. . . the more they stay the same. Or so goes today’s cliché. That sums up the early prognosis of Barack Obama’s first advisors and potential cabinet appointments. The first name to filter out was Rahm Emanuel to be the Mulatto Messiah’s Chief of Staff. Mr. Emanuel is a Clinton administration veteran who, like the aforementioned messiah, is another product of Chicago politics. This is the man whose trademark threat is to mail dead fish to political enemies. So much for change.
The big news over the past weekend was that Hillary Clinton was rumored to be the next Secretary of State. That’s big news indeed. The freshman senator from Illinois was largely nominated by his party because he was the supposedly antiwar candidate. Hillary Clinton’s millstone, even more than her husband, was that she voted for the invasion of Iraq. Obama has the character to lead because he had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war before it began, we were told incessantly. After all, during the primaries and the endless debates that preceded them, Hillary’s biggest piece of political baggage was her vote for war and her shameless triangulating to an ambiguous antiwar position. All the while promising to extend a nuclear shield over Israel should Iran start the shooting. Now the supposedly antiwar president-elect, seems ready to appoint a notoriously pro-war advocate to arguably the most important cabinet post. So much for change.
On Tuesday of this week, it was revealed that the man expected to become the next attorney general is Eric Holder, the deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton who oversaw the Elian Gonzalez “catch-and-release” debacle as well as Bubba’s hundreds of midnight pardons, including the infamous tax evader, Marc Rich. Does anyone believe that the #2 henchman in those disasters is qualified to hold the top legal position in the country? So much for change.
The discovery of these new and potential appointments should not be too surprising. Barack Obama was the product of the Chicago political machine, a notorious black hole whose corruption is on a par with New Orleans. Yet, Mr. Obama campaigned on an image of one who was above politics, above rank partisanship, and one who possessed the character to lead. But he appears to be nominating only Chicago thugs and Clinton administration also-rans.
Justin Raimondo, the astute editor of antiwar.com, identifies the Mulatto Messiah as a veritable blank slate for a disgruntled populace. Since Mr. Obama was so vague on so many issues during his two-year campaign, people were free to assign any label to him that they wanted. If people were angry about the war in Iraq, they could make Obama their antiwar candidate just because he sounded good, not because he provided any reasonable opposition to the invasion. If people were upset because they thought the Bush administration unfairly favored big business, they could listen to Mr. Obama’s rhetoric and think that he would be a president who would be on the side of the taxpayers. Consider this: the freshman senator from Illinois voted for the bailout, loaded with pork, that saved the backside of Wall Street. Some populist.
The fake indignation of liberals over the past 8 years falls on my deaf ears. They are still crying about how President Bush lied or misled the country into war. If either of those accusations were true, they would unquestionably disqualify Democrats from ruling: If President Bush lied, the Democrats were the ones who helped finance the war from the beginning, despite their claim of his dishonesty. If the president merely misled, then how can the Democrats claim to have the competency to lead, when they willingly admit that they were duped by a C student who is constantly ridiculed for being an idiot?
Now for the harsh truth of what these potential appointments mean: very few Americans actually desire real change in their federal government. If they did, both Barack Obama and John McCain would have received 3rd party levels of votes. The majority, or rather supermajority, of the two major parties play the voters for fools, drowning them with empty rhetoric about change and leadership, but who ultimately do little different from their predecessors, even when they are from different parties. I do not expect a President Obama to differ very much from President Bill Clinton or either of the last two Republican presidents. But people will respond to his message because they like the packaging or continue to feel good about themselves because they showed to themselves to “not be racist” because they voted for a “black” man for president.
Something about this “change” smells familiar.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Tyrannical Intolerance
When my native and socially backward state of Kentucky passed an amendment to constitutionally ban gay marriage in 2004, I am unashamed to say that I joined in with the bigoted majority. That much should not be surprising to anyone who knows me well. What is surprising is that the state of California also voted for a gay marriage ban.
For a moment of brutal honesty, I must admit that I did not take the now-infamous Proposition 8 very seriously when I first heard of it. I assumed it would pass. After all, those weirdoes in California would pass it, wouldn’t they?
In an act almost as unthinkable as Sean Hannity campaigning for Ron Paul, those allegedly pinko Californians passed the proposition 52-48. This was shocking because for years California has been running under a judicial dictatorship which granted marriage licenses to homosexuals. In an act that should have warranted his incarceration, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom joined in the act by granting licenses himself. The ballot initiative was just supposed to confirm that the people always wanted what the court had already ruled. Now the minority is shocked because a silent majority stills exists.
Less than 24 hours later, the mobs of gay marriage activists appeared to protest the vote. In watching the rabble-rousers and professional protesters, one thought leapt into my mind: Liberals only care about democracy when they win. I noticed this phenomenon on Election Night/early morning 2004 when President Bush was reelected and Republicans retained control in both houses of Congress. I was watching the results and listening to the talking points with a fellow baldy. At 2:00 am, there was a new shift of talking heads and the Republican was glowing. The Democrat, sensing it was all over for John Kerry, made a plea for the president to govern from the Center, despite retaining Republican majorities. It was laughable for 2 reasons: 1.) George W. Bush never governed from the Right as president, he did, however, govern on the side of the Republicans, NOT the Right, and 2.) The president’s party was victorious on all fronts - why should he have conceded the agenda? In 2008, no honest person believes Barack Obama, elected with a mandate and massive majorities in both houses of Congress, will actually govern from the mythical Center? “To the victor go the spoils.”
Should what has been voted on not count as law? That’s what these protesters seem to believe. Since the majority did not vote in the activists’ way, it should not count. I even know of someone who believes Barack Obama’s first unifying act as president should be to overrule the vote and end the bigotry in California. Aside from the ridiculous notion that an honest liberal believes that a majority of Californians are bigots, I am compelled to ask, What’s so unifying about anyone overruling the will of the majority?
If any real bigotry exists in this episode it is the bigotry towards Christians and anyone else whose conscience forbids them from tolerating the marriage of homosexuals. If some people believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married, that’s fine, go ahead and vote your conscience. But there are still are a lot of people, in this case a majority of people, who still believe homosexuality is a sin and should not be rewarded. These people have every right to vote their conscience. Demanding the reversal of a mandate (George W. Bush was reelected by a slimmer margin than this proposition) is the ultimate act of the politically irrelevant and the sorest of losers.
This may seem like ranting about activists whom I oppose, which of course is one of the best reason to have a blog. Someone might be inclined to wonder, why does this cranky writer dedicate so much attention to what a bunch of activists are whining about? The reason is that this whole incident is actually less about gay marriage and more about the judicial dictatorship. It is because if the noisemakers do it long enough someone will step in and intervene.
The greatest victory of the Proposition 8 initiative was not that it banned gay marriage in California, but because it was a victory against the judicial dictatorship which illegally legislated from the bench and granted marriage licenses to homosexuals. It is a common error that only Christians and other religious folks oppose gay marriage. Secularists who still have admiration for the constitutional restraints on the government have reason to rejoice. No one should approve of judicial legislation. It is in direct violation of their constitutional function. The voters' rejection of gay marriage in California testifies to the undeniable fact that just because something has been codified into law through the court, does not mean the people approve it. For politicians' vacuous talk about the virtues of democracy, this time in California, it actually vindicates the voters who resented the high court's unconstitutional usurpation.
This issue is by no means over. This is evident because already since the election, gay marriage has been approved in the ironically nicknamed "Constitution State" of Connecticut, by judicial order, not popular vote. As of now, there are still only two states where gay marriage has been permitted, the aforementioned Connecticut and its neighboring Bay State, Massachusetts. The characteristic they share is that their gay marriage statutes were via judicial order, not legislative approval.
The murder of the unborn has already been an established law for a generation, which by no coincidence, was also granted through a judicial order. November 4 was perhaps only a momentary victory against the judicial dictatorship, but a victory nonetheless. When the inevitable pressure comes for the California high court to grant marriage licenses again, there should also be a proportionate response from those who oppose both gay marriage and the usurpation by that court. They should say “No Dictatorship!”
For a moment of brutal honesty, I must admit that I did not take the now-infamous Proposition 8 very seriously when I first heard of it. I assumed it would pass. After all, those weirdoes in California would pass it, wouldn’t they?
In an act almost as unthinkable as Sean Hannity campaigning for Ron Paul, those allegedly pinko Californians passed the proposition 52-48. This was shocking because for years California has been running under a judicial dictatorship which granted marriage licenses to homosexuals. In an act that should have warranted his incarceration, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom joined in the act by granting licenses himself. The ballot initiative was just supposed to confirm that the people always wanted what the court had already ruled. Now the minority is shocked because a silent majority stills exists.
Less than 24 hours later, the mobs of gay marriage activists appeared to protest the vote. In watching the rabble-rousers and professional protesters, one thought leapt into my mind: Liberals only care about democracy when they win. I noticed this phenomenon on Election Night/early morning 2004 when President Bush was reelected and Republicans retained control in both houses of Congress. I was watching the results and listening to the talking points with a fellow baldy. At 2:00 am, there was a new shift of talking heads and the Republican was glowing. The Democrat, sensing it was all over for John Kerry, made a plea for the president to govern from the Center, despite retaining Republican majorities. It was laughable for 2 reasons: 1.) George W. Bush never governed from the Right as president, he did, however, govern on the side of the Republicans, NOT the Right, and 2.) The president’s party was victorious on all fronts - why should he have conceded the agenda? In 2008, no honest person believes Barack Obama, elected with a mandate and massive majorities in both houses of Congress, will actually govern from the mythical Center? “To the victor go the spoils.”
Should what has been voted on not count as law? That’s what these protesters seem to believe. Since the majority did not vote in the activists’ way, it should not count. I even know of someone who believes Barack Obama’s first unifying act as president should be to overrule the vote and end the bigotry in California. Aside from the ridiculous notion that an honest liberal believes that a majority of Californians are bigots, I am compelled to ask, What’s so unifying about anyone overruling the will of the majority?
If any real bigotry exists in this episode it is the bigotry towards Christians and anyone else whose conscience forbids them from tolerating the marriage of homosexuals. If some people believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get married, that’s fine, go ahead and vote your conscience. But there are still are a lot of people, in this case a majority of people, who still believe homosexuality is a sin and should not be rewarded. These people have every right to vote their conscience. Demanding the reversal of a mandate (George W. Bush was reelected by a slimmer margin than this proposition) is the ultimate act of the politically irrelevant and the sorest of losers.
This may seem like ranting about activists whom I oppose, which of course is one of the best reason to have a blog. Someone might be inclined to wonder, why does this cranky writer dedicate so much attention to what a bunch of activists are whining about? The reason is that this whole incident is actually less about gay marriage and more about the judicial dictatorship. It is because if the noisemakers do it long enough someone will step in and intervene.
The greatest victory of the Proposition 8 initiative was not that it banned gay marriage in California, but because it was a victory against the judicial dictatorship which illegally legislated from the bench and granted marriage licenses to homosexuals. It is a common error that only Christians and other religious folks oppose gay marriage. Secularists who still have admiration for the constitutional restraints on the government have reason to rejoice. No one should approve of judicial legislation. It is in direct violation of their constitutional function. The voters' rejection of gay marriage in California testifies to the undeniable fact that just because something has been codified into law through the court, does not mean the people approve it. For politicians' vacuous talk about the virtues of democracy, this time in California, it actually vindicates the voters who resented the high court's unconstitutional usurpation.
This issue is by no means over. This is evident because already since the election, gay marriage has been approved in the ironically nicknamed "Constitution State" of Connecticut, by judicial order, not popular vote. As of now, there are still only two states where gay marriage has been permitted, the aforementioned Connecticut and its neighboring Bay State, Massachusetts. The characteristic they share is that their gay marriage statutes were via judicial order, not legislative approval.
The murder of the unborn has already been an established law for a generation, which by no coincidence, was also granted through a judicial order. November 4 was perhaps only a momentary victory against the judicial dictatorship, but a victory nonetheless. When the inevitable pressure comes for the California high court to grant marriage licenses again, there should also be a proportionate response from those who oppose both gay marriage and the usurpation by that court. They should say “No Dictatorship!”
Friday, November 7, 2008
The Blame Game
That more Republicans were routed was expected and sadly, Lindsey Graham was not among them. The damage could have been worse but it was done nonetheless. In the days since the historic election of our country’s first mulatto president, the GOP has been scrambling to figure out why the results were so catastrophic. They have been playing every loser’s favorite pastime: the blame game.
As I have previously conjectured, the biggest problem for the Republican presidential ticket was its nominee, John McCain. However, that is not the news that has been wafting out of what is the remainder of the McCain Camp. Not 24 hours after Mr. McCain’s concession speech did anonymous sources from the McCain campaign begin leaking to the press about how scatter-brained, unprepared, and bitchy vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin turned out to be. This after John McCain himself defended her time and again in the past two months and insisted that he really knew her well.
One of the popular reasons given for John McCain’s loss was the dismal selection of this running mate. From spring through the last weeks of summer, the McCain campaign was spinning its wheels. The freshman senator from Illinois was the toast of the liberal media. He made an even bigger splash by selecting Joe “Big Mouth” Biden, a veteran Washington bureaucrat if there ever was one. Mr. Obama was praised for acknowledging his deficiencies in foreign affairs and picked a supposed expert to help guide him. It smacked of the selection of one Richard Cheney.
So, with the media continuing to drool all over the Great Purveyor of White Guilt, John McCain, trailing in every poll, struggling with a despondent party base, had to do something bold and drastic, and did. The selection of the Alaska governor energized the reluctant conservatives who have never been comfortable with Mr. McCain. They wanted to hear the Democrats’ favorite Republican talk about abortion, gay marriage, and traditional values, Mac’s least favorite talking points. Sarah Palin became the voice to pacify those dissidents and she ended up bringing almost all of them into the Republican fold. She was the greatest gift possible for John McCain’s campaign.
But after a few dismal interviews with the elite liberal media and after her attack dog shtick got old, there were grumblings, even from Republicans, that the good lady had to go. And thus were the first signs that if the Republican ticket lost, the blame would fall on the VP.
And so it has. Never mind that John McCain’s margin of loss was probably smaller, yes smaller, than it would have been had he not selected Mrs. Palin. Had Joe “Partial-Birth” Lieberman or Tom “Terror Level” Ridge been selected, none of the conservatives would have gone with the GOP this year. While Mr. Obama ended up with a hefty electoral vote total, the electoral map was far more red than blue. A McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Ridge ticket would have resulted in a McGovern-like loss and political marginalization for the Republicans. The Religious Right, and its sympathizers like myself, are the most reliable voters the party has. Remove abortion from the platform and the Reagan Democrats will return to their otherwise natural home.
The second scapegoat of the GOP loss arises out of the first one. The charge there is that the religious and values voters of the party are preventing the party from having a bigger tent. The folks over at takimag.com jumped on David “Axis of Evil” Frum’s recent suggestion that an overhaul to the party platform is needed from “abortion to the environment.” He would have been less obvious in his Christian-bashing if he had just demanded the values voters to “get out and stay out!” What is ironic is that this suggestion comes from a chief neoconservative theorist. Mr. Frum blames the values voters for keeping the GOP a small party. But this is the same man who exiled antiwar conservatives in 2003 who dared to question the party’s decision to uproot Iraqi society. He complains the tent is too small but he’s responsible for kicking out a contingent of intellectuals who did not fit into his narrow ideology. Even if conditions appear marginally better in Iraq today than in 2006, that does not change the fact that it is still an unpopular war that most in this country do not believe should have been launched in the first place. Based on this, is the GOP a small tent party because of those stupid and ignorant Christian voters, or because the party adopted a utopian ideology: wars for democracy. Are Christians shrinking the party or was it the policies that David Frum himself promoted and then fed through the president during his tenure as President Bush’s speechwriter?
Surely a change is needed for the Republican Party. However, kowtowing to Democratic talking points is not the solution. Republicans imitated Democrats in their spending habits for the first six years of the Bush administration and were perceived as corrupt as the Democrats of the early 1990s. For it, they were almost unanimously repudiated. For all the fuss made by the moderates and neoconservatives in the party about expanding beyond the base, they are the principal reason the party is in grave danger of losing the base itself.
Have Republicans not noticed that playing like Democrats does not win elections for Republicans? The country has not moved from Center-Right to Center-Left just because democratic socialist Barack Obama thumped donkey-in-elephant’s clothes John McCain. If it was Center-Left, would the gay marriage ban have been passed in California? The country has gotten tired of the Bush years and, rightly or wrongly, John McCain was painted as more of that.
Ron Paul and his message electrified the GOP before and during the primaries in ways no other candidate did. He wanted to bring the troops home, cut the budget, eliminate superfluous departments, replace government intervention with more personal freedom, protect one’s right to life, and return to the Constitution. It was a campaign that put Americans and America first, not corporations and false ideologies. Returning to these bedrock conservative principles should be a good place for the party to start if they wish to return to political relevance.
That is, now that the Republicans have time to sit back and reflect.
As I have previously conjectured, the biggest problem for the Republican presidential ticket was its nominee, John McCain. However, that is not the news that has been wafting out of what is the remainder of the McCain Camp. Not 24 hours after Mr. McCain’s concession speech did anonymous sources from the McCain campaign begin leaking to the press about how scatter-brained, unprepared, and bitchy vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin turned out to be. This after John McCain himself defended her time and again in the past two months and insisted that he really knew her well.
One of the popular reasons given for John McCain’s loss was the dismal selection of this running mate. From spring through the last weeks of summer, the McCain campaign was spinning its wheels. The freshman senator from Illinois was the toast of the liberal media. He made an even bigger splash by selecting Joe “Big Mouth” Biden, a veteran Washington bureaucrat if there ever was one. Mr. Obama was praised for acknowledging his deficiencies in foreign affairs and picked a supposed expert to help guide him. It smacked of the selection of one Richard Cheney.
So, with the media continuing to drool all over the Great Purveyor of White Guilt, John McCain, trailing in every poll, struggling with a despondent party base, had to do something bold and drastic, and did. The selection of the Alaska governor energized the reluctant conservatives who have never been comfortable with Mr. McCain. They wanted to hear the Democrats’ favorite Republican talk about abortion, gay marriage, and traditional values, Mac’s least favorite talking points. Sarah Palin became the voice to pacify those dissidents and she ended up bringing almost all of them into the Republican fold. She was the greatest gift possible for John McCain’s campaign.
But after a few dismal interviews with the elite liberal media and after her attack dog shtick got old, there were grumblings, even from Republicans, that the good lady had to go. And thus were the first signs that if the Republican ticket lost, the blame would fall on the VP.
And so it has. Never mind that John McCain’s margin of loss was probably smaller, yes smaller, than it would have been had he not selected Mrs. Palin. Had Joe “Partial-Birth” Lieberman or Tom “Terror Level” Ridge been selected, none of the conservatives would have gone with the GOP this year. While Mr. Obama ended up with a hefty electoral vote total, the electoral map was far more red than blue. A McCain-Lieberman or McCain-Ridge ticket would have resulted in a McGovern-like loss and political marginalization for the Republicans. The Religious Right, and its sympathizers like myself, are the most reliable voters the party has. Remove abortion from the platform and the Reagan Democrats will return to their otherwise natural home.
The second scapegoat of the GOP loss arises out of the first one. The charge there is that the religious and values voters of the party are preventing the party from having a bigger tent. The folks over at takimag.com jumped on David “Axis of Evil” Frum’s recent suggestion that an overhaul to the party platform is needed from “abortion to the environment.” He would have been less obvious in his Christian-bashing if he had just demanded the values voters to “get out and stay out!” What is ironic is that this suggestion comes from a chief neoconservative theorist. Mr. Frum blames the values voters for keeping the GOP a small party. But this is the same man who exiled antiwar conservatives in 2003 who dared to question the party’s decision to uproot Iraqi society. He complains the tent is too small but he’s responsible for kicking out a contingent of intellectuals who did not fit into his narrow ideology. Even if conditions appear marginally better in Iraq today than in 2006, that does not change the fact that it is still an unpopular war that most in this country do not believe should have been launched in the first place. Based on this, is the GOP a small tent party because of those stupid and ignorant Christian voters, or because the party adopted a utopian ideology: wars for democracy. Are Christians shrinking the party or was it the policies that David Frum himself promoted and then fed through the president during his tenure as President Bush’s speechwriter?
Surely a change is needed for the Republican Party. However, kowtowing to Democratic talking points is not the solution. Republicans imitated Democrats in their spending habits for the first six years of the Bush administration and were perceived as corrupt as the Democrats of the early 1990s. For it, they were almost unanimously repudiated. For all the fuss made by the moderates and neoconservatives in the party about expanding beyond the base, they are the principal reason the party is in grave danger of losing the base itself.
Have Republicans not noticed that playing like Democrats does not win elections for Republicans? The country has not moved from Center-Right to Center-Left just because democratic socialist Barack Obama thumped donkey-in-elephant’s clothes John McCain. If it was Center-Left, would the gay marriage ban have been passed in California? The country has gotten tired of the Bush years and, rightly or wrongly, John McCain was painted as more of that.
Ron Paul and his message electrified the GOP before and during the primaries in ways no other candidate did. He wanted to bring the troops home, cut the budget, eliminate superfluous departments, replace government intervention with more personal freedom, protect one’s right to life, and return to the Constitution. It was a campaign that put Americans and America first, not corporations and false ideologies. Returning to these bedrock conservative principles should be a good place for the party to start if they wish to return to political relevance.
That is, now that the Republicans have time to sit back and reflect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
