero and a loyal Republican who had tried the presidential run on other occasions and had not secured the nomination. In 1996, he got the gold ring and was trounced by an incumbent Bill Clinton. Dole never really had a chance against a much younger Clinton.
At the time, I got the impression that Dole got the nomination as some sort of Republican "Lifetime Achievement Award", similar to those directors and actors who are given token awards at the Oscars to make up for the fact that, even though they had a great career, never won the big prize.
Now we have John McCain; a loyal Republican on some issues, but much less so on others. McCain is a larger-that-life figure and a great American, to whom the country owes a debt of gratitude we simply cannot repay. He is a brave man who has the courage of his convictions, even though many of those convictions have been an irritant to many Republicans for years. He, too, has run for president on several occasions and has fallen short of the nomination.
It would appear that McCain may well be on his way to winning the GOP's "Lifetime Achievement Award", and I have to question the sanity of risking a resounding defeat at the hands of a liberal Democrat at this important juncture in our nation's history.
Does anyone really think that McCain matches up well with either of the Democrats' potential candidates? With Hillary, we're looking at the "history-making" woman candidate, and with Obama, the "history-making" black candidate. Either way, I think that we're looking at a major uphill battle in presenting John McCain as a viable alternative to either of these Democrat nominees-in-waiting. If Hillary gets the nod, McCain may have a shot. If it's Obama, I think McCain's toast. There are certain realities in the modern political arena that have to be considered here.
I would encourage my Republican brethren to think carefully in the months ahead. For better, or worse, history will be made on November 4th and we will commence living it on November 5th.
Having watched the debate last night, I have tried to categorize the candidates as to the major philosophical classifications thus far:
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.
Fiscal: Moderate with liberal overtones.
Defense: Conservative with moderate overtones.
Iraq: Claims he wants victory, but I have doubts about his sincerity.
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.
Iraq: Immediate withdrawal, followed by an apology to Muslim world for having annoyed them.
In a Nutshell: I think Fred Thompson was the most impressive last night, particularly when he slapped down Huckabee on the subject of his "conservative credentials". As I recall, during the last debate Fred slapped down Huckabee about his stand on Gitmo. Fred always seems prepared, with his arguments well conceived and presented. Giuliani, Romney and McCain passed muster and performed as expected, but no better. Huckabee seemed, as he always does, a bit out of his league.
Ron Paul acted like the lunatic he is.
Monday, January 07, 2008
When all else fails, turn on the tears
She has so many opportunities for this country?! Who in the hell does she think she is?
Scott at Powerline compares her to Evita Peron which is eerily fitting. He concludes with "Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, history repeats itself, first as farce, second as farce."
Indeed. This woman has an ego that is only equalled by her unquenchable thirst for power.
Rudy Giuliani: Competent and confident. I like Rudy and think he would make a fine president and nothing he said or did last night changed that. He has an enormous capacity for leadership and knows how to make the tough decisions.
Fred Thompson: Fred is not afraid to call things exactly as he sees them and will lose no sleep if he doesn’t get the nomination and I find that refreshing. He’s like the slightly grumpy grandfather from whom wisdom flows like water from a faucet. Last night, he seemed in command of his facts, yet it seemed he was not given much of a chance to speak, unfortunately.
Mike Huckabee: He seemed out of his league. He was evasive on the subject of taxes and was thoroughly destroyed on the subject of Gitmo by Fred. I didn’t like him going in and liked him even less after his performance last night. He would be a disastrous nominee.
Mitt Romney: While Mitt has not been on my “A” list, last night I found him very impressive. He was in control of himself and his positions. He looked very “presidential” and I came away with a much better impression of him than I had going in. He still looks like a presidential candidate from central casting, but he’s also a very smart guy and it shows.
John McCain: He looked old, particularly sitting next to Romney. He seemed to have toned down his arrogant attitude a bit last night and he probably had some teeth marks on his tongue this morning as a result. I think that he has temperament issues that presidents simply should not have. My problems with McCain are legion and can be summed up by saying he’s just not reliably Republican, much less conservative. McCain-Feingold will, and should haunt him for the rest of his career; limitations on free speech should not be taken lightly.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Friday, January 04, 2008
Thankfully, we have a long way to go
Huckabee: I cannot determine what people see in this man. His resume is essentially that he is Governor of Arkansas...haven't we already had one of those? OK, so he lost a lot of weight, quickly. Perhaps he would make a good diet buddy or a personal trainer, but I hardly see where this qualifies him to be president. Oh yes, he's a Christian, and he seems to talk about that far too much and in terms that make me more than a little wary. We get quite enough of that kind of talk from the Middle East, thank you.
Speaking of the middle East, while he says he wants to win, his method is breathtakingly obtuse:
"I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government."Ah yes, the old "regional summit" solution. Let's see, Iraq is bordered mainly by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and Mike thinks that these are countries that want to participate in promoting a liberal democratic state in the center of the Middle East?
Obama: It's pretty clear to me that liberal pinheads and people who know absolutely nothing about anything (yes, may be redundant) are the main constituency in the Obama "groundswell" because, well, he's black and they figure it's time to have a black president. It doesn't matter that he's grossly inexperienced (a former state senator and a US Senator for 3 years) and if he were of any the race that he would not even be considered. The rationale behind his support seems to be "he's black, and it's time we had a black president". As a bonus, he has Muslim heritage and his middle name is Hussein - a bonus on the "feel-good-about-how-open-minded-I-am" scale.
As for Iraq, Obama is clearly in the "cut and run" wing of the Democrat party (yes, more redundancy):
Since this is still up on his website, I can only assume that he is unaware of, or uninterested in the enormous progress that we have made in the past few months in Iraq and that we are, in fact winning. Can we still assume that he favors a complete withdrawal of all combat brigades by March 31st? This gives new meaning to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, does it not?
Now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences. That's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment.
To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation begins redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.
Perhaps he has been to busy campaigning to formulate his "new" plan for our defeat and it will appear on his website at a later date........
Thursday, January 03, 2008
One question comes to mind...what the hell's wrong with Iowa?
Really, I have no animus toward the good people of Iowa or New Hampshire, but I have to say that the breathless anticipation of their selection process is beginning to peg the annoyance meter.
All of the candidates spend enormous amounts of money, descend upon these states like Apache helicopters on a al Qaeda keg party and the media reads the results as though it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.
These are two small states population-wise (IA #30 and NH #41) and neither is particularly representative of the nation as a whole. In fact there really isn't ANY state that could accurately be called representative of the nation.
The point seems to be to win these (too) early states and build some sort of air of inevitability, but how often does that really happen? There have been losers to win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire and former presidents who have lost one or both.
I know that someone has to be first and these two states are kicking off the primary season, but a little perspective may be in order. I also know that this little kabuki dance in Iowa and New Hampshire is a political tradition in presidential election years, but I think that it's overwrought in the extreme.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
You know, Fred's really starting to grow on me. Sensible, well measured and like I said before, he doesn't seem to be as interested in being president as much as he is in public service. He seems to be a man that I could trust with the job and never have a second thought about it. I could see the guy as president and I could see myself supporting his candidacy.
The very first point he makes is that we approach "dangerous years" ahead and that the terrorists won't rest "until a mushroom cloud hangs over one of our cities". This tells me he knows what our priorities are and where they should remain. Needless to say I share those priorities.