Twenty years ago - on October 23, 1987 to be precise - the darkest day in America's post-Watergate history occurred and changed forever the course of government in the United States. If you wonder why we have folks calling for the impeachment of the President now, sit back and read how we got here. For it was 20 years ago today that it all began.
On July 1, 1987, President Ronald Reagan got a chance to nominate a third justice to the United States Supreme Court due to the retirement of Justice Lewis Powell. Reagan nominated a man whose name now lives in infamy as a verb describing the tactics used to defeat him: Judge Robert Bork. A stuffy intellectual with a goofy beard, Robert Bork was the most publicly crucified public servant in the post-Watergate era. He was eminently qualified having written new law and having never had a single decision overturned by the Supreme Court. But in the new world of judicial politics, the Democrats were now running the show. In the fall of 1986, they had recaptured the Senate and, consequently, control of judicial nominations. Reagan was also watching his Presidency get dragged through the mud caused by the Iran-Contra scandal. But having campaigned on a promise to remake the federal judiciary in 1980, Reagan acted on his convictions. And incredibly enough, it was a man who escaped conviction for anything more than leaving the scene of an accident (along with a dead body) who destroyed Bork: Senator Edward Moore Kennedy, bona fide member of the Lucky Sperm club.
Moments after Reagan announced Bork's nomination, Kennedy called a press conference and delivered a scathing speech, declaring that Bork would force women to have abortions in back alleys, deny the teaching of evolution in schools, and force blacks and whites to eat at separate lunch counters. It was a five-star performance, coming from a man who used his name to get to the top, his connections to stay out of jail, and his hypocrisy to make the arguments regarding the unfitness of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. Bork was painted as a right-wing fanatic who was opposed to birth control and had suggested women get sterilized if they wanted to work at a chemical plant that exposed them to dangers during pregnancy. Kennedy - again of all people - stated that Bork held 'cruel stereotypes' of women in society.
Bork was obviously a bigger man than I would have been. If Kennedy would have said that about me, I would have said, "Let's consider the number of women I've killed: zero. How does your own record compare?"
From October 23, 1987 when the Senate destroyed Bork by a 58-42 vote, politics in America has never been the same. With two brief exceptions - the first Gulf War and 9/11 - the partisan bickering has never subsided as each side attempts to destroy the other. In the process, they may destroy America.
The first retaliatory strike was fired in 1988 by Vice-President George Bush. Bush ran probably the most successful negative campaign in American history, tearing into Michael Dukakis as a sympathizer of murder as well as an unpatriotic governor. Bush used many of the same 'cut and paste' (though that term didn't exist in those pre-Windows days) quote techniques and position twists to demolish Dukakis and win his way into the White House.
The Democrats, of course, got mad. And they decided they were going to make Bush pay for it. They demolished his nomination for Defense Secretary, former Senator John Tower, by accusing him during the nomination hearing of being a drunken lush and womanizer, two characterstics that none of those serving in the Senate would ever embody (insert Teddy Kennedy punchline here). And perhaps they should have stopped there because the Democrats wound up making a fateful decision with enormous ramifications for future generations - all because they had a score to settle with the President.
When Tower went down, Bush named his second choice as Defense Secretary, a then unknown Wyoming congressman named Dick Cheney. Without their engaging in such childish antics, we would never have had Vice-President Cheney, and who knows? We just might never have gone to Iraq the second time.
But the Republicans, now losing 2-1 in the game 'Whose Life Can We Destroy?' got even when an unknown Republican whip from Georgia named Newt Gingrich filed ethics charges against the top two Democratic leaders in the House, Speaker Jim Wright and House Majority Leader Tony Cohelo. Both were exporters of 'sleaze,' and Gingrich managed to destroy both of them in a very short period of time. This made Gingrich feared, but it also made him a target.
In 1991, the war kicked off again when Democrats once again decided to smear the reputation of another Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. Whatever the truth was about the allegations of sexual harrassment, there is another uncomfortable truth: Thomas was presumed guilty and forced to assert his innocence. What is even more ironic is that the same liberals who went after Bork for his alleged lack of compassion went after Thomas on the basis that he was not 'scholarly.' But, of course, if they wanted scholarly, they could have supported Bork. Thomas emerged from the battle confirmed but scarred. (In yet another irony, Thomas was sworn onto the bench on October 23, 1991, four years to the day after the end of the Bork battle.
As long as the Democrats had the power to appoint indepenent counsels, they could usually win the battles over ethics. They only lost the Wright/Coehelo wars because both had been so adamant in protesting their innocence while firing allegations of sleaze at others such as Reagan's Attorney General, Ed Meese. But on November 8, 1994, the voters revoked the lease the Democrats had on the Legislative branch and sent a new crew to Washington led by the man with two notches on his gun, Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And suddenly the battle got even more bizarre.
Having destroyed two Democrats personally as well as having guided the Republicans to storming the embassy and taking over, Gingrich was an easy target for Democrats to hate. As Speaker for slightly less than four years, they made his life utterly miserable, filing numerous ethics charges and ultimately forcing him to take a loan from Senator Bob Dole to pay his Congressionally imposed fines. Gingrich was destroyed, ironically, not by Democrats but by Republicans angry with his mismanagement of the 1998 mid-term elections. No sooner had Gingrich gone down than his appointed successor, Bob Livingston, resigned when Larry Flynt exposed Livingston as a moral hypocrite who had had extramarital affairs while in office.
The Republicans, now in charge of the independent counsel, spent a decade getting even with Democrats by concentrating their fire on the most prominent target: President William Jefferson Clinton. And to a large degree, they succeeded at thoroughly embarrassing him. It is true, of course, that they did not fully destroy him or drive him from office, but there is no doubt their efforts were rewarded in 2000 when President George W. Bush was elected by the narrow margin of one Supreme Court vote.
And in what is nothing less than a delicious irony, they were forced to swallow Dick Cheney as a Vice-President. And in the summer of 2007, complaints were made were made about the 'five Roman Catholics' who were solidly against abortion. Of course, none of them bothered to mention that if they had allowed Bork to be nominated, it would have replaced one of the Roman Catholics (Kennedy) with an agnostic. Republicans also had to swallow when their efforts made Clinton so prominent that his wife coasted to a United States Senate seat and immediately moved to the front of the line for the Democratic nomination for President.
It all started with the character assassination of Robert Bork. It may well end in the self-inflicted murder of American society due to the political tit for tat. Hopefully, the Hatfields and McCoys will soon stop the war.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Estrich A Good Example of What's Wrong
Susan Estrich is one of the many movers and shakers in the world of politics who rode a losing horse (Michael Dukakis in 1988) and consequently landed a cush job as an opinion writer for a syndicated column. Unfortunately, Ms. Estrich is not much better at forming her views than she was at running Dukakis' campaign into the ground. Her most recent comments are found at the following link: http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich/summer-spats.html .
Although humor was not her intent, I found the column funny. I also found it to be typical of the bubble in which pundits live. Note the following comments by Estrich:
If you read the pundits and pundettes, the consensus seems to be that Hillary has gotten the best of Obama this week, especially on Monday night, when she sounded more experienced and realistic about the world than her younger, more idealistic colleague. On the other hand, if you look at the focus group results, including one I read of Democrats conducted for Fox News, Obama was the winner, with people liking his optimistic idealism, not realizing it was somehow unrealistic or naive.
Of course, Estrich herself is a pundit and later in the same column says this: As a Clinton supporter, I would make the argument that it was George W.
Bush who was wrong, not Hillary Clinton. In other words, at least one pundit is actually honest enough to admit her bias - and then tells us what the other pundits say. She supports Clinton - and therefore, she must do anything she can to ensure Hillary wins including calling Obama 'naive' and 'idealistic.' But the one that truly took the cake was this line:
Does the fact that he lived abroad as a child make him more qualified than someone who lived in the White House for eight years, and who has four more years of Senate experience than he does?
So according to Susan Estrich, the mere fact that Hillary lived in the White House for eight years qualifies her to manage foreign policy? Using that logic, Barbara Bush should be the Commander-In-Chief. She lived in the Vice Presidential residence for eight years, the White House for four, and has been able to visit it any time she wishes for the last eight. Not only that, she gave birth to two sons who grew up to be governors of large economic powers (Jeb in Florida and George in Texas) and one who grew up to be President.
Living in the White House is a prerequisite for being President? And as a military brat who lived abroad for five years during the Cold War, I'll take Obama's day-to-day living experience with those people over Hillary's pie-in-the-sky 'I married a President' experience any day of the week.
I wonder if Susan would apply the same standard to the candidate she managed, Michael Dukakis. It is amusing that 20 years ago when she ran the campaign, long-term government service did not provide meaningful experience while now she is casting her lot with a woman who wouldn't even be in the Senate if her last name was Lazio.
Hillary Clinton played patriotic politics with the war just like everybody else has done and is doing. The last thing she wanted was a successful war that she opposed, so she hedged her bets, knowing full well that if it went wrong she could say she was 'misled.' If the war had gone great, she'd be touting her 'insight' as proof she could run the military.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton, as I've noted before, is not even the most qualified liberal Democratic female. Why does Estrich think Hillary should move to the front of the line ahead of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, or Barbara Mikulski, who spent ten years in the Congress and has been in the Senate for twenty?
Probably because Hillary has already lived in the White House. One must realize when dealing with a liberal Democrat, you throw logic away and start with emotion.
Although humor was not her intent, I found the column funny. I also found it to be typical of the bubble in which pundits live. Note the following comments by Estrich:
If you read the pundits and pundettes, the consensus seems to be that Hillary has gotten the best of Obama this week, especially on Monday night, when she sounded more experienced and realistic about the world than her younger, more idealistic colleague. On the other hand, if you look at the focus group results, including one I read of Democrats conducted for Fox News, Obama was the winner, with people liking his optimistic idealism, not realizing it was somehow unrealistic or naive.
Of course, Estrich herself is a pundit and later in the same column says this: As a Clinton supporter, I would make the argument that it was George W.
Bush who was wrong, not Hillary Clinton. In other words, at least one pundit is actually honest enough to admit her bias - and then tells us what the other pundits say. She supports Clinton - and therefore, she must do anything she can to ensure Hillary wins including calling Obama 'naive' and 'idealistic.' But the one that truly took the cake was this line:
Does the fact that he lived abroad as a child make him more qualified than someone who lived in the White House for eight years, and who has four more years of Senate experience than he does?
So according to Susan Estrich, the mere fact that Hillary lived in the White House for eight years qualifies her to manage foreign policy? Using that logic, Barbara Bush should be the Commander-In-Chief. She lived in the Vice Presidential residence for eight years, the White House for four, and has been able to visit it any time she wishes for the last eight. Not only that, she gave birth to two sons who grew up to be governors of large economic powers (Jeb in Florida and George in Texas) and one who grew up to be President.
Living in the White House is a prerequisite for being President? And as a military brat who lived abroad for five years during the Cold War, I'll take Obama's day-to-day living experience with those people over Hillary's pie-in-the-sky 'I married a President' experience any day of the week.
I wonder if Susan would apply the same standard to the candidate she managed, Michael Dukakis. It is amusing that 20 years ago when she ran the campaign, long-term government service did not provide meaningful experience while now she is casting her lot with a woman who wouldn't even be in the Senate if her last name was Lazio.
Hillary Clinton played patriotic politics with the war just like everybody else has done and is doing. The last thing she wanted was a successful war that she opposed, so she hedged her bets, knowing full well that if it went wrong she could say she was 'misled.' If the war had gone great, she'd be touting her 'insight' as proof she could run the military.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton, as I've noted before, is not even the most qualified liberal Democratic female. Why does Estrich think Hillary should move to the front of the line ahead of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Patty Murray, or Barbara Mikulski, who spent ten years in the Congress and has been in the Senate for twenty?
Probably because Hillary has already lived in the White House. One must realize when dealing with a liberal Democrat, you throw logic away and start with emotion.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
This Is What I'm Talking About
Last night, the dumbing down of society stretched to new limits when the Democrats had a YouTube debate with co-conspirator CNN. Political campaigns often have the intellectual depth of a music video so it was fitting that a website that allows anyone to post regardless of whether or not that person knows what he or she is talking about co-hosted a debate with a network that often doesn't know what it is talking about. Thrown in a bunch of Democrats who all think they are the current incarnation of Santa Claus, and the number of people who don't know what they're talking about rises exponentially. But check out my last post about "Who Will The Media Select," and you will see that I was dead on accurate in my assessment. All one has to do is go to CNN's Election Center at the following link:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate/
The debate is scored by three people: Bill Schneider, CNN's political analyst who often addresses Democratic groups; Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez (whom I've never heard of); and former California Democratic Congressman Bill Press. Apparently, CNN's idea of 'fair and balanced' is two Democrats and a marginal Republican. But let's consider what they said.
All three of them say that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Remember my comment about the media selecting the candidate? Go check out the rest of what they said. Hillary's name is only mentioned ONE TIME in the other 18 responses to six questions. How in the world could she have won if that's the case?
Ok, you have to scratch three of them because if she won she obviously cannot be the answer to who was the most disappointing - another consensus for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. But here's where it gets strange: all three agreed that Delaware Senator Joseph P. Biden KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE ISSUES than the other candidates.
If he does, doesn't that mean he won the debate?
Well, of course it doesn't because debates do not measure knowledge. In the television era, they have been nothing short of personality contests, and the notion that Lady Macbeth has a 'nice personality' is at odds with every appearance I've seen her make over the last 16 years.
So how did Hillary 'win' the debate?
She won simply because the three blind mice know her name better and much like a championship fight, the 'incumbent leader' has to actually get bloodied to lose. Since Hillary is a woman who will not hesitate to play the 'you're abusing me' card, the men on stage with her hold their punches back for fear of losing it altogether. If a man on that platform won't stand up to a nepotistic female candidate, why in the world should I believe he will stand up to Osama bin Laden?
And if Hillary was not big enough to stand up to Bill and leave - as any self-respecting woman would have done after NUMEROUS affairs on his part - why should I believe she's big enough to stand up to a big-spending Congress?
The media is having a lovefest at the thought of 'going back to the 1990s.' They will do anything necessary to help her win. Illusions such as these, however, are not the strong medicine the country needs.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/debates/scorecard/youtube.debate/
The debate is scored by three people: Bill Schneider, CNN's political analyst who often addresses Democratic groups; Republican strategist Leslie Sanchez (whom I've never heard of); and former California Democratic Congressman Bill Press. Apparently, CNN's idea of 'fair and balanced' is two Democrats and a marginal Republican. But let's consider what they said.
All three of them say that Hillary Clinton won the debate. Remember my comment about the media selecting the candidate? Go check out the rest of what they said. Hillary's name is only mentioned ONE TIME in the other 18 responses to six questions. How in the world could she have won if that's the case?
Ok, you have to scratch three of them because if she won she obviously cannot be the answer to who was the most disappointing - another consensus for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. But here's where it gets strange: all three agreed that Delaware Senator Joseph P. Biden KNOWS MORE ABOUT THE ISSUES than the other candidates.
If he does, doesn't that mean he won the debate?
Well, of course it doesn't because debates do not measure knowledge. In the television era, they have been nothing short of personality contests, and the notion that Lady Macbeth has a 'nice personality' is at odds with every appearance I've seen her make over the last 16 years.
So how did Hillary 'win' the debate?
She won simply because the three blind mice know her name better and much like a championship fight, the 'incumbent leader' has to actually get bloodied to lose. Since Hillary is a woman who will not hesitate to play the 'you're abusing me' card, the men on stage with her hold their punches back for fear of losing it altogether. If a man on that platform won't stand up to a nepotistic female candidate, why in the world should I believe he will stand up to Osama bin Laden?
And if Hillary was not big enough to stand up to Bill and leave - as any self-respecting woman would have done after NUMEROUS affairs on his part - why should I believe she's big enough to stand up to a big-spending Congress?
The media is having a lovefest at the thought of 'going back to the 1990s.' They will do anything necessary to help her win. Illusions such as these, however, are not the strong medicine the country needs.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Who Will The Media Select?
The perpetual campaign, that exercise where both sides run to see who succeeds an ineligible incumbent, is already nauseating but shows no signs of stopping anytime soon. The media infatuation with Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani - the media's appointed 'front runners' - has me wondering just who exactly they plan to crown the new monarch.
The voters do that you say? Oh, I beg to differ.
This is not the old days of the Pony Express. The media can build up or implode a candidacy almost instantly. Let's look at just a few test cases that demonstrate this beyond all reason.
In 1968, Lyndon Johnson was the President of the United States and expected to cruise to re-election. One issue bugged the country: the Vietnam War. A Minnesota Senator named Eugene McCarthy ran in the New Hampshire primary against LBJ and lost by six points. This, however, was 'proof' (according to the media) that Johnson was a vulnerable incumbent who needed to be replaced. LBJ agreed and bowed out a few weeks later right before the Wisconsin primary. This despite the fact he had not only won the primary, he won it solely on the basis of write-in votes because he had not even bothered to qualify for the ballot. Amazingly, the media didn't bother to mention that McCarthy got a ton of votes because he was the best-known name actually on the ballot. How many voters know they can write in a candidate?
In 1972, Edmund Muskie was the heir-in-waiting. He beat George McGovern by twelve points in the New Hampshire primary. But the media spun the story as if Muskie - who had beaten five other foes with almost half the vote - was now a cooked goose. Muskie made it worse by ripping into a conservative newspaper editor and appearing to 'cry,' demolishing his candidacy and sentencing the Democrats to a 49-1 defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon.
In 1976, it was the Republicans whom the media crossed. Ronald Reagan actually got more votes in the New Hampshire primary against UNELECTED incumbent President Ford. But the media feared that 'right-wing' Reagan as President and made it sound like Ford had beaten Reagan as badly as Reagan would eventually beat Walter Mondale in 1984. Never mind that in the previous two election cycles, neither of the losers came as close to winning as did Reagan, who only lost in the official count by 1317 votes. A subsequent handcount later showed Reagan likely won narrowly.
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was on his way to an easy win in the New Hampshire primary against four other foes. Then the stories of his philandering and draft dodging came out, and he went from a ten-point lead to a ten-point deficit in four days. He kept plugging along and despite the fact he blew an easy win and actually LOST the primary, the media touted Clinton as 'the comeback kid.' Clinton and the news media both dismissed the victory of Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas as 'a regional candidate.' The following week when Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry won South Dakota, he, too, was dismissed as a 'regional candidate.' But the moment Clinton won the Georgia primary in his own region of the country? This was somehow proof for the pundits that Clinton was a 'national candidate.' On Super Tuesday in 1992, Clinton did not win a single state outside the South - yet he was proclaimed 'electable' by the powers that be.
The Republicans didn't do much better in 1992. TV commentator Pat Buchanan entered the race and lost by 17 points - and to hear the hype from the TV pundits, you would have thought he won by 30,000 votes. Four years later, the same pundits amazingly forgot that Buchanan had actually lost and when Buchanan won BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire in major upsets over Bob Dole, the spin was that Dole had eliminated the other competition and could focus on Buchanan, who had no chance.
Even as recently as 2004, the media made its presence felt. Howard Dean was on his way to an easy victory in New Hampshire. If he had won, he likely would have been the party's dope-crazed nominee. So when he lost to John Kerry in the Iowa caucus, Dean took a page out of Al Gore's book. When Gore was campaigning in black churches in 2000, he began impersonating Uncle Remus Washington with his homiletical screams. Dean did the same thing - and the news media persuaded the entire country Dean was crazy. Evan Thomas of Newsweek magazine even admitted that their slanted coverage of the 2004 election probably netted Kerry fifteen points. Since Kerry lost by about four, we're talking about George W. Bush winning and LBJ-sized landslide - taken from him by the power makers on TV.
Who will they choose this time around? I don't really know, but I do know this: when the politicians start talking about 'the will of the people,' just substitute the 'power of the media,' and you will be far closer to the truth.
The voters do that you say? Oh, I beg to differ.
This is not the old days of the Pony Express. The media can build up or implode a candidacy almost instantly. Let's look at just a few test cases that demonstrate this beyond all reason.
In 1968, Lyndon Johnson was the President of the United States and expected to cruise to re-election. One issue bugged the country: the Vietnam War. A Minnesota Senator named Eugene McCarthy ran in the New Hampshire primary against LBJ and lost by six points. This, however, was 'proof' (according to the media) that Johnson was a vulnerable incumbent who needed to be replaced. LBJ agreed and bowed out a few weeks later right before the Wisconsin primary. This despite the fact he had not only won the primary, he won it solely on the basis of write-in votes because he had not even bothered to qualify for the ballot. Amazingly, the media didn't bother to mention that McCarthy got a ton of votes because he was the best-known name actually on the ballot. How many voters know they can write in a candidate?
In 1972, Edmund Muskie was the heir-in-waiting. He beat George McGovern by twelve points in the New Hampshire primary. But the media spun the story as if Muskie - who had beaten five other foes with almost half the vote - was now a cooked goose. Muskie made it worse by ripping into a conservative newspaper editor and appearing to 'cry,' demolishing his candidacy and sentencing the Democrats to a 49-1 defeat at the hands of Richard Nixon.
In 1976, it was the Republicans whom the media crossed. Ronald Reagan actually got more votes in the New Hampshire primary against UNELECTED incumbent President Ford. But the media feared that 'right-wing' Reagan as President and made it sound like Ford had beaten Reagan as badly as Reagan would eventually beat Walter Mondale in 1984. Never mind that in the previous two election cycles, neither of the losers came as close to winning as did Reagan, who only lost in the official count by 1317 votes. A subsequent handcount later showed Reagan likely won narrowly.
In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was on his way to an easy win in the New Hampshire primary against four other foes. Then the stories of his philandering and draft dodging came out, and he went from a ten-point lead to a ten-point deficit in four days. He kept plugging along and despite the fact he blew an easy win and actually LOST the primary, the media touted Clinton as 'the comeback kid.' Clinton and the news media both dismissed the victory of Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas as 'a regional candidate.' The following week when Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry won South Dakota, he, too, was dismissed as a 'regional candidate.' But the moment Clinton won the Georgia primary in his own region of the country? This was somehow proof for the pundits that Clinton was a 'national candidate.' On Super Tuesday in 1992, Clinton did not win a single state outside the South - yet he was proclaimed 'electable' by the powers that be.
The Republicans didn't do much better in 1992. TV commentator Pat Buchanan entered the race and lost by 17 points - and to hear the hype from the TV pundits, you would have thought he won by 30,000 votes. Four years later, the same pundits amazingly forgot that Buchanan had actually lost and when Buchanan won BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire in major upsets over Bob Dole, the spin was that Dole had eliminated the other competition and could focus on Buchanan, who had no chance.
Even as recently as 2004, the media made its presence felt. Howard Dean was on his way to an easy victory in New Hampshire. If he had won, he likely would have been the party's dope-crazed nominee. So when he lost to John Kerry in the Iowa caucus, Dean took a page out of Al Gore's book. When Gore was campaigning in black churches in 2000, he began impersonating Uncle Remus Washington with his homiletical screams. Dean did the same thing - and the news media persuaded the entire country Dean was crazy. Evan Thomas of Newsweek magazine even admitted that their slanted coverage of the 2004 election probably netted Kerry fifteen points. Since Kerry lost by about four, we're talking about George W. Bush winning and LBJ-sized landslide - taken from him by the power makers on TV.
Who will they choose this time around? I don't really know, but I do know this: when the politicians start talking about 'the will of the people,' just substitute the 'power of the media,' and you will be far closer to the truth.
Monday, June 18, 2007
The Chickens Come Home To Roost
About two hours ago, a reporter named Thomas Ferraro posted an article on Reuters stating that the approval rating of the Democratic Congress, installed on January 3, 2007, is actually lower than that of President Bush. I somehow suspect that will not be the lead-in for a CNN story, but it is worth contemplating the obvious question, "Why?"
And I have the answer to that question. Grab your socks and hose and tug: it's because the Democrats who took over Congress last year lied, plain and simple. You read that correctly. After three years of a steady drumbeat accusing Bush of lying about WMDs in Iraq (even though some of their more amibitous politicians voted for it before they voted against it, hee hee), it has taken less than six months to expose the entire party as a fraud. Now quite frankly, I'm not surprised about this. It did dawn on me, however, that the die hard support for the Democrats must come from people who have never taken a course in Government or read the United States Constitution.
You see, the Democrats promised last fall that if they were given power, they would end the Iraq War. I was hissing, "Liar, liar pants on fire" for a good reason: the Constitution says that George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief and doesn't need their approval to send troops wherever he wants. So the notion that they could stop the war if they wanted to do so was laughable. But apparently, the same people who don't understand the Electoral College don't seem to understand this inconvenient truth (to use the Al Gore cliche), either. Now it is true that they could cut off funding for the war, but they just declined to do that, and does anyone REALLY think they are going to do so CLOSER to the 2008 election? It would be political suicide.
The simple fact is that the Democrats won 30 seats in Congress because Bush was in his sixth year in the White House. This virtually always happens. It happened to FDR and Ronald Reagan, the two greatest Presidents of the 20th century. It didn't happen to Clinton but only because he lost more in his 1994 mid-term election than Reagan lost in 1982 and 1986 combined. They didn't win because people liked what they said; they won simply because they weren't Republicans and people were mad at the GOP.
I warned the day after the electionn last November that the Democrats were going to find out the hard way that it's a whole lot easier to sit back and blame the party in power for the problems and win than it is to actually be held accountable for your own action or non-action. Blaming Bush is not going to accompolish much in 2008 since he's on the ballot.
The Democrats are in the doldrums. Don't expect it to get better any time soon.
And I have the answer to that question. Grab your socks and hose and tug: it's because the Democrats who took over Congress last year lied, plain and simple. You read that correctly. After three years of a steady drumbeat accusing Bush of lying about WMDs in Iraq (even though some of their more amibitous politicians voted for it before they voted against it, hee hee), it has taken less than six months to expose the entire party as a fraud. Now quite frankly, I'm not surprised about this. It did dawn on me, however, that the die hard support for the Democrats must come from people who have never taken a course in Government or read the United States Constitution.
You see, the Democrats promised last fall that if they were given power, they would end the Iraq War. I was hissing, "Liar, liar pants on fire" for a good reason: the Constitution says that George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief and doesn't need their approval to send troops wherever he wants. So the notion that they could stop the war if they wanted to do so was laughable. But apparently, the same people who don't understand the Electoral College don't seem to understand this inconvenient truth (to use the Al Gore cliche), either. Now it is true that they could cut off funding for the war, but they just declined to do that, and does anyone REALLY think they are going to do so CLOSER to the 2008 election? It would be political suicide.
The simple fact is that the Democrats won 30 seats in Congress because Bush was in his sixth year in the White House. This virtually always happens. It happened to FDR and Ronald Reagan, the two greatest Presidents of the 20th century. It didn't happen to Clinton but only because he lost more in his 1994 mid-term election than Reagan lost in 1982 and 1986 combined. They didn't win because people liked what they said; they won simply because they weren't Republicans and people were mad at the GOP.
I warned the day after the electionn last November that the Democrats were going to find out the hard way that it's a whole lot easier to sit back and blame the party in power for the problems and win than it is to actually be held accountable for your own action or non-action. Blaming Bush is not going to accompolish much in 2008 since he's on the ballot.
The Democrats are in the doldrums. Don't expect it to get better any time soon.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Religion And Politics: The Combustible Mix
The Democrats running for President took a page from the Republican playbook last night by invoking God and discussing the issue of faith in politics. And after listening to the answers, it seems to me that Barack Obama is the wisest candidate the Democrats have.
Hillary Clinton claimed that God got her through her marital strife and the impeachment fracas. Wise minds, of course, can see through that transparency as if it were a leaking condom. Hillary Clinton wanted to be President so badly that she was willing to put her alleged hurt on a shelf and look past it - and go on into the Senate and maybe back to the White House. John Edwards declared Jesus Christ was his Lord and that he sinned every day. This pandering to the Christian right will ultimately be futile, but it was refreshing from my Christian perspective to hear Edwards say it. Obama made the best impression, however, by saying there is a problem viewing the world in good versus evil, black and white terms. Obama is right.
But there is a larger problem that extends beyond the Democrats' forty-year war with Christian values. It is the proper place of faith in the public arena including the areas of making policy. We already have a President who is a professing Christian and apparently seems to see himself in Messianic terms. The problem is that his deliverance of Iraq has placed his own country in bondage to a war with no end in sight. And his deliverance has failed to deliver very much at all.
I am a Christian. I meet virtually all of the stereotypes of Christians. I am pro-life, pro-gun, and conservative. I'm also opposed to recognized school prayer in opposition to what most think about the religious right. But what is the proper role of faith in politics?
I hate to say this, folks, but the fact is that we're not choosing a pope here. And here's another thought: given the fact that it's a politician telling you about his faith, how do you know he's telling you the truth? For all of his professing Christian faith and opposition to killing the unborn, George W. Bush has begun a war that has killed in the hundreds of thousands. For all of his professing of the Christian faith, Ronald Reagan did not even attend church during his Presidency. And Bill Clinton invoked God in his defiant speech admitting 'wrong' in the Lewinsky scandal, but the truth of the matter is that he, too, was playing politics with God.
I am not a supporter of the Democratic Party or liberalism. But these type questions are personal and have no reason being discussed. Besides, I suspect that everyone - on both sides - is lying about their faith. When it comes to politicians, there is one thing that is even more sustaining than their faith: the ambition to be eternally remembered as 'a great President.' The faith questions need to go, and the character questions need to take center stage.
Hillary Clinton claimed that God got her through her marital strife and the impeachment fracas. Wise minds, of course, can see through that transparency as if it were a leaking condom. Hillary Clinton wanted to be President so badly that she was willing to put her alleged hurt on a shelf and look past it - and go on into the Senate and maybe back to the White House. John Edwards declared Jesus Christ was his Lord and that he sinned every day. This pandering to the Christian right will ultimately be futile, but it was refreshing from my Christian perspective to hear Edwards say it. Obama made the best impression, however, by saying there is a problem viewing the world in good versus evil, black and white terms. Obama is right.
But there is a larger problem that extends beyond the Democrats' forty-year war with Christian values. It is the proper place of faith in the public arena including the areas of making policy. We already have a President who is a professing Christian and apparently seems to see himself in Messianic terms. The problem is that his deliverance of Iraq has placed his own country in bondage to a war with no end in sight. And his deliverance has failed to deliver very much at all.
I am a Christian. I meet virtually all of the stereotypes of Christians. I am pro-life, pro-gun, and conservative. I'm also opposed to recognized school prayer in opposition to what most think about the religious right. But what is the proper role of faith in politics?
I hate to say this, folks, but the fact is that we're not choosing a pope here. And here's another thought: given the fact that it's a politician telling you about his faith, how do you know he's telling you the truth? For all of his professing Christian faith and opposition to killing the unborn, George W. Bush has begun a war that has killed in the hundreds of thousands. For all of his professing of the Christian faith, Ronald Reagan did not even attend church during his Presidency. And Bill Clinton invoked God in his defiant speech admitting 'wrong' in the Lewinsky scandal, but the truth of the matter is that he, too, was playing politics with God.
I am not a supporter of the Democratic Party or liberalism. But these type questions are personal and have no reason being discussed. Besides, I suspect that everyone - on both sides - is lying about their faith. When it comes to politicians, there is one thing that is even more sustaining than their faith: the ambition to be eternally remembered as 'a great President.' The faith questions need to go, and the character questions need to take center stage.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Sheehan About To Discover Her Real Friends
Cindy Sheehan, America's best-known war protester, is calling it quits. Three years after her son died and 22 months after gaining national attention for an uninvited camping trip to President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, Cindy is throwing in the towel. And if Cindy thinks things are bad now, she need only wait because she is about to find out who her real friends are - virtually nobody. Cindy is about to find out that she was nothing but a left-wing whore being used by the socialists in this country to advance the agenda of the old SDS. In fact, she is about to find out that those who supported her are actually glad her son died and pushed into her service as their pawn.
Zealots for all causes lack basic common sense. It's the nature of the beast. But when you claim to be humanitarian and live in a dream world where terrorists do not exist, you use whoever is convenient. And Cindy Sheehan was used by the 'hate America' crowd to advance an agenda. Now that she is no longer able to be used by the socialist johns for political pleasure, she is yesterday's bad news and will be treated as such. The left-wing in America may not have a monopoly on cruelty, but they certainly make those who attempt to think for themselves pay. If you don't believe me, just ask Teresa LePore and Charles Burton, two Democrats who tried to be fair in the Florida Recount and got tossed from office for failing to follow the marching orders of the left-wing nuts.
Perhaps Ms. Sheehan needs to call Candace Gingrich, the half sister of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Because of her lesbianism, Candace was ripe for use by the left. The moment she ceased to be of use to them, however, they set her aside. The same goes for Anita Hill. And now it's Cindy Sheehan's turn.
Cindy is upset that the Democrats have failed to end the war. Well what did she expect? The Democrats made sure not to promise anything last election - and they have done a great job at changing absolutely nothing except to increase the investigations going on in Washington. Cindy needs to remember that there is something FAR more important to the Democratic Party than how many people die in Iraq: the retention of political power. This is what makes the Democrats different from the Republicans. Democrats try the ruse about how they care about the common man and the helpless. But given a choice, they - just like their Republican counterparts - will cave in to the man who can write the check to pay for the next election. The only difference is that the Dems add hypocrisy to their initial sin of unconcern.
Every single Democrat in the race right now fears being seen as 'soft' on terrorism or national defense. So they will go along in the hopes of simply picking up the tent stakes and going home after they take the White House. The only way it will happen is if a Democrat wins with a Democratic Congress. And then we can thank them all for the $7 a gallon gasoline when terrorists take over the oil wells we abandon in Iraq. So what does that have to do with Cindy Sheehan?
I oppose the war in Iraq. I have opposed it from day one. However, never once have I called the terrorists 'freedom fighters' as did Ms. Sheehan. I suspect that this had more to do with a line one of the socialists gave her than anything else. As long as she was productive for them, she was a hero. But Cindy is about to find out the only thing more lonely than a Louisianan waiting for a rescue from Katrina is a left-wing socialist who no longer serves her master.
Zealots for all causes lack basic common sense. It's the nature of the beast. But when you claim to be humanitarian and live in a dream world where terrorists do not exist, you use whoever is convenient. And Cindy Sheehan was used by the 'hate America' crowd to advance an agenda. Now that she is no longer able to be used by the socialist johns for political pleasure, she is yesterday's bad news and will be treated as such. The left-wing in America may not have a monopoly on cruelty, but they certainly make those who attempt to think for themselves pay. If you don't believe me, just ask Teresa LePore and Charles Burton, two Democrats who tried to be fair in the Florida Recount and got tossed from office for failing to follow the marching orders of the left-wing nuts.
Perhaps Ms. Sheehan needs to call Candace Gingrich, the half sister of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Because of her lesbianism, Candace was ripe for use by the left. The moment she ceased to be of use to them, however, they set her aside. The same goes for Anita Hill. And now it's Cindy Sheehan's turn.
Cindy is upset that the Democrats have failed to end the war. Well what did she expect? The Democrats made sure not to promise anything last election - and they have done a great job at changing absolutely nothing except to increase the investigations going on in Washington. Cindy needs to remember that there is something FAR more important to the Democratic Party than how many people die in Iraq: the retention of political power. This is what makes the Democrats different from the Republicans. Democrats try the ruse about how they care about the common man and the helpless. But given a choice, they - just like their Republican counterparts - will cave in to the man who can write the check to pay for the next election. The only difference is that the Dems add hypocrisy to their initial sin of unconcern.
Every single Democrat in the race right now fears being seen as 'soft' on terrorism or national defense. So they will go along in the hopes of simply picking up the tent stakes and going home after they take the White House. The only way it will happen is if a Democrat wins with a Democratic Congress. And then we can thank them all for the $7 a gallon gasoline when terrorists take over the oil wells we abandon in Iraq. So what does that have to do with Cindy Sheehan?
I oppose the war in Iraq. I have opposed it from day one. However, never once have I called the terrorists 'freedom fighters' as did Ms. Sheehan. I suspect that this had more to do with a line one of the socialists gave her than anything else. As long as she was productive for them, she was a hero. But Cindy is about to find out the only thing more lonely than a Louisianan waiting for a rescue from Katrina is a left-wing socialist who no longer serves her master.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
