10 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

john edwards and the angry left

it’s becoming a trend for republicans and democrats alike: trying to win the favor of influential bloggers.  there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.  a successful outreach program could not only get your candidate positive press in the blogosphere, but it could also net your guy or gal some already plugged-in local activists willing to assist on the grassroots level. the danger in hiring bloggers, as john edwards has now discovered, is that bloggers have a virtual paper trail, and everything they had previously written is out there for the world to see. pandagon’s amanda marcotte wrote some pretty offensive stuff on her blog, and the responsibility for those posts rests with her, not john edwards.

candidates can only control those they employ. that said, before john edwards’s campaign staff hired ms. marcotte, i would have expected that they would have looked at her previous posts and fully vetted her work before she got the job. if they didn’t, it’s fair to accuse the edwards campaign (at the very least) of negligence. she was hired to represent the edwards campaign and put in charge of his campaign blog. surely they must have known that hiring someone who has written some controversial things in the past could be problematic for the campaign, even if the hire temporarily gained the favor of the angry left bloggers.

i am unconvinced that ms. marcotte would have written anything controversial as an official member of the edwards team. if she had written something controversial in that capacity,  then it would definitely be something that could damage edwards’ campaign. the edwards campaign, as far as i’m aware, hasn’t officially fired her yet. politically i think that it would be a smart move. 

however, they have a right to hire any blogger they want to hire, and if they are willing to deal with the fallout, why should it matter to us on the right? why are we giving edwards advice?  it’s almost like we are trying to save him from himself.  that’s really not our job.  let him make his own choices and deal with the consequences of those choices.  get out of his way and watch the show.

tags: , , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

another left turn

our pal dennis kucinich now has company in the dark horse category of democratic presidential candidates.  we know very little about kucinich except that he’s a socialist nut with a gorgeous wife, and he is also someone who favors immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq. we know even less about fellow dark horse candidate former senator mike gravel. that’s why he faces even longer odds than kucinich (if that’s even possible). so why does this guy deserve a whole post?  i think that some of his ideas are interesting, and even though i disagree with some of those ideas, i think they are worth discussing. i’m also fascinated by his willingness to call out pretty much every democrat who voted for the iraq war right in front of them at the DNC winter meeting.

here’s part of what he said(any italics are mine):

History teaches us that nations fail when leaders fail their people. The decision to invade Iraq without provocation and fraudulently sold to the American people, by a President consumed with messianic purpose, sadly confirms this lesson of history.

The Democrats controlled the Senate on October 11, 2002 and provided political cover for George Bush to invade Iraq. The Senate leadership could have refused to even take up the resolution, or a few Senators who opposed it could have mounted a filibuster.

But the fear of opposing a popular warrior President on the eve of a mid-term election prevailed. Political calculations trumped morality, and the Middle East was set ablaze. The Democrats lost in the election anyway, but the American people lost even more. It was Politics as Usual.

Given the extreme importance of any decision to go to war, and I am anguished to say this, it’s my opinion that anyone who voted for the war on October 11––based on what President Bush represented––is not qualified to hold the office of President.

he’s partially right. the senate leadership could have done more to stop the iraq war from happening. they didn’t do so, because they also believed that saddam was a threat. they had every reason to think so. hillary even did her own research and came to the same conclusion her husband and president bush did — that regime change was necessary in iraq. political calculation wasn’t the motive for the democrats when they let the president invade iraq.  it is the motive for democrats calling for immediate withdrawal from iraq (like dennis kucinich and mike gravel for example). there is another contest going on with all these candidates…who will win the favor of the netroots? how else do you explain this incredible shift to the left by many of these democratic candidates?

Continue reading →

Posted on Tony Blair, UK

should tony blair step down?

for some reason i feel compelled to comment on this. 😉

the recent charges against members of blair’s labour government in the cash-for-honours scandal are troubling. it’s hard to imagine how so many people involved with this current scandal could be arrested without cause to do so, which is why it’s surprising that no charges have been brought against those accused of breaking the 1925 Honours Act. when there is an accusation that contributions to a political party directly bought titles or influenced a policy decision, those accusations should be seriously dealt with. no votes should be bought.  the amount given to a political party should not determine who holds positions of power in the party.  in a perfect world, this would be the case, but we don’t live in a perfect world. those with the money have more control over political parties than those who don’t.  that’s just the way it is. 

as for the unfortunate prime minister, it seems to me that the british people have found him guilty until proven innocent.  tony blair has been prime minister in the UK for 10 years. that’s a long time. they want and need an excuse to get rid of him. he has been questioned about this scandal several times now and each time it was as a witness, not as a suspect in the case. he has not been charged with anything, and of course, denies doing anything wrong. i believe him. i’m probably the only one who does. if he is innocent, as i suspect, then he should welcome the investigation.

the bigger question to me is: who will replace tony blair when he chooses to step down? will it be blair-lite david cameron, fan of the nanny state?  will it finally be gordon brown’s turn to live in number 10? will it be some unknown stealing the spotlight from both of these men? the only prediction i feel confident in making is that the next PM probably won’t be a LibDem.

 

Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Liberals

who said this?

fire up the delorean and check out this blast from the past.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

yes, that was the golden child of the left, president bill clinton, in a 1998 statement on H.R. 4655, also known as the “iraq liberation act”.  so even as far back as 1998, there was support for regime change in iraq. president clinton said nothing different than some of bush 43’s past statements. president clinton came out in favor of freedom for the iraqis, believed that it was possible regardless of ethnic or sectarian conflicts, and even suggested that iraq’s leadership needed to change. it’s easy to question whether clinton did this out of political calculation instead of genuine belief that saddam was a threat.  i’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in the case, since he ordered U.S. strikes on iraqi military and security targets on december 18th, 1998. it should be a serious consideration for any US president to order military strikes, and i would hope that the same was true back then.

there have been previous posts by me and by other bloggers documenting past statements by democrats which show that this “bush tricked me” meme is absolute nonsense.  hillary shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this line. the right doesn’t buy it. neither does the left.

i suppose that senator clinton could be forgiven for not believing anything her husband had previously said or written about iraq, but that’s not what she said to codepink in 2003. (yes, i know it’s a link to rush limbaugh’s website…i would be happy to provide an alternate link if i had one.)

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision. I would love to agree with you, but I can’t, based on my own understanding and assessment of the situation.

she did her own homework.  she consulted with people she trusted. she carefully reviewed the information.  if she got it wrong, i don’t see how she can blame bush for that.  besides, we are in a different place now in the iraq debate.  second-guessing isn’t useful to the current debate on what to do next in iraq. maybe that’s the point for all these revisionist democrats. they want to keep dealing with the past so they can avoid dealing with the future.

tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on Editorials, Iraq, Moonbats

cause confused

it’s fun to mock the dimbulbs who are usually the voices of the anti-war protests. cindy sheehan, jane fonda, the code pink(os), various hollywood celebs like sean penn, and clueless politicians like dennis kucinich (who once proposed a department of peace)…all of these people have credibility problems because of their statements about our president and about this country. stupid protest chants, over-the-top-signs, and various weirdness are all part of their exercise of our right to free speech. so bully for them.  they have had their say.  now it is our turn to speak our minds, and reject this image that the left wants to paint of the american people and their elected president.

we are not imperialists.  we are not fascists.  those who would say so are blinded by hatred and rage for president bush, and they are no longer able to think rationally about what should happen next in iraq. the anti-war crowd doesn’t really want to know what this country would look like if it were ruled by a dictator who would never be subject to a vote on his job performance.  they don’t want to know what it would be like trying to exercise their freedom of speech in a place where you could lose limbs if you ticked off the wrong person. 

i do not deny that there are valid reasons to oppose the iraq war. we should be able to have this discussion in a calm, rational manner without trying to score political points and without throwing out wild unsubstantiated accusations about the character of this country and about our president. can’t we disagree with the president’s policies without impugning the man’s character? apparently that’s too much to ask from these anti-war protestors.

2 Comments Posted on George W. Bush

SOTU: is anyone still listening?

i liked much of what president bush had to say last night. unfortunately for him, i think that many americans have decided that nothing the president could say would change their minds about him and about his iraq policy.  so they are tuning out everything he says, no matter what the subject is. the president’s state of the union address was about more than just iraq.  here’s one subject where the president and i disagree:

on illegal immigration(he still doesn’t get it):

Extending hope and opportunity in our country requires an immigration system worthy of America — with laws that are fair and borders that are secure. When laws and borders are routinely violated, this harms the interests of our country. To secure our border, we are doubling the size of the Border Patrol — and funding new infrastructure and technology.

pardon my skepticism…but there’s no guarantee that the infrastructure will ever be built, including that border fence. it’s nice that we are going to have more border patrol agents, but how about supporting the ones who are already there trying to do their jobs?  republican rep. tom tancredo of colorado(another possible presidential candidate) is also skeptical: “I am disappointed but not surprised that the president has once again chosen to trot out this same old pig, albeit one with a slightly new shade of lipstick.”  what he said.

Yet even with all these steps, we cannot fully secure the border unless we take pressure off the border — and that requires a temporary worker program. We should establish a legal and orderly path for foreign workers to enter our country to work on a temporary basis. As a result, they won’t have to try to sneak in — and that will leave border agents free to chase down drug smugglers, and criminals, and terrorists.

We will enforce our immigration laws at the work site, and give employers the tools to verify the legal status of their workers — so there is no excuse left for violating the law. We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. And we need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country — without animosity and without amnesty.

Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate — so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law.

like i’ve said previously, the president will now have the ability to pass the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that he’s always wanted, thanks to his new friends the democrats. 

it was a fairly ambitious speech, with new proposals on health care, setting new targets for emissions standards, and decreasing gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years. maybe senator mccain was on to something when he embraced david cameron’s tories as ideological twins with the current republican regime. i sure don’t see that much difference between cameron’s views on climate change and the president’s new-found belief in global warming. the tories aren’t looking much like maggie’s tories these days, and the party of reagan has now become the party of compromise, navigating by polls rather than by the strong convictions and principles held by its non-congressional members.

tags: ,

2 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

another WHO? candidate

governor bill richardson of new mexico thinks he wants to be president of this country, and so he’s going exploring with his committee.

why not bill richardson for president?

i’m serious. i really am. he’s certainly got the right kind of experience for the job. besides being the governor of new mexico, his resume includes a stint as a former congressman, as well as a UN ambassador and an Energy Department secretary. that’s a quality mix of foreign and domestic policy experience. i will leave it to policy wonks smarter than myself to determine his effectiveness at said positions, but it’s not a bad place to start for a candidate. a factor certainly not lost on governor richardson is that he would also be a candidate who could get significant support from the same pool of voters that obama could possibly draw from. minorities would have several choices of who to support on the democratic side. he’s a relative unknown to most of america, and that will be a major hurdle to overcome with the three major players (hillary, barack obama, and john edwards).

another daunting challenge for him would be fundraising, especially in a competition with so many big dogs clamoring for every last bone. somehow i just don’t see how richardson can get enough money to make himself a contender.

governor richardson is a quality addition to the democratic presidential race, even with the obstacles he faces. only time will tell whether he has the charisma and the political savvy to take some ground from the frontrunners. i hope he does.

(i’m not endorsing any democrats and do not intend to…i just think they should take a serious look at this guy before rejecting him as their candidate.)

tags: , ,

Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Republicans

follow the yellow brick road

the road to oz sure is getting crowded. on the democrat side so far we have edwards, obama, kucinich, dodd, (maybe richardson), and a few others. lining up for the republicans so far we have giuliani, romney, mccain, duncan hunter, possibly mike huckabee, possibly newt gingrich, and TBA(to be announced). i’m yawning. you can’t see it, but trust me, it’s happening.

saturday we had two more entrants in the political sweepstakes that the presidency of the United States has become.

senator sam brownback (who?) (r-ks) is now in:

My family and I are taking the first steps on the yellow brick road to the White House…

give him points for originality and a clever kansas reference. social conservatives will find much to like about senator brownback on issues of concern to them. it should also please a few people that he opposes the president’s iraq troop surge. is he too far right to gain support of the rest of the republican party who may not take such a hard line on abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and other such cultural issues? maybe. he does support amnesty for illegals, which isn’t a very popular position to hold in today’s republican party. the bottom line for me is that i want someone who can beat hillary. i just don’t think brownback is that guy.

senator rodham also let slip the worst-kept secret in DC relating to her future plans:

I’m in. And I’m in to win.

Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country — about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I’m starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days.

the great hillary wants to chat with us mortals. she is even allowing one lucky soul to have the chance to write a guest post at her new campaign blog. i am so tempted to write something, but i will leave it to more talented bloggers than myself to take advantage of this priceless opportunity. does she really want to know what the average american thinks? i guess we will find out.

just a word of advice to john edwards and barack obama…watch out for the flying monkeys.

tags: , , ,

4 Comments Posted on '08 Election, Democrats, Liberals

amusing

there is so much depressing hard news out there that should be ignored, so that we can focus on something a little more entertaining to those on the right – bashing john kerry.

jonah goldberg:

Don’t let John Kerry run again.

Yes, yes, it’s true: I am biased. I have never been kind to the Brahmin Lurch. After his “botched” joke suggesting that American troops are uneducated losers, I wrote that Kerry “is an awful politician, a human toothache with the charisma of a 19th-century Oxford Latin tutor.” In response, countless readers wrote in to complain that I’d been unfair to Latin tutors.

But balancing out my personal animosity is my professional self-interest. As a conservative columnist, there is nothing I should want more than to see Kerry whack his forehead against the concrete wall of history one more time. Why? Because attacking Kerry is always good copy. And, if my North Star were the GOP’s good fortune, I would light a candle every night at my Lee Atwater shrine in prayer that the Kerry baloney leap once more into the grinder.

After all, he’s the most beatable of Democrats. His political instincts are duller than a prison-cafeteria spork. And never in my lifetime have we seen a presidential candidate with a more thumbless grasp of the way average Americans talk or live…

not bad. read it all here.

even better is the follow-up to that column by mark steyn:

I agree with Jonah’s column on the general ghastliness of the Botoxicated Brahmin, but it’s hard not to see that the Goldberg disparagers also have a point. If Kerry was so unlikeable, why was it so close? If Karl’s Rovebot laboratory had spent years constructing the perfect candidate to run against, it would have looked pretty much like John F Kerry – a vain thin-skinned self-regarding tone-deaf francophile insecure not-quite-blue-blood incoherent anti-war war-hero from a Swiss finishing school with nothing to show for 20 years in the Senate other than getting wrong every foreign policy question of the day and so alien to the habits of his electorate he’s unable to engage in as routine a photo op as eating a hot dog without looking like a Grand Duchess dropping in on the village idiot’s hovel.

ouch. because i know a few democrats (and actually like them), i hope for their sake that kerry gives up any idea that he has of running for president in ’08. it won’t be as close next time if kerry should surprise everybody(including me) and win the democratic nomination. i don’t think that the democrats have anything to worry about here, although i do see a leadership void with the current ’08 candidates that needs to be filled by somebody. who will it be?

tags: ,

Posted on Democrats, Liberals

the left is right (and they are angry)

the democrats will not stop this war, or limit the prosecution of it in any significant way. those who were expecting this to happen will be sorely disappointed. surely the left shouldn’t be surprised about the way the democrats are dealing with iraq, but they are.

here’s one guy, terry michael from the washington times, calling out senator biden:

It’s hard to get out of a deal with the devil.

That’s the congressional Democrats’ dilemma, as they continue to treat the Iraq war as a speed bump on their pathway to the perks of restored power, rather than as a moral question to which voters loudly demanded a moral answer two months ago.

Take Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware. “There’s not much I can do about it,” responded the Democratic “leader” on foreign policy, when asked on one of the Sunday venues for pompous pontificators how he would respond to any attempt by President Bush to escalate the war in Iraq (or “surge,” if you prefer it in Orwellian newspeak).

This is a man who sees a future president during his morning look in the mirror. Sadly, the glass reflects an empty suit who embodies the congressional Democrats’ decision to reduce action on Iraq to a political calculus appropriate for the highway appropriations bill, rather than as a moral imperative to challenge a policy that has sent thousands of twenty-somethings to their deaths in the desert…”

You certainly can do something about it, Senator. It’s called leadership. You rise on the Senate floor. You say you were out of your mind to write a blank check for this hideous misprojection of American military power. And then you propose immediate withdrawal, just slow enough to maximize the safety of the 135,000 mostly young men and women you helped put in harm’s way by your collusion with this elective war. You do what Republican Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon had the guts to do last month, stopping just short of accurately labeling this public policy obscenity a criminal enterprise…

good luck with that, mr. michael. most congressional democrats, even though they may agree with him that the iraq war was a dreadful mistake, still have to deal with the consequences of whatever actions they take. that’s why the democrats could never vote for immediate withdrawal of our troops from iraq. even though they may be skeptical of the president’s surge plan, immediate withdrawal is still an undesirable alternative.

tags: ,