Great Question, and an Appeal to the Readership

A couple of days ago I posted a comment to this entry over at Savage's blog. In reply to my comment John posed a question about why I thought Ron Paul gets so much attention among bloggers, as opposed to someone like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. VA interjected with her own thoughts which closely resemble my own original thoughts on the matter.

I put some more reflection to it before I answered John, because I thought the question quite appropriate and deserving of a more full answer than that which came to mind immediately following the reading of the question. Indeed, there has to be a reason why I believe Paul garners so much attention among bloggers, and I would take it a bit farther and say: there has to be a reason for why I believe Paul garners so much positive attention among conservative leaning bloggers...

I tried to answer the question as best I could given the thoughts I'd put to it, but I still get a strong sense that my answer is just not adequate enough. And here's where the appeal in the title comes in...

I wonder whether any of you have put much thought to this question? But whether you have or haven't, have you any ideas you'd be willing to share as regards the reasons you think Paul gets so much quality attention from bloggers, and why Tancredo and Hunter don't?

There's no doubt that Paul gets more attention than the other two. I had CTO find out for me a while back what some of the most searched for items are as respect this blog's general focus. And Ron Paul was among the top of that short list. Tancredo and Hunter were not even in the same ballpark.

On the one hand, Paul was involved in the famous incident with Giuliani which probably helped to draw to him more conservative attention of the anti-war kind. To his credit he seized upon an opportunity in a very public forum, and that must have gotten him a lot of exposure that otherwise he would not have gotten most probably. Whereas neither Tancredo, nor Hunter, to my knowledge have been able to seize upon that kind of an opportunity thus far in the race.

But can this be said to account for all of the disparity between the interest in these candidates generated over the internet and the blogosphere? I had some additional thoughts on the matter that I posted in my latest comments to John's post, but as I said before, they just don't seem to me sufficient to account for the disparity.

I suppose if I were forced to give a specific answer I would likely say that the incident at the Republican debate probably sparked the interest in Paul, and that my thoughts over at John's blog probably account for the continued interest among conservative leaners throughout the blogosphere. But to be very honest, and to reiterate, I'm just really not sure whether that's an adequate enough explanation. I mean, Paul draws a lot of attention from folks I'd consider to be more than just 'conservative leaners.'

If any of you have any additional ideas on this question, please don't hesitate to put them in a comment here, or over at John's blog. This is a question that I've actually asked of myself on numerous occasions, but so far I've not been able to satisfy my own curiosity as to why this is, except in the way that I've already shared. Perhaps that's all there is to it; or perhaps that's not all there is to it and I'm missing something vital here. Maybe my thoughts are simply altogether wrong.

Whatever the case may be, or whatever you believe the case to be, please do let me know. More to come on some of these other items later...

-DW

Read More

Old News; New News

Now and again I'm going to attempt to direct your attentions to some ongoing pursuits that for me can be said to be 'old news,' yet in your case might actually represent something you've yet to hear of for whatever reason. And I'd hope that you'd return the favor if there's something significant out there that I'm missing, which is most certainly extremely likely.

In this case something was brought to mind as I read MT's post over at the AFB yesterday, and though I probably should have mentioned it earlier and in the former post, as you're now aware I neglected to do so. But the thing in question probably warrants a post of its own anyhow.

If you'll go to the link provided here and in Mike's post at the AFB you may notice after having signed the petition aimed at releasing the 'Texas three,' that you'll be taken to a page containing at the bottom a link to 'return to the list of petitions.' If you'll click on that link you will indeed be taken to the page in question. For those of you who have already signed the petition to free the Texas three, just go to the yellow section at the top of the page and click on the "Current Petitions" button provided. If you'll then scroll down the page you'll eventually run across the 'patriot petition' calling for amending the Constitution to halt the practice of 'judicial activism' - The Enumerated Powers Amendment, definately not to be referred to as the 'EPA.' lol

I remember the very first announcement of this proposal way back when. At that time my friends (Mike and Edmund) and I had not yet met one-another. And certainly I had yet to discover the blogosphere. I recall that the actual wording of the amendment proposal itself went through several revisions over the span of about two months if memory serves in that respect. And the reason I recall that aspect of the proposal is that it caught my interest immediately and proceeded to gain my undivided attention over the course of time.

Eventually, though, I stopped keeping regular track of the progress of the proposal as far as numbers of signers is concerned. They were slow to come in, and after the initial surge therein I think the numbers of signers of that particular petition sort of paused more or less around the mid twenties of thousands (24,000 to 25,000 as I recall).

Nonetheless, having now re-read the amendment proposal I'm not seeing that any significant changes to it, if any at all have occured over the course of time between now and then. So it appears that the folks over at the Patriot Post finally got the kinks in the wording worked out. And there were some fairly sizeable kinks in the wording to begin, lemme tell ya. I do note, however, that there are now a significant number of additional signatures added to the measure - quite a happy revelation for me I must admit.

Essentially what attracted my attention to the proposal initially, and still does btw, is that I think this amendment proposal addresses, perhaps better than any I've yet to see, the fundamental, or the root cause of the problem, as well as proposing the most effective means for dealing with a wide range of problems which are either directly or indirectly associated with the ever increasing tendency of our judiciary (particularly the federal) to engage itself in the practice of what has been rightly termed in my opinion 'judicial activism.' And this has been accomplished with at very least tacit consent of the federal Congress, which the measure also addresses in a meaningful way.

By limiting the courts in their ability to 'legislate from the bench' (something the founders never intended!), many of the ills which infect our government may be cut out at their common core. This is my firm belief, and this is the reason that I strongly endorse this amendment proposal.

But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject after having read the proposal itself, as well as its foundation. So y'all post a comment and let's discuss it.

-DW

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