2008

The buzz for the 2008 election is well underway and it feels as though it ought to be over soon. Alas, that simply is not the case.

Elections start too soon in the US. The major competition is for endorsements and money. The 1st quarter reports are due to be out very soon and it will be anti-climatic. What does it really tell us? People that have run before (or spouses) do very well. One maybe a surprise - Senator Barack Obama. He may do very well since he appears as the anti Hillary candidate.

Bill Kristol had an excellent article in the most recent Time magazine. He thought the democrats are looking for the next Robert Kennedy and the GOP is looking for the next Ronald Reagan. No one currently running fits the bill.

One very interesting candidate is ex-Mayor Rudy. Several of the most conservative people I know are for Rudy even though he is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and pro-gun control. To them he is a proven leader and we need one now. All of the social issues are secondary to his leadership ability. He will be interesting to watch.

Tired of arguing with folks who live in an alternate reality?

Libs have a well-constructed alternate reality. Note, a well-constructed alternate reality built on an ever-shifting sand of relativism and what amounts to mythology.

It's frustrating for most folks to debate these people because how do you prove someone wrong whose whole premise is built on faith in what have become commonly accepted "facts" with no basis in reality? For instance, I can argue all day long that tax cuts benefit everyone and actually increase revenue to the treasury.

But if someone has been brainwashed into believing that we live in a static economy--that if someone has a lot of money, it means a whole lot of other people have none--then you cannot persuade them that tax cuts benefit anyone but "the rich"--no matter what evidence you present.

Therefore, for folks who tire of the debate and feel frustrated by the intransigence of liberal dogma:

Don't argue. Just vote.

That's right--most true libs--those that "hate George Bush"--those that think he "lied to get us into a war to benefit his buddies at Haliburton"--those that think Republicans and conservatives are evil incarnate--just ignore them. If you feel the need to reinforce your own views, it's easy enough to slap a lib around for a bit--but then, when frustration mounts, walk away and whisper to yourself--"Believe what you want you nut. I'm voting in November." That's where we'll win the debate. At the ballot box.

New York Times demonstrates just how dangerous transparency is in the hands of liberals...

One thing libbies have gnashed their teeth and wrung their hands over since GWB won office is the "lack of transparency."

One only needs to see how the New York Times handled sensitive information to get an idea of how the nutty left would use that information to undermine any administration it felt wasn't "enlightened" enough.

I can't fathom how the leftists at its helm felt this would engender any trust between it and the American public, much less the White House.

But good--we now have another org to join the likes of the NAACP, Amnesty International, Nobel, International Red Cross, and a whole host of others who have squandered any semblance of objectivity and true service for their unabashed hatred of this administration and revealed their true, political nature.

Polls and Statesmen

How many times have you seen this on a Sunday morning talk show or a cable TV talk show? I am referring to an elected official or an issue advocate ending his comments with "and recent polls show the American people strongly support or oppose this."

Now why is that relevant? Common misconception is that we live in a democracy. Well, we do not, we live in a republic. That is where we elect representatives to office. Citizens do not directly vote on specific issues, unless a state permits popular referendums or constitutional amendments.

Why is it important that the American people strongly support or oppose an issue? Do we not expect more from our elected officials? We elect people to Congress and local legislatures to reflect our views and use their judgement and experience. When members of Congress vote against the "American public" sometimes I call it statesmenship.

You remember statemenship? It is considering an issue and the short and long term impact. By this I do not mean elections as a major conosideration.

Years ago Michael Barone wrote in his outstanding politcal series, "The Almanac of American Politics" that the late Texas Senator John Tower supported high military expenditures because it helps him politicality at home. Barone went on to say Tower was the type of man who would support additional military spending even if it would not help him in future elections. That is a statesman. This worth remembering the next time you vote.

Oh those waskulwy wepubwicans....

I'm sure you've heard of the Republicans trying to tack on an amendment to the "bi-partisan" immigration bill that is ready to come to a vote and the Dems refusing to let it come to a vote.

Any idea what that amendment considers? Something Harry Reid said would "gut" the bill. When asked about it he said "I do not have to explain in any more detail than what I have as why I don't want to move forward," Mr. Reid said. "I don't agree with the amendment. I don't think it's going to benefit this legislation that is pending before the Senate and I'm going to do what I can to prevent a vote on it."

Later, Mr. Reid added, "We're not going to allow amendments like Kyl-Cornyn to take out what we believe is the goodness of this bill."

So what has the Dems so upset? Are we excluding those who aren't gainfully employed from the Guest Worker program? Are we requiring immigrants to gain citizenship before being eligible to vote?

No--it seems the Dems are upset that the amendment would not allow those CONVICTED OF FELONIES to become citizens!

So Dems....with folks like this running your operation, you still think you've got a snowball's chance in Hell of gaining much of anything in November?

I Thank You

There has been plenty of recent discussion of the war in Iraq...should we stay, should we go, who lied, who voted, who's dying, who's living, who's killing, who's benefiting, who's free...

I ran across this video from Christian music artist Rebecca St. James. Please, check it out...it helps us remember who is America...

I Thank You Remix Video

P.S. Rebecca is from Australia...

Pessimism Isn't for Iraq

Reporting from Iraq, David Ignatius has written a couple of wonderful columns on the progress of the war on terrorism. Specifically he addresses the creation of a stable government and the U.S. military’s fighting in a counterinsurgency war in Iraq. You can find his full columns from March 16th and 17th in the Washington Post. A few excerpts are as follows:

Khalilzad [U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad] told me in an interview in his office after Wednesday's session [March 15, 2006] that the talks had produced tentative agreement on two basic points: First, the parties endorsed the idea of a unity government that would include all the major factions. Second, they agreed that this government should have a top-level "national security commission" that would include representatives of all the major political parties.

Khalilzad said Wednesday that the logjam was broken "because people realized that if one side has red lines, all sides will have red lines." He said of this week's atherings: "These are the best meetings of Iraqis I've seen since I've been here."

The Iraqi political dialogue will move into a new and potentially fractious stage soon, when the leaders begin bargaining over who will hold top positions in the new government. Those negotiations could blow apart the fragile hopes for a unity government. But, for a change, pessimism isn't necessarily the right bet for Iraq.

U.S. troops are handing off to the Iraqi army a growing share of the security burden. As the Iraqis step up, the Americans are stepping back into a training and advisory role.

A brutal stress test came on Feb. 22, when Sunni insurgents destroyed a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra. For a moment, Iraq seemed to be slipping toward civil war, but the Iraqi army performed surprisingly well. In many areas Iraqi forces -- backed up by overwhelming U.S. firepower -- helped restore order.

But this is the way this war is supposed to be going. It's a few years late, but the new U.S. strategy is moving in the right direction.