Another exception to the rule

Normally I wouldn't post an entry like this, but I'll make another exception in this case.

Someone calling himself "Whitetrash" who posts regularly over at Yeagley's Journal, and who incessantly refers to the Republican party as the "Repukes", defends Democrat crimes on the basis that "at least they don't thump the Bible at ya while they're committing their crimes", and goofy stuff like that, has asked whether I'm "one of those "sensitive" types" in response to my calling him out on his incessant use of the aforementioned descriptive "Repukes," which, call me crazy, has no potential to change anyone's mind, and makes Whitetrash sound like a complete and deranged idiot.

Like I said to Whitetrash, I don't want to derail Yeagley's post with the personal differences between me and WT. So I invited him to speak his mind here at my blog. (Whitetrash: this is just common courtesy among bloggers.) But instead Whitetrash, while remaining true to his moniker, ignores these common courtesies and continues to address me over at Yeagley's, saying stupid things like President Bush is "my boy", that I (by extension I presume) support the importation of foreigners to this country, and so forth and so on. And challenging me to defend what he assumes are my positions. Idiotic!

Whitetrash, you didn't spend enough time here to find out what I'm truly about. If you had you'd know that there's no love lost between me and the GOP. If you're too lazy to do so, then fine. But you shouldn't be assuming anything -- I'm sure you know what they say about that...

What is it about these people? Is it that if I refuse to use terms like "Repuke" to describe the Republicans, and I call someone out on their obsessive usage of such illegitimate terms, that they assume automatically that I toe the party line? I don't use the derogatory term "Democraps" either, and it offends me, does this mean I'm a dyed-in-the-wool leftist Democrat?

Update: After everything had pretty well died down in the BadEagle thread in question, I tried to post a lengthy comment directed at Whitetrash in which I gave him a bit of a thrashing for his lack of good blogging etiquette, among other things. But the comment didn't make the cut. Nonetheless Whitetrash is still welcome to come here and challenge me on any point he wishes if this is his desire. I'm looking forward to it, Whitetrash.

Read More

Is the GOP lost or found?

Over at VFR Auster has put up an article concerning how the GOP has lost its way; how that it has abandoned its conservative principles (and its conservative base), adopting instead liberalism thinly veiled in conservative lingo.

Auster writes:

Give people greater liberty? How the heck does liberty fit into this list of nanny-state programs promising to supply people's every material need? The answer is that the Republican pols are trying, in their sincere, pathetic way, to get with the statist swing of things established by Hillary and Obama, while still sounding Republican notes. And the commenters at the NRCC site are having none of it. Cole's pronouncement is greeted by the electronic equivalent of hundreds of tomatoes being thrown at him. The commenters want the GOP to be--surprise--a conservative party, not an imitation Democratic party.

It's as though the Republican leadership and the Republican grassroots are in different worlds. The elite remain encapsulated, speaking to specialists who tell them what to say. These losers never try to relate to reality with their own minds. The idea never occurs to them. Reality is not something they live in and try to understand; it's something they seek to manage from a distance, with the help of political technicians. That's the only way to make sense of their spectacular cluelessness. Didn't the uprising against the comprehensive immigration bill last year tell the Republican leaders anything? Don't they leaders understand that conservative voters want the federal government, first and foremost, to protect the nation's basic existence and liberties, not to help people balance work, children, and care for elderly parents?

Have you ever noticed that the more urgently the GOP pols try to come up with a good set of policies, and the louder they trumpet their latest set, the sillier the policies get? It's because they're lost. They're lost because, as said above, they lack their own, independent view of reality, based on their own experience, thinking, discussion, and reading, and so they are dependent on outside and artificial sources, such as opinion polls and consultants, to tell them about it.

While I agree with most everything Mr. Auster says, I would simply ask how it is possible for the elected (GOP or otherwise), directly dependent on electors with insanely minimal qualifications as they are, to adhere to any principles even remotely "conservative?"

Once more, our founding fathers exhibited great wisdom in devising a system of government in which power was distributed, not only among the several branches, but among the several spheres of government; a system in which the electors had to meet stiffer qualifications, and even so, were not directly responsible for electing certain of their representatives. And etc...

I actually think that the GOP has finally found its place in liberal dominated America. Just an alternative liberal party for all those dependents who aren't particularly fond of the other one and those that represent it ... for whatever reason.

There's never a shortage of dependents in a dependent, entitlement society. It seems the GOP is finally beginning to truly understand this concept and apply it. Thus the GOP is competing with the Democrats, not on superior principle and ideas, but on who can pass out the most freebies to their prospective constituents while at the same time treating them with a dignity which they have not earned and do not deserve. What I'd like to know is how the GOP thinks it can win in such a competition? Or does it?

Read More

The "six memo" to State Republican Operatives?

I wrote the other day about the e-news message sent to Oklahoma Republicans in which Matt Pinnell, Director of Operations for the OK Republican Party, wrote that all that is required for "conservatives" is that they remember for the next ten months the number six, and pull the lever for John McCain.

Coincidentally Don Feder writes today over at his Coldsteel Caucus of the Top ten reasons not to vote for McCain (hat tip VFR). And what reason of the ten takes up the number six spot on Feder's list? You guessed it. Mr. Feder must have been subjected to the same "six is all you need to remember" argument, which raises the question in the post title.

Mr. Feder writes:

The moment Mitt Romney “suspended” his campaign and McCain became inevitable, the squawking began: “You mean you’d actually prefer Hillary or Obama (judges)? At least McCain is pro-life (judges). He’s a war hero who’ll ably lead us in the War on Terrorism (judges). Did we mention that he’ll appoint conservative judges?”

But I agree, let's all remember the number six, Feder's number six -- create a bumper sticker, iron press it on some t-shirts, get one of those cool Henna tattoos, whatever it takes for you to remember that number -- as Mr. Pinnell might say.

Read More

Webster's receives "Excellent Blog Award"

I need to acknowledge this as a matter of good form for the moment. I'll get back to you later with my list of ten excellent blogs, which slightly differs from the others out there.

I want to say thank you to Mike T. over at the AFB, and to Vanishing American (Wow!) for naming Webster's on their respective lists. Also, thanks to John Savage over at Brave New World Watch who gave Webster's the equivalent of "honorable mention" (I hope I'm not misrepresenting John's mention) in his post on the subject. Personally I think John has it about right for a couple of reasons, (1) I don't post frequently enough, and (2) most of my postings are not as "meaty" as they should be to qualify Webster's as an excellent blog. But I am working on improving on that, rest assured.

And on that last note, I've been thinking a lot lately about the call going out to conservatives to save the Republican party as a vehicle for conservatism. Without getting too deep into it right now, let me say that perhaps I need to be reminded (or convinced) why it is I'm supposed to be trying to help save the Republican party? It seems to me that in doing so I'm being asked to yield yet more ground to the liberal elements within the Republican party which incessantly work like a cancer to eat away at conservative principles, installing liberal principles in their rotted out places; that it is not the liberal factions which are being asked to back off a bit, but the conservatives. Can someone explain to me at what point in this process the cancerous effects of liberalism cease to make further advances within the Republican party?

At what point does the congregation rise up and demand adherence to the principles of orthodoxy on the threat of leaving the church en masse?

I suppose each of us has his breaking point, or his tolerance threshold. In the case of the Repbublican party and its continual slide into liberalism, I think I've just about reached mine.

I'll try to get back to this subject later, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate any input you might have, agreeable or disagreeable to my main premise. Thanks.

Read More

Who won the GOP debate at the Reagan library?

I watched about the last thirty minutes of the debate on CNN and came away with the impression that Romney did not do much to help himself on this night (I certainly wasn't impressed by him), as well as experiencing that down-in-your-gut sick feeling that Senator John McCain might actually win the GOP nomination.

My personal opinion is that Huckabee stole the show from both Romney and McCain. McCain seemed to be in ultra-attack mode, while Romney was, as the subject of McCain's attacks, equally in defense mode. All in all it was really just an unpleasant scene to watch, and from which I don't think I came away an ounce more informed about either man.

But like I said, I was pretty impressed with Mike Huckabee's performance on several counts. When was the last time you can recall, for instance, that a Presidential candidate, GOP or otherwise, spoke with such passion and clarity and lucidity on the issue of the tenth amendment and why governors of States should have the qualifications requisite to become President much superior to that possessed of national legislators? I know, I know, Huckabee is an open borders man, and that's a huge issue with me. But I have to hand it to him anyway. He impressed me as the most "together" of the candidates on this panel by far.

Anyway, I've selected a few comments on the debate from the Mike Huckabee for President blog and posted them below.

Kevin Tracy writes:

I got to watch the debate in Arlington at a debate party. We were ALL impressed with Governor Huckabee's performance, especially his last answer when he refused play the game of who would Reagan endorse and instead offered his endorsement of Reagan.

Quiverdaddy writes:

With the final debate before Stupor Tuesday behind us, it's time to begin recognizing the candidates for what they are. As I watched, I found McCain and Romney to be petty -- Was it "milestones and deadlines" or something different that means the same thing? Does it really matter?

Huckabee made sense and seemed to be mature enough to realize there are much bigger things at stake than whether Romney had a gaffe. So we have establishment "frontrunners", one of whom is testy and the other defensive. One an authentic hero and the other not authentic at all. A Ken doll vs. a GI Joe doll.

I'm all for climbing out of the Valley of the Dolls and going for a real life person fully capable of serving as our president. I know the Mediocracy has to declare frontrunners early -- to winnow the field down and reduce the damage the eventual nominee will endure during the primaries. To that end, it may be time for the commentators to recognize that principled conservatives -- especially those who take the social issues seriously will not support either of these guys.

Unless the establishment wants McCain, they need to rethink Huckabee. After tonight, I've come to the conclusion that Romney cannot be trusted and should not be considered by anyone who cares what happens to this country in the years after Bush.

Please consider giving him fair coverage and being honest about the "frontrunners".

John Michaels writes:

I know I said this previously, but Governor Huckabee. Since Anderson Cooper extended you an invitation to the Democratic Debate, I think you should take him up on his offer. It would certainly make it a more entertaining debate, and you would most likely end up taking both Obama and Hillary to the cleaners.

Ken Daugherty writes:

Bill Schneider is right that Mike Huckabee talked as the common person, my mother is a dedicated democrate and she's voting for Mike Huckabee.

Donald Fahrenkrug writes:

Gov Huckabee won the debate hands down. And he didn't sit on his hands and let the CNN staff ignore him.
He came across as intelligent, honest, very knowledgeable, and as the only one other than Ron Paul, that made any sense.

McCain was holier than thou, condescending, stupid, just plain horrible. Romney seemed like he just had the latest political computer chip implant. He was plastic and not believable, at all.

I am switching from Ron Paul, a truly great man, a gentleman and a scholar, but he let himself be ignored and just sat there.

Gov Huckabee has my vote. Good Grief America, wake up. We need a man of principle in the White House, and Gov. Huckabee is that man.

Jared Bridgeman writes:

It's amazing that Mike got shutout as far as the amount of screen time, but had a more clear message than the other two candidates due to their consistent blathering. McCain has two mouths, he speaks about homeland security, yet he has a Hernandez as his chief Hispanic vote-getter....I don't think he's even a United States citizen. From the get go, I have been extremely skeptical of Romney too...he seems too much in the pockets of big business and wishy washy on life. All of these things make it so easy to vote for Mike...the only problem is...convincing others in MO before Feb. 5th.

Sondra Ashmore writes:

Until today I had always considered you a solid candidate, but not necessarily one I would vote for. You refusing to be treated as a 3rd class candidate while also respecting the other candidates impressed me. I came to this site for more information as I rethink who I'm going to support on the 5th. I vote for character and I think you showed a lot of that tonight. Well done!

Read More

I think I must be crazy or something

As most of you know, I have an enormous amount of respect for Mr. Auster and the way he defends Traditionalist Conservatism on a daily basis over at VFR. But look at the terms in which he speaks of Mitt Romney in response to a Romney opponent, presumably from the state of Massachusetts where Romney served as Governor:

LA writes:

On other issues, Romney is the only representative of something reasonably like conservatism in the race who has a chance to win the nomination. (emphasis mine)

I'm not sure what "other issues" LA is referring to here, but it is irrelevant to my point. Are these the kinds of terms we're confined to using when discussing the "relative" conservatism of the GOP's new favorite son, Mitt Romney? In order to identify anything resembling conservatism in the man we have to match him up against the other viable GOP candidates, Rudy Guiliani and John McCain, two individuals who would easily pass as liberals were they in the party that they belong in. Doesn't this speak to Romney's non-conservatism more than it does to his conservatism? Doesn't this speak to yet more concessions on the part of true conservatives to those in the Republican party who are not?

Am I just crazy or what? It seems to me that the marriage between conservatism and the GOP is on really shaky ground at this point. I wonder how much longer it can survive?

By the way, my intent here is not to attack Mr. Auster, so please don't go there, I will not join in. All I'm saying is that I find it to be a very sad state of affairs when one of the leading proponents of traditionalist conservatism is relegated to defending a GOP candidate's conservatism in terms like Mr. Auster uses above. What say you?

Read More

Auster asks "the biggie"

This is a continuation of Friday's blog post wherein I ask "Who would be your second choice for President?"

Lawrence Auster has replied in a comment to the entry asking a question of his own, which seems to me to get right to the heart of the matter of whether a traditionalist conservative can ultimately support a 'top tier' GOP candidate in the '08 election...

LA writes:

What if one of the top tier candidates came out with a decent immigration policy—not everything we want, but decent? I define that as opposing amnesty absolutely, stopping illegal immigration, and no increase in legal immigration, or maybe even a reduction in legal immigration. Would you consider supporting such a candidate, even if he was not on board with you on other issues you cared about?

LA continues:

If I saw a candidate who was not on board on the marriage amendment and other social conservative issues , but took a significant position on immigration, I would certainly consider supporting him.

TM replies:

On the question of whether I'd consider supporting a top tier candidate who took a decent position on immigration (by your definition), I'd have to answer that in the affirmative. In fact, such a candidate taking such a position on immigration, as long as he wasn't too far out there on other important issues would become very attractive to me. But I'd have to really weigh his position against his record as well as his character and integrity before I committed to supporting him.

Do you know of anyone who fits this bill, that you believe would stick to this policy once elected?

Vanishing American weighs in:

Terry, I think you've raised the question that occurs to me: would any of the top tier candidates be likely to actually honor a promise to control our borders, reject amnesty, etc.? ... I think all the top tier candidates have shown themselves willing to pander to Hispanics, or at the very least, to work both sides of the street as necessary to win votes.
Put simply, I don't trust them, based on their past records.

TM replies:

VA, your comments concerning the willingness of the top tier candidates to play both ends against the middle in order to win votes brings to mind Katie's Dad's recent blog entry where he shows decidedly that the GOP doesn't need the Hispanic vote, and in fact pandering to it is actually losing the GOP precious and vital support from its base, in spite of what Linda Chavez and the AMF says.

TM continues:

This seems like one of those "could I, would I, should I" questions. Could I support a top tier candidate taking up the Auster prescription for immigration policy? Would I support him? Should I support such a candidate? And it all boils down to the same answer with me; and this is where I agree with the Dobsonian principled approach...

As Dobson said in his answer to Sean Hannity's question concerning Rudy Giuliani's claim that he'll appoint constructionist judges as president, why didn't he do it when he had the opportunity to appoint conservative judges in New York? With regard to the other top tier candidates, Romney and Thompson, it's also a matter of character and integrity; a matter of what their political record indicates they'll do as opposed to what they say they'll do.

Some will certainly argue that if the candidate in question takes the Auster position on immigration, then at least we'll have something to hold him to irregardless of whether he intends to keep the promise or not. I think there's some merit to that argument, particularly as it relates to the candidate's first term in office should he be elected. But if any of you would argue strongly from that position in support of one of the top tier candidates, I'd like to hear what you have to say.

John Savage writes:

I'm pretty much with VA. If one of the candidates made a credible promise, I could imagine changing my position, but I just don't see that happening. In particular, I think I'd have to see a convincing statement from Tancredo about why he turned around and started believing in the nominee, since he currently thinks all the top-tier guys are phonies. For instance, Tancredo has criticized Romney's positions on immigration as a classic example of his "conversion on the road to Des Moines".

I'd also add that a decent position on immigration for me would have to include some sort of recognition that allowing Muslim immigration is tantamount to importing the jihad into America. I think the chances of us getting that from one of the top candidates is really low.

Read More

Who would be your second choice ... for President?

(Note: The discussion initiated by Mr. Auster's question on supporting a top tier candidate has been moved here.)

Just on a quick roundup of the relatively few blogs that I frequent, I note that all of them express a preference, or a pretty solid number one candidate for the presidency. While none of them, including this blog, seem to have a solid number two...

I'll start the roundup over at the AFB. Fellow AFBer Mike Tams seems to be leaning toward Mitt Romney as his second choice. He would probably prefer someone like Duncan Hunter to Romney, but Romney seems to appeal to Mike very much. I don't think Mike has totally committed himself to Romney as yet, but this seems to be the direction in which he is leaning.

Over at VFR, Lawrence Auster has repeatedly endorsed Tom Tancredo. In this recent VFR entry Auster mentions both Fred and Romney as preferable to Giuliani. But he doesn't tell us which of the two (Fred or Romney) he would prefer.

Meanwhile, VA has said many good things about Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. These two seem to be VA's top two candidates, but it's still a bit unclear in what order she would put them. I tend to think, from what I read at VA's, that she would place them in the order that I've placed them in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The Maritime Sentry strongly endorses the candidacy of Mike Huckabee. But I don't recall reading there an endorsement of a second choice or preference.

I'm not at all sure about Wise Man's Heart. I don't know whether Hermes has broached this topic or not. But I'll go check it out. (Hat tip to John Savage for reminding me of this post over at WMH, where Hermes expresses his like of Tancredo and Paul)

John Savage at Brave New World Watch is a strong supporter of Tom Tancredo. Don't miss his lengthy roundup of Tancredo related blog posts in his right sidebar. But like the rest of us, John has yet to name a second preference from the list of candidates.

And to complete the roundup, here at Webster's I've endorsed Tancredo on a number of occasions as my first choice. I've never said, however, who my second choice would be.

I don't think I can nail down a second choice just yet. I need to do a lot more research and reflection on the remaining candidates. I think Ron Paul is interesting, but at this point I don't think I could name him a second choice. Giuliani isn't even on my radar as someone I could ever cast a sacred vote for. And Fred doesn't rate much higher with me at this point than Giuliani. I don't think Fred can make up any ground with me either, but we'll see.

Basically I'm left to decide between Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul as secondary choices to Tom Tancredo. And like I said, I'm just going to have to commit to doing a lot more research on all three of these candidates.

In any event, I can say this. If Giuliani were to get the Republican nomination (which seems to be the general consensus at this point) I could not vote for the man. I would be forced to vote third party, or to write in a candidate. This is a scenario where someone like Ron Paul might actually get my vote. But if I were forced to write in a candidate, Tancredo not being on the ballot, then I would write in the name Tom Tancredo, and let the chips fall where they may.

Read More

Public Service Announcement

I received a message to my inbox from the Oklahoma GOP which informs me that Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani will be making two stops in Oklahoma this Friday. And that these events are FREE and OPEN to the public.

My response?:

Whoopti-doo!!

Read More

No Cutting In Line

VA has a nice post up this morning lamenting the fact that we now have such GOP 'top tier' presidential contenders as Giuliani climbing on the 'no amnesty for illegals' bandwagon. VA rightly discerns, in my opinion, the true motives of candidates like Giuliani, and perhaps even Mitt Romney as political expediency, not a genuine concern for the dire immigration situation in this country...

Perhaps it's true that some of these so-called 'leaders' of ours didn't formerly understand the extensiveness of the immigration situation here in the United States, and are now really coming to grips with the situation and the need to address it. I will give them all benefit enough to admit that this is indeed a possibility. But truly, y'all, is it wise of us, while being 'fair' to all the candidates in giving them the benefit of the doubt on this question, to allow that tendency of ours of being fair to everyone translate into considering their candidacies as legitimate? I don't think so, how about you?

While I'm glad to see such 'high profile' individuals like New York's former mayor at least expressing some level of sanity on the idea of giving amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country, I still view this 'conversion,' and others like it with a great deal of skepticism. Indeed, in Giuliani's case in particular, I think it to be politically motivated rather than a true honest-to-God conversion. And I think he lets the cat out of his own bag of tricks.

In her post, VA quotes Mayor Giuliani as having said this recently:

If they ever wanted to become citizens, I would say they would have to pay a fine so it's not amnesty," Giuliani said. "Also they have to get at the back of the line, not get ahead of anybody else."

And as I said in a comment to her post directed at this specific quote, 'what kind of a school-boy, lunch-line position is that to take from someone who's supposedly a 'great American Patriot, Statesman, and Hero???'

Ladies and Gentlemen, I implore you to not be fooled by this kind of rhetoric coming from the likes of Mr. Giuliani. That's nothing more than saying “it's not fair for you to be at the front of the line since you're here illegitimately to begin with -convenient position to take, isn't it, given that almost everyone can agree with that- but since you're already here, we insist that you take your place at the back of the line; and oh, by the way, let's have some of that lunch money you got there.”

Like I implied in my comments to VA's post, that sort of a position (coming from a 'johnny-come-lately on this issue candidate like 'America's mayor) seems to me to indicate that Giuliani would sell his country off for little of nothing, and in the very process try to convince you and me that he's 'tough' on immigration for the sake of political expediency.

Well, I ain't buyin' it, Mr. Mayor! And I'll tell ya this, if I have anything to do with it whatsoever, you'll never be elected to the presidency of these United States!

Perhaps you and others truly are experiencing a change of heart on this issue, among others. Fine. But while you go through that process of unlearning that which has become rather habitual for you and they, you oughta be relegated by the voting public to low levels of government servanthood, if any at all. Indeed, I would say that if you had the character that a position like the Presidency requires to be entrusted to you safely, you would admit to yourself and to the general public that such a change of heart at such a time as this would rather tend to disqualify you from serving as President, or in any national political capacity for that matter.

So, my advice to you, Rudy, is to take some time off. Recuse thyself from the race based on the evident fact that you're not qualified, sir. Another way of saying it would be this, follow your own newly to be had inclination on 'immigration reform' and move thyself to the back of the line; you're at the front illegitimately.

In other words, begone child, there's enough confusion to go around without your adding more to it.

-DW

Read More

Tancredo On The Issues

I've mentioned this site to y'all before, but I'll mention it again because it contains some good information on the respective presidential contenders. Below is a sample of Tancredo's answers to the questions posed to candidates at the 2007 Republican debate at St. Anselms College, all of which I've copied and pasted from the link provided...

On Immigration Reform:

Q: You opposed the immigration reform compromise calling it "the worst piece of legislation to come down the pike in a long time." What are the consequences for the country?

A: They are incredible and they are disastrous. I have consistently tried to impress upon the American public the seriousness of this issue. We're not just talking about the number of jobs that we may be losing, or the number of kids that are in our schools and impacting our school system, or the number of people that are abusing our hospital system and taking advantage of the welfare system in this country--we're not just talking about that. We're talking about something that goes to the very heart of this nation-- whether or not we will actually survive as a nation. And here's what I mean by that. What we're doing here in this immigration battle is testing our willingness to actually hold together as a nation or split apart into a lot of Balkanized pieces. (emphasis mine)

On Non-Interventionism:

Q: [to Paul]: Should the 9/11 attacks have changed our non-interventionist policies?

PAUL: No. [Abandoning our tradition of] non-intervention was a major contributing factor. They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.

TANCREDO: Whether Israel existed or didn't, whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion (emphasis mine), at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.

On the Survival of Western Civilization:

Q: Let's say terrorists mounted 3 successful suicide attacks in the US, and a 4th attack was averted and the terrorists captured. How aggressively would you interrogate those being held?

A: We're talking about it in such a theoretical fashion. You say that nuclear devices have gone off in the US, more are planned, and we're wondering about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I'm looking for "Jack Bauer" at that time, let me tell you [referring to the counterrorism agent in TV's "24", who uses any methods needed to achieve desired results]. We are the last best hope of Western civilization. And so all of the theories that go behind our activities subsequent to these nuclear attacks going off in the US, they go out the window because when we go under, Western civilization goes under. As president you should make sure 1) it doesn't happen, but 2), you better respond in a way that makes them fearful of you because otherwise you guarantee something like this will happen. (emphasis mine)

On Abortion:

Q: Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?

ROMNEY: Absolutely.
BROWNBACK: It would be a glorious day of human liberty and freedom.
GILMORE: Yes, it was wrongly decided.
HUCKABEE: Most certainly.
HUNTER: Yes.
THOMPSON: Yes.
McCAIN: A repeal.
GIULIANI: It would be OK to repeal.
TANCREDO: After 40 million dead because we have aborted them in this country, that would be the greatest day in this country's history when that, in fact, is overturned. (emphasis mine)

There's more information there on Tancredo, as well as the other candidates on their respective pages, so go check it out.

One final note, according to the graph depicting Tancredo's placement at the bottom of his page, which may be accessed simply by scrolling to the bottom of his page, Mr. Tancredo and I fall very close to one another on this chart. Having taken the quiz several times now, I find it to be pretty accurate as to my placement given that I consistently fall within the same block on the chart just to the right of Tancredo...when I answer the questions honestly, that is.

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 3)

The first and second editions to this series having posed what we've now come to know as the 'big question' still under our investigation, the second of which having concerned itself with what we might learn of Paul's character, his integrity, and how those match up against what the man is saying publicly about himself. You will recall that in the first and second entries we uncovered that Ron Paul thinks of himself as 'the champion of the Constitution,' and I think our investigation thus far has called more into question whether this can truly be said of the man than it has served to answer it either in the affirmative, or in the negative. Therefore, let us keep the question in mind as we continue to uncover who this Ron Paul character truly is.

In this edition, once more keeping in mind this question of whether Ron Paul may rightfully claim to himself the appellation 'champion of the Constitution,' let us take our investigation to yet another level. Let us lay a foundation to begin to open more to exposure what would appear to be Paul's underlying principles; that which governs the man in the way he conducts himself in his public life, and most probably in his private life as well. And let me say for the record that I'm interested in Ron's private life no more or no less than I am any other serious presidential contender's private life. Which is to say that a person's private conduct will generally teach us something about how he/she will conduct himself publicly. But Ron Paul has an extensive record of public service that we may appeal to, and it is there that we shall continue to concentrate our efforts within this series...

All of you know by now that Ron Paul is the Congressman representing the 14th district of the great State of Texas. And of course we're all well aware by now of the fact that Congressman Paul thinks of himself as the 'champion of the Constitution,' as has been restated numerous times. As far as the latter goes it seems to me that anyone serving in his capacity might (justly to their own minds) claim to themselves that distinction. And on that note I'd bet that many who serve in that capacity or at that level of government tend to think of themselves to some extent or the other in that way.

It seems to me natural, therefore, to question further whether this distinguishing characteristic is itself as worthy or as noble as it sounds? Certainly at first blush the appelation 'champion of the Constitution' seems to be a pretty laudable distinction reserved as it were for those select few having marked themselves worthy of the high thoughts which its mere mention naturally brings to mind. But on a closer inspection is the descriptive truly as noble and as worthy an appellation as it seems on the surface? Does the question here posed not depend on what one considers to be the 'core principles' and 'values' which the Constitution itself is founded on? What if one believes that the Constitution is a 'living, breathing document,' subject itself to the rapid changes of society? Would the person believing that about the Constitution not think of a 'champion' thereof as someone who recognized this quality inherent to the document; someone whose public life is marked more or less by a recognition of this principle as well as a voting record to support and perpetuate it? These are the kinds of questions we must keep at the forefront of our thoughts whenever we entertain the notion that one may rightly be described as 'the champion of the Constitution.'

Now, if it appears to some that I'm being a little obsessive about this idea of championing the Constitution, I can only say that it appears to me that this is a very important question which needs to be answered to the fullest extent possible. Indeed, I think that everything about the man under our investigation more or less centers around this idea about him. The concept itself extends to the furthest reaches of who this man Ron Paul really is. And since our series is itself intended to answer this most fundamental of questions, then it follows that to answer that question of who the man truly is, we must concern ourselves as particularly as possible with this attribution he notably claims to himself. Therefore we may expect that the remainder of this series will in one way or the other revert back to this fundamental question of whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be 'the champion of the Constitution.'

At the site "On the Issues" you may have noted at the bottom of Paul's page that he ranks as a 'moderate libertarian' on the VoteMatch chart. There is also a quiz provided for you to take to see where on that chart your political philosophy falls. Most of you can probably guess pretty accurately as to where you'd wind up on the chart, but I would still encourage you to take the quiz as a way of matching your position up against Paul's as well as some of the other candidates. And yes, in case you were wondering, I did take the quiz, and I wound up (not at all surprisingly to myself) way to the right of Paul being myself denominated a 'hard-core Conservative.' I ended up in the same block on the chart as the 'Constitution party' candidate, so it would appear for me, if this chart is at all accurate, that the description 'champion of the Constitution' would better fit that party's candidate than it would Ron Paul. And this is what I mean about the accuracy of the appellation being more or less 'relative to' one's political philosophy. While I believe strongly in the idea of there being 'absolute truth,' as opposed to there being 'relative truth,' still I understand that one's 'truth,' whatever it may be, is measured against some standard for determining it.

But to get on with our investigation now that we've hopefully managed to establish some guidelines that will be helpful to us in discovering who the man truly is, let us narrow our scope to yet another of Paul's apparently guiding philosophical approaches to government...
While I can't say that one's 'moderation' ranks high with me on certain things, particularly on political matters, I will admit that Paul's brand of moderation does have a certain appeal to it. And while Paul's brand of 'moderation' is in some ways intriguing, we must not fail to acknowledge that the term 'moderate' in his case is a qualifier of his 'libertarianism.' Irregardless of where one searches, Paul's underlying libertarian philosophy is everywhere notable, at least insofar as I've independently conducted my own investigation of the man.

John Savage and I recently had a discussion about the differences between a traditionalist's idea of 'self-government,' and that of a libertarian. And while I may have gone too far in stating somewhat emphatically that libertarians generally concern themselves not with how one's exercise of 'self-determination' affects others, nonetheless I believe that the common libertarian refrain on this subject - no one has the right to harm another in the exercise of self-determination - falls pretty short of an actual commitment to the idea. (Notable here as well is the oft repeated libertarian refrain that they seek 'the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary.' We've had that discussion before at the AFB, but I'll repeat here that the refrain itself seems to me to be somewhat overly vague. Not to mention that as stated it would seem to apply to libertarians in no particularly exclusive way, for I too seek the maximum amount of liberty with the least amount of government necessary. And I'd be willing to bet that many of you who would not denominate yourselves 'libertarians' believe nonetheless in the concept.).

But that's only relevant here as pertains to Mr. Paul and how strictly he holds to the libertarian idea of 'self-government,' as I said, to be distinguished from the Conservative idea of same. In this sense is Paul rightly denominated a 'moderate libertarian?' That is, can it be said of Paul that his idea of 'self-government' is less extreme than the more 'radical' elements of the libertarian philosophy? Further to the point, can Paul's idea of self-government be said to be closer to a traditionalist conservative's idea of same than that of a strong libertarian? His position on the chart seems to indicate that his idea of 'self-government' would fall virtually in the center of a triangular shaped chart consisting of points liberal, conservative, and libertarian. But what does this mean within the context of our investigation?I should like to cover that ground more particularly in the next installment of this interesting series. And while I know that I'm raising more questions than I am providing answers for, I trust that you'll agree that these are worthy questions which a proper investigation into the depth of our subject does indeed warrant.

Hopefully to this point in our investigation we've at least managed to raise important questions about who this man really is which will ultimately lead us to a more thorough pursuit and investigation into the matter. One thing that I think cannot be said is that we've wasted any efforts thus far. So, until the posting of the next edition, I bid you all a happy and an affectionate: good hunting!...

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 2)

In the first edition to this series I posed the 'big question' which you see in the titles of that post, and again in this one: Who is this Ron Paul Character? In addition, I gave you some bit of insight as to what you might expect in this as well as future editions to this series. And of course you'll recall my mentioning that the series itself, once completed to my satisfaction, would likely contain anywhere from three to five separate entries or more.

But before we get on with the meat of the subject let me also make you aware that I'll be embedding links from post to post in the series to assist anyone who happens to link up to a single entry, yet is unaware that there are others in the series. The 'Part 1,' Part 2,' and etc., designations should help us in that regard, but I imagine that before all is said and done here there will be the distance of days as well as unrelated topics separating the connected entries. Therefore, if you happen to be a regular reader, just ignore the minor inconvenience this presents you. Otherwise, use the provided links when needed, that's what they're there for.

And now, let us begin our investigation into who this Ron Paul Character truly is, as opposed perhaps to who we've been led to believe he is by himself and/or by others...

It seems like as good a place to start as any to open our investigation by attempting to answer one question which I posed in Part 1 of this series: Is Ron Paul really who he says he is? And a good place to open that investigation up would be, it would appear, to determine what it is that Ron Paul is saying about Ron Paul, as opposed to what others are saying about him. As to that latter part, we will most assuredly get to it later. But for this entry let us concentrate our efforts overall, once again, on what the man is saying about himself publicly.

In the opening paragraph to Part 1 of this series you may recall that I described Ron Paul as a "self-styled Champion of the Constitution," and that I later made a second mention of this designation. My source for that information about Rep. Paul, as well as other information about the man destined to make its way into this series directly or indirectly, is a site which I provided a link to in one of my posts a couple of weeks back. If you'll click on the link to that site provided here again for your convenience, it's just a matter of properly navigating the site (which I'll leave to you to do) to get to that revelation of Mr. Paul about himself.

I'll admit here that I'm rather turned off by individuals claiming to themselves such distinctive attributes as Mr. Paul chose to do at the late Presidential debate in June of this year. Truly it seems more appropriate to me to allow others to make these bold claims about oneself while the designee himself concentrates his efforts on supporting the claim rather than asserting it. It may just be a matter of a display of improper decorum, but it still tends to raise suspicions in me as it has something of an offensive quality to it. To be fair to Paul though, I understand the desire and the need to separate and distinguish oneself from the rest of the pack in a public debate between Republican Presidential contenders wherein one might find himself, as Paul, a relative unknown certainly must have - little recognized. Still, the traditionalist in me finds it somewhat distasteful for a 'bonified leader' under virtually any circumstances to engage himself in such self-promotional displays as Paul here did. My idea of a 'true leader' in this regard being someone possessing internal qualities of character which would rather tend to resist such impulses, strong as they may be under certain circumstances. But I can let that slide if in fact Paul truly is what he says he is - "The Champion of the Constitution." So is he? Is Ron Paul truly THE champion of the Constitution as he says? That's the question before us, and to answer it properly we must take our investigation of the man to yet another level.

Of course the preceding paragraph reveals, if nothing else, that to this point in my own investigation of Rep. Paul he's rather behind the eight ball so to speak given that he has at least one strike against him and none as yet for. So, for our purposes here our subject (Paul) has some ground to make up. This shouldn't present him with too much of a problem given that his career in public service has been rather marked, if I may say so, by this very 'champion of the Constitution' description afforded himself. And in point of fact this very thing is what has led to some of his Congressional colleagues casting other laudable characteristics at his feet. Ron Paul has been referred to (among his colleagues mind you), among other things, as 'the most principled man in Congress.' Further, it is said of Mr. Paul that he simply will not vote for a bill which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution. And there's certainly something respectable to be said of that quality which he seems to possess in a much superior way to the vast majority of his Congressional peers. While it may be said of the majority of his colleagues that 'they rarely saw a bill they wouldn't vote for,' it might be said of Ron in contrast that 'he never saw a bill that didn't raise suspicions as to its specific authorization by the Constitution.' As for me, that latter is a truly distinguishing mark that at very least evens the score for Ron once more.

Having now brought our investigation back, in fairness to Ron, to more of an even keel let us proceed by investigating Ron's principled stand on some of the key issues. Once again I would direct your attentions to the link provided above. Having successfully navigated the site to Paul's page, and under the heading "Ron Paul on Principles and Values," we find Congressman Paul's 'principled' belief as pertains to the first amendment.

The question is posed:

"You ran for president once before as a Libertarian. What do you say about this whole issue of church and state and these issues that are coming forward right now?"

And here is Paul's answer:

"I think we should read the First Amendment, where it says, "Congress shall write no law." And we should write a lot less laws regarding this matter. It shouldn't be a matter of the president or the Congress. It should be local people, local officials--we just don't need more laws determining religious things or prayer in school. We should allow people at the local level. That's what the Constitution tells us. We don't need somebody in Washington telling us what we can do, because we don't have perfect knowledge. And that's the magnificence of our Constitution and our republic. We sort out the difficult problems at local levels and we don't have one case fit all. That's why we shouldn't have it at a central level."

Ignoring the obvious misquote of the first amendment, assuming that Paul is simply paraphrasing here, I'll concentrate more on the meat of what he's saying. If I understand him correctly he seems to be saying that he believes that the 'establishment clause' in the first amendment should be read and applied more literally than seems to be the habit of that body as well as that sphere of government which he finds himself a member, albeit an often dissenting member of. On this point I would agree with Paul wholeheartedly, and notably to this investigation on this very point he seems to hold indeed to the distinguishing designation: Champion of the Constitution. However, this to me is something of an oddly simplistic view coming from a man having been the particular recipient of such accolades from different quarters of being a 'true intellectual.' I think to get a true and accurate reading of exactly where Congressman Paul stands on this issue of church and state we need the question to be posed in a more particular sense. Since the context of a Presidential debate does not necessarily lend itself to expounding upon a stated view of a given subject, we must ultimately take our investigation elsewhere.

However, Congressman Paul has given us herein enough of an insight into his overall view of the subject to warrant, in my opinion, some measure of breaking down the elements of his answer in that context in order to assist us in answering our own questions which may well come to mind in reading his answer. As an example my mind was naturally led to ask, given the fact that we do have laws in place restricting the exercise of religion, would Paul consider it appropriate for the Congress to 'write' laws consistent with the non-prohibition clause of the first amendment? In other words, if the first amendment may be read in part as "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." and in light of the first amendment's express prohibition on Congress to 'make no law respecting an "establishment" of same,' would Congressman Paul consider it proper (or 'constitutional) of the federal Congress to write laws which tend to encourage and assist in Congress' resisting the apparently overwhelming urge among its members to create laws in actuality restricting the 'free exercise of religion?' And if so, should that 'writing of such laws' at the federal level tend to reflect the general sense of the People, or should it tend more to protect 'the free expression of' minority religions represented by relatively small segments of this society at the expense of the majority and the 'free expression' of its religion? What little I'm able to glean from his statement leads me to believe that he thinks it improper of Congress, and perhaps actually "unconstitutional" to write and pass any law 'respecting' religion period, effecting an 'establishment' thereof or otherwise.

I think Paul more or less answers these questions of ours, though, when he offers his thoughts on how best and at what level of government these questions should be dealt with generally speaking. Here again I tend to agree with Paul on the idea that these questions should be dealt with in more particular ways at the State and local levels of government. But that's just not the reality of our situation at present. You have to have a strong federal stucture in place to support this idea, and that we just don't currently have. More often than not these questions when dealt with in a more appropriate way at the lower levels are challenged in the courts and at length the federal government decides the issue on a grand scale. And in this process the central authority tends rather to side with the minority (often a very small and insignificant minority) on this question of the free exercise of one's religion.

By virtue of this fact we are rather left with bare remnants of the original design of this government which cannot be said to have possessed any appreciable fear or determination that it should arm itself and its minority citizens against encroachments on its powers and their rights via restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian Religion in particular. While it is all well and good to remind ourselves from time to time of the original intent of the founding generation in demanding a 'bill of rights' be attached to the Constitution, we should also, and in compliance with the underlying reasons for those reminders of ours, seek out practical means for returning our government to that original intent while in the meantime working to halt the degenerative process so pervading our government and her institutions. In this sense I think it possible that Ron Paul may more accurately be said to be something less than 'THE champion of the Constitution,' for a true and a committed 'top of the food chain champion' of anything or any worthy cause, would firmly adhere to the genuine sense in which the cause in question is to be maintained and furthered. And I think it may be said of the first amendment that a genuine reading of same would yield that indeed the federal Congress, while being expressly forbidden from 'making any law respecting an establishment of religion,' is rather encouraged to, than being prohibited from making laws of a non-prohibitionary type with respect to the 'free exercise thereof.' For what good is the statement "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion..." without the force of law to uphold and guarantee it against violations of the principle? Some may claim that the Constitutional provision itself is enough. But this does not square with the reality that the provision of the first amendment has proven to be of little use in prohibiting the actual practice thereof.

These laws should of course, as I said, reflect the general sense of the citizenry while taking into account the necessity of preserving our form of government in very particular ways as it cannot be stated too often nor too forcefully the irrefutable fact that the general consists itself in particulars. So, while I tend to agree with Paul's approach as stated, that these questions should be dealt with at more of a local level under a 'more perfect' scenario, I should think that given our current situation on this question the reality evinces that Paul's approach to addressing this question, as stated above, while it may have been an appropriate and a capable one 150 years ago is certainly less than so now. I should further think that such an approach, once more, given our current situation, would rather tend to provide opponents of the Constitution inroads to overthrowing its sacred principles which we must maintain at all costs.

If Congress is considered by its members and by the People in authority over them authorized by the Constitution to 'write laws' on questions of religion and morality, which I certainly think may well be said to be the case, and if in fact a proper reading of the Constitution itself does yield that conclusion to be consistent with the truth of the matter (not necessarily with the way it is applied) then to me the better, not to mention the more 'Constitutionally consistent' approach is to place less emphasis on what one considers a prohibition on that authorization, and rather to use one's 'pulpit' to emphasize the duty of Congress to write such laws adhering to the true sense of the Constitution, and to the general sense of the population under its governance. Does it rise to the level of an 'establishment of religion' for the federal Congress to acknowledge by law the right of the State and local authorities to themselves authorize prayers in the local schools? Or is it rather that such laws strictly adhere to that clause of the first amendment which has in it an implicit authority for the federal Congress to guarantee by law that it (the federal Congress) shall never write or endorse a law 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' in schools or elsewhere? Is this not the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read? Is this not the restriction on itself that the federal Congress is bound to acknowledge lawfully as inplicit in the first amendment? If indeed it is, and if Paul holds a view contrary to this, then it follows that it must be said of Paul on this issue that he is wrong. And if that is the case, then we have at least one reason to believe that Congressman Paul is not the 'champion of the Constitution' that he claims himself to be, as well as further calling into question his qualifications for being the next President of the United States. On the other hand, if this is the case, and if Paul's statement reflects a view consistent with the genuine sense in which the first amendment is to be read, as well as lawfully applied, then it may be said of Paul that he is in this particular truly what he says he is - THE Champion of the Constitution - as well as securing to himself his rightful place among the Presidential contenders.

In the foregoing discourse we have endeavored to discover whether Ron Paul, while certainly being rightly denominated in some sense "A" 'champion of the Constitution,' may be wrongly denominating himself "The" champion of the same, at least in the sense that we've investigated the matter here. As I said before I can forgive Paul for what I consider to be an inappropriate display of self-promotion IF indeed he can truly be said to be what he claims to himself, though I would certainly advise him against restating the offensive gesture too forcefully as well as too often. During the course of this investigation, and for the reasons offered here among others we will surely cover, my mind is led to question and further investigate whether Ron Paul may truly be said to be all he says he is. Therefore, my conclusion to this point in our investigation is that Paul inadvisedly expressed something of a rather high opinion of himself as well as of his own sense of self-importance in his introduction of himself at the late debate, unnecessarily raising doubts in the minds of some, including myself. And while I'm sure that this conclusion of mine is likely to bring some unfavorable comments my way, nonetheless this is my conclusion. But as I said in Part 1 of this ongoing series now well underway, I welcome your input as my conclusions about Paul and his statements may certainly prove to be misguided as well as misplaced.

In any event I would once again encourage you to leave a thoughtful comment to this post whether you happen to agree with the conclusions I've drawn or not. And also that you would return to read the third edition to this series which will be coming shortly. In the meantime, and if you haven't done so yet, do utilize the link I've provided here to further educate yourself on this man, Congressman Ron Paul. I look forward to your participation as certainly and as has been promised, this series while being paused for the moment, is most assuredly:

To be continued....

-DW

Read More

Who is this Ron Paul Character? (Part 1)

Up until just recently I had never heard the name Ron Paul before, or at least I don't recollect ever having heard it. And I really wonder whether a significant percentage of traditionalists had ever heard of this self-styled "champion of the Constitution" prior to that fateful moment when he and Guiliani famously butted heads back a few months ago.

Is Ron Paul who he says he is? Is he the man that others, advocates and adversaries, portray him to be? Can it truly be said of this Champion of the Constitution designate that he is indeed the foremost in that regard of all the presidential contenders? These I think are very relevant questions. And though I do not wish to detract in any way from the excellent work already done on the subject by others whom I highly respect, I should like to at least open an investigation independently done for my own personal purposes, as well as for those readers interested in learning more about the respective contenders perhaps having yet to discover certain already available means to assist them in that endeavor...

In doing so I eagerly invite and implore the readers of this entry (as well as others that will follow on the subject) to engage the conversation so as to inject some degree of proper balance into what in some instances may well amount to an actual misrepresentation of Paul's position on a given issue, and/or, a miscalculation on my part or the parts of others here engaging the conversation, of Rep. Paul's core principles and how they may be good or bad for the country, particularly if elected President, in our estimations.

To this point I have done some 'extensive' independent research on Ron Paul. And I've used various means provided and available to me from a variety of sources to assist me in doing so. Yet, I do not consider my investigation as yet to be anywhere close to exhaustive. Therefore, my approach to this question of "who is Ron Paul?," as regards this blog's purpose (contained in the left sidebar under the heading "blog description"), and as my mind foresees it, is likely going to consist of a 3, 4, perhaps even 5 part series on the subject, this post being the first in the series.

I don't want to put any firm number to it though because I'm simply not sure how many editions the series will ultimately prove to consist of beyond the absolute certainty I have that it will consist of more than this one; at very least two. Depending on the level of involvement from the readership among other variables not precisely predictable, certain questions might be raised which would require one or more additional posts than would be necessary or proper in the absence of those questions, concerns, refutations, or whatever. I will state, however, that while avoiding fixing a firm number to it, I will not allow the series to extend beyond a number of posts that I would loosely describe as a 'maximum,' it being my persuasion that a pretty thorough investigation of the whole view of the matter may be conducted within the confines of a 'high-end' number of posts. Anything over-and-above of which would most probably amount to little more than redundancy.

I should like to make clear as well that I do not intend to get to the meat of the question(s) in this post, as you discerning readers have probably already realized. I have chosen to open the conversation this way for a specific reason which I don't feel it necessary to share at this point. I imagine most of you can figure it out for yourselves anyhow, so there's really no need in my explaining it to you. However...

Being myself attached to the idea of 'capitalism' insofar as it adheres to a moral code of conduct inhibiting the tendency to excess, I own that I should like to utilize the principle to attract a wider readership via what I'm betting will be an increase in traffic to the blog given the level of interest in Paul's campaign. And incidentally, if you're feeling somewhat betrayed having now read this revelation of mine, I would simply remind you that neither is anyone forcing, nor is anyone even asking you to stick around if in fact you don't like what you see and read here. I would also point out that this is a more honest and a straight-forward approach than some bloggers would be willing to initiate. And I trust that most of you will see in this honest approach a quality that is somewhat endearing as well as perhaps refreshing. If not then I bid you a respectful and an affectionate farewell wishing you the best in your continued searches and pursuits on this as well as other subjects of interest. On the other hand, if you do in fact like what you read here and choose to stay around awhile, I welcome you with open arms to Webster's, as well as welcoming, as I said, your particular and unique input.

To close this installment of the series out let me say that I've been thinking on doing something of this sort for a couple of weeks now. Only over the last few days, however, have I put some serious thought to it, particularly as to how it might ultimately shape up. As I've said, I have some resources that I'm using to familiarize myself with Representative and Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, his history, his family, his philosophical approach to government, and so on and so forth. It will be from these sources primarily that my perspective on Mr. Paul's positions will be derived and offered to you in the series of posts forthcoming. And as I've already said, I encourage all of you to join in the discussion. This post is now entered into the record as part 1 in the series bearing the title "Who is this Ron Paul Character?" It is intended to get us thinking on the subject, as well as to finally initiate the somewhat belated process.

I shall now see it through to the end, and I hope you'll chime in...

-DW
Ron+Paul '08 elections president canidate news+and+politics

Read More

Why Do I Object to the Savage Strategy?

As y'all know, John Savage from Brave New World Watch and I have been engaged in a cross-blog discussion over the merits of John's strategy to mobilize traditionalist voters to cast a vote in favor of Hillary come November, '08, given two established variables: 1. That Hillary is indeed the democrat nominee; and 2. that the eventual republican nominee is someone other than a traditionalist -Rudy, McRomney, Thompson, or the like. John says he'll vote for the traditionalist Republican should a traditionalist get the nomination. But he agrees with me that that's not a likely scenario.

Thus far the discussion has centered more on our clarifying our respective positions on the subject, or, to give one-another some bit of clarity on the other's written perspective. However, we seem to be past that stage of the discussion now, and hopefully we can move on to more of the meat of our arguments for and against the proposal.

Now, I should say that John seems to be committed to the strategy whether Hillary is the demo nominee or not. The reason I threw that variable in the mix though is because Hillary is probably the best example of the worst potential POTUS that most of us traditionalist voters can even imagine. So, though the Hillary factor (or variable) is not a determining factor for John, I assume that it would be for most traditionalist voters - in their case it might be the difference between their engaging the strategy or not.

What John is proposing may be summed up as follows (and if I get it wrong here, I trust he'll correct me): to basically violate all that you've ever thought right, proper, and sacred about your duty as an American citizen and a traditionalist, consciously choosing to cast your vote in favor of the candidate the farthest left of your own political philosophy. And if this strategy works in the way John speculates it will, you will have in actuality and by the very act itself, earned to yourself the laudable chacteristic of a true and a distinguished patriot.

My disagreement with the approach originally was based in part on the predisposition I had with regard to the strategy itself - that it was intended as a more election-wide strategy aimed at securing more defeats to republicans, which of course would be seats gained to the demos. And that is where I focused my attention in raising a contention with the approach. As John has patiently and politely explained to me, this was indeed an unwarranted assumption on my part. And I accept his explanation without further question.

Yet, I still find myself reeling at the thought of my casting a vote in favor of Hillary or any other democrat in the race right now, and against the republican challenger whomever that may be. And as I suggested originally, I still find it more palatable to simply recuse myself from that particular aspect of the upcoming election than to actively engage myself in the former.

But beyond the distastefulness of the thought of the whole thing, I do have actual concerns with the method and its most likely effects. John assumed that immigration was probably my chief concern with electing Hillary or one of her lesser-thans. But as I explained to him, that is not as much a concern to me as are other things connected with the office of the presidency.

For one, John tends to focus his attention on the internal aspects of the executive department, while I would place more emphasis than he does (or so far has) on the external aspects of that office. That is, where John devotes a lot of consideration to the workings of our federal executive with respect to ourselves, I would tend to consider the appointment of ambassadors to foreign nations as representatives of the United States as one example, as well as the executive's treaty responsibilities as yet another. And the reason I would put a lot of emphasis on those aspects of the presidency and the office-holder's duties therein is because foreign relations, even those between the U.S. and nations not particularly friendly to us, is one of those things that could be the difference between war and peace; that could be the difference between security and insecurity, not just between us and other nations, but between other nations friendly and unfriendly to the United States. And if there's anything I know to be an absolute truth, it is that this nation as such has an obligation among the nations to promote (not to establish it; not to entangle itself in foreign relations between differing foreign entities) peace between nations, as well as to guard against creating an instable situation between ourselves and other powers. It's in our interest as well as everyone else's to do so.

To put an analogy to it, and to bring it down to a more personal and individual level, it is my responsibility as a father to my children and a member of my community to establish and maintain order within and without my family as regards my family members' external relationships, not only for my family's sake, but for the greater good of the whole of my community, state, and nation. If I enter into a bit of strategery aimed at correcting a problem with my child's temper, yet putting the larger community at risk in the process, I've more or less made matters worse, not better; effectively endangering the very lives, liberties, and properties of my neighbors, not to mention giving them just cause for pitting themselves against me.

There is yet another concern I have about actively engaging the strategy. Whether I agree with them or not; whether I like them or not, Presidents of the United States now have the privelege of Executive Orders. And this is not a power that is likely to be removed from that branch anytime soon. One of the things with EOs that really bothers me is that many of them are enacted without the knowledge of the general public. It isn't bad enough that the president has this illegitimate power, but he/she generally utilizes it in a rather secretive fashion. I recognize that there are watchdogs out there keeping up with every move the president makes, but this seems to make little difference as to what the general public realizes about what their government and their executive is up to with regard to these particular orders.

Another concern is that of the President's appointment of executive officers to positions in the justice department and etc... I can't even fathom who Hillary's choice for the AG's position might be, or what her list of choices for the position might look like - remember Janet Reno, anyone? I for one remember very well the actions of a government gone completely and utterly berserk on the intoxicating influence of power during the former Clinton administration, and with the advantage of having a majority republican Congress, mind you. And if it's argued that we oughta be willing to sacrifice the few in the short term for the many over the long haul in a fashion remotely resembling that of the Clinton administration's murderous actions, I think I'm going to shoot myself. lol

But generally speaking I think a republican much easier controlled than a nutty democrat like Hillary or Edwards or Kerry or Gore, or whomever. Though they're savvy politicians, they're still nutty, and nutty people are just hard to contain within certain bounds. President Bush wasn't my first choice back in 2000 either. But I took him, and still would take him over Al Gore or John Kerry any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Personally I think more emphasis oughta be put on a strategy that, though it may seem an impossibility at this moment, would secure to us more long-term advantages than that offered by John. It also should take into consideration some of the ways in which a president of the United States is actually encouraged to, not discouraged from, act(ing) in defiance of the public's wishes and against their best interests. And what I'm getting at here is our limiting the president to two terms. Though we can't properly be credited with the creation of that amendment, we continue to sustain it to our own hurt in my opinion.

So, in essence I have a lot of concerns with engaging such an approach as John is suggesting. And there's more where those came from. When I was learning to fly airplanes one of the first things my instructor, as well as the training manuels I was reading, kept reiterating until he'd thoroughly driven it home was that of making coordinated turns particularly on approach to land. Pilots know that one of the most vulnerable times of their flights is during this transition from straight and level powered flight to entering the landing pattern/approach, and a whole heap of a pilot's required training is dedicated to properly piloting this transition. As the pilot begins to slow the airplane in this pattern through the use of flaps, and decreasing power, he is keeping a very watchful eye on his instruments which tell him such vital things as his relative airspeed, his heading, how many degrees of flaps he has engaged; and in his turns whether they are 'coordinated' or not. In other words, as every pilot knows full well, every time you adjust a single element of the airplane, to slow it, to turn, to gain or lose altitude, whatever, there is an effect on all the other aspects of your flight which you must account for if you care to live. And many a pilot has lost his life, and the lives of his passengers due to a neglect of some form to attend to this essential element of his flight.

Essentially I think John's proposal probably does not take into account enough of the necessary and related effects of engaging it. And that pretty well sums up my disagreement with the proposal. It's purpose is to create a manufactured crisis situation which might effectually spark a real crisis situation that we're not properly trained and equipped to handle when it comes down on us. And on that note, I disagree with John in his thought that a huge majority of Americans were against the amnesty bill. I rather think that a mobile and loud minority effected that outcome. I'm not sure it can with certain other things it's not so passionately opposed to, or not so keenly aware of. And though during my flight training we continually engaged in manufacturing crisis situations as an essential part of my training, we were always at a high enough altitude to allow for a safe recovery with plenty of altitude to spare, and I wasn't manufacturing them without a qualified pilot sitting next to me, ready to take the wheel and control of the airplane.

-DW

Read More

Vote Democrat; Save the Republic?...

An idea that gets floated around from time to time is that of strategically utilizing the sacred franchise of the vote to effect a greater end within the 'conservative' hierarchy.

The idea is simply to join in a united, and a movement-wide effort to cast your vote in favor of the opposition candidate/candidates, essentially effecting an opposition win, which it is theorized will result in tempering the resolve of the wayward party, the core principles of which you actually and truly support.

John Savage over at Brave New World Watch (BNWW) wrote a piece on this very topic recently. Do go over and visit his blog, it's well worth your time.

The suggestion, or proposal for dealing with the crisis, if it comes to that, is an interesting one; one might even say an intriguing one. In theory it would work; in practice I ain't so sure. We've dealt with that before around here. And the truth of the matter is that I don't have much faith that it could ever actually work as proposed.

I can't say as I agree with the method, as you readers have undoubtedly figured out by now, but I certainly understand why someone would conclude that kind of approach a viable, and even a preferable option given the apparent state of confusion about who and what it is, seemingly pervading the GOP right now.

Committing just a quick bit of reflection to it, I think my main disagreement with the approach, however, is this: that I really don't think 'conservative America' can find the inner strength at this moment to effect that kind of a systematic, united, purposeful, and strategic effort. At least I don't think it ('conservative America') could sustain it (the effort) even if it found that inner strength, or remnants of it hiding somewhere deep within itself. I just don't think we're accustomed to digging that deep within us as a group, nor to committing ourselves to such a systematic cause greater than ourselves, and over the long haul, which for me may be said to account for a lot, if not most of the problems we find ourselves facing these days.

Do I deny that it is there, somewhere, waiting to be re-discovered and brought to the fore? No; I don't deny the inner strength of true conservatives; the principled basis upon which our philosophy is erected, and to which it is firmly anchored. To deny it would be no less than to resign myself to a hopeless feeling of impending doom for conservatism, by extension for the nation as a whole. And I ain't ready to do that by any means.

Indeed, I think that it is that kind of inner strength which is usually to be found in an actual crisis situation, not a manufactured one. And that's why I question a conservative-wide commitment to it. After all, 'mankind is more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves...' This suggestion is to me nothing less than a proposal to attempt to manufacture a crisis, and as I said, manufactured crises are not the same as actual ones.

We (and I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but for a reason) tend to focus so much on our petty differences, and this practice has become so habitual for us, that we tend to forget what it is that truly unites us many times...most of the time, even. But beyond that, I think we average joe conservatives have lost our sense of direction enough, and again, habitually so, that an attempt at what some are proposing would likely end, if it could ever actually be effected movement wide, in a chaotic going in all directions except the right one. And the only thing I see benefitting from that is the opposition movement if it recognizes what is happening well enough to capitalize on it. Perhaps I give them too much credit, but I think the opposition has proven themselves on more than a few occasions a pretty savvy bunch.

But this is a really deep subject which is deserving of much more time and reflection than I have to give it at this moment. Don't be surprised if I devote yet another post, or even several more to the topic. In any event it'll make for some good discussion, I'm sure, as it has in the past.

P.S. as y'all can see we're still making lots of changes to the blog, and there remains much more work to be done. Please be patient with us as we tirelessly work to perfect it for your viewing pleasure.

-DW

Read More