February 16, 2005
The Dept. of Defense issued this press release which announces that the newest nuclear-powered attack submarine to be launched by Electric Boat in Groton, CT (just down the coast from me) will be named after former President Jimmy Carter.
Are they serious? My God, I mean I know the rationale is supposed to be that Carter is a former Naval Officer that served on subs during his early life but...Jimmy Carter?
I don't know how superstitious sailors are but could they find a worse way to establish a bad omen for this vessel? If I were in the Navy, I'd feel more confident serving aboard a sub christened the Titanic.
My favorite: You just might be a Barking Moonbat if..."You think Barbara Streisand and Sean Penn know more about foreign policy than Condaleeza Rice."
And remember, the key to self-help is admitting you have a problem in the first place.
Hat Tip: Wonkette
The Democrats aren't taking advice from Zell Miller but from PT Barnum. Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, Barnum said, though he might have revised that observation had he seen the big top of the modern Democratic Party, which is running into the problem Abraham Lincoln identified: you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Despite losing the last election because they are out of step with the majority of the voting pool on issues like "gay marriage, abortion and de facto pacifism", the Democrat leadership - Howard Dean in particular - seems to think that all they need to do is re-frame the debate for all the uneducated, knuckle-dragging bumpkins out in flyover country. As Neumayr points out:
This is what makes the con job of the Democrats so tricky. They are in effect asking Americans to suspend their common sense for the sake of destructive novelties and experiments against human nature. A used car salesman can only sell a malfunctioning car to a person once. Dean's talk of "changing" America -- which means changing it into a country Americans won't recognize or want to live in -- will only persuade the ignorant. And Dean can't even muster minimal charm for his supposed customers. He has started his sales pitch by bumptiously revealing his fundamental antipathy for a majority of Americans -- he declared that he "hates" everything that the "Republicans stand for."
"We don't need to apologize for our principles," he says. "We need to talk about them in a different way." Translation: let the great con begin.
It's still a variation of the same old argument the Dems keep making - "We're just not getting our message out".
Um, actually you are. And that's the big problem for most voters.
February 15, 2005
However, Ace of Spades gives a pretty convincing example today of how Snopes.com usually tries to debunk stories that are actually true if it doesn't agree with their liberal politics. Check out his post here: Snopes: Reliably Liberal and Liberally Unreliable.
I'll still use the site as a resource, but this is good to keep in mind.
From Ankle-Biting Pundits. Get a cup of coffee for the read, it's a lengthy one. But well worth it.
sorry, my eyes just imploded.
The only problem with the nominees in question is that some powerful special interest group found something "objectionable" on their end and they used their influence (and $$) to block them. Rather than allow a confirmation vote where a simple majority (51 votes) can confirm, as is provided for in the U.S. Constitution, Democrat efforts raised the bar to an unprecedented level through the filibuster.
The time for niceties is over, as trying to reach across the aisle has clearly failed. The Washington Times reports:
Diplomacy is not likely to work, said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who told reporters last month that if Mr. Bush renominates the same judges, the Democrats will block them again.
But now the GOP controlled Senate is going to fix their wagon and change these archaic Senate rules to allow for the yeah or nay vote in the full Senate that these folks deserve.
Over the coming months, expect to see these 20 nominations come to a full vote and easily confirmed by the majority. Judges who will do what the founders intended and not create new wholesale legislation from the bench, which is the responsibility of the Congress and the State Legislatures.
We have a list of all the judges, courtesty of RedState.org
February 14, 2005
"What say we go sit out on the front porch swing, have a couple a beers and watch the sunset, sport?
- The private sector can be depended upon to make better economic decisions than the public sector in 99 out of 100 cases.
- Government serves the governed best when it is limited.
- Individuals must exercise responsibility along with freedom.
- There is an enduring moral order.
- Peace is best protected through military strength.
- America should not hesitate to use its power and influence to shape a world with greater freedom and democracy.
If I ever come across the source again, I swear I will update with a link. Anyway, I took the opportunity to reverse these to make a contrast with what I see as the six "pillars" of American Liberalism are:
- The private sector can not be trusted to make economic decisions that affect the country as a whole and the public sector can be depended on to make economic decisions based on what it deems is Â“bestÂ” for the country.
- Government serves the governed best when it is given more authority to act on their behalf.
- Individuals vary in their ability to exercise responsibility for their behavior based on their race, ethnicity, gender or socio-economic group.
- Morality is relative and no system of beliefs or values is necessarily better than any another.
- Peace is best protected through identifying root causes of conflict and finding consensus among the international community in order to address them.
- America should refrain from using its power and influence in the world unless it is expressly asked for and provided that it will not upset too many people.
I'd say that pretty much sums it up.
There's been K Street chatter, our colleague Jeffrey H. Birnbaum tells us, that [CT Senator Joe] Lieberman could be on an administration list to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in the next year or so. That would be convenient for Lieberman, whose term is up in 2006, and could give Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) an opportunity to appoint a Republican to the seat for at least a few months before the election, inching the GOP closer to a filibuster-proof Senate.
Talk of Bush tapping Lieberman for homeland security surfaced a couple of months back. At the time, it was assumed that Rell would appoint Nancy Johnson (R) CT-5 - who happens to be my Congresswoman - to be Lieberman's Senate replacement. While I think Joe would make an excellent Secretary of Defense, I'm not sure if wouldn't be better to have him continue to serve as Senator - voting his conscience and offering Bush the little bit of bipartisan support he could ever hope to get.
I wonder if Dems are learning the wisdom imparted by Bull Moose, that there's mischievous and useful fun to be had in being the opposition party, particularly when the party in power is as flatulent with hubris and corruption as the fiefdom of Tom DeLay. Dems should resist the temptation to be statesmenlike and bail out Bush should he stumble, the way they shamefully rescued Reagan in his second term. Bipartisanship has gotten Democrats nowhere for four years, has earned them nothing more than a fine spittle of contempt falling like a constant drizzle. They should let a smile be their umbrella as they enjoy the spectacle of House and Senate Republicans promoting Social Security privatization as if they'd been ordered by their commander in chief to suck lemons.
OK, can anyone actually living on planet Earth illustrate for me one specific case of Congressional Democrats acting in a bipartisan way since the initial post-9/11 unity crumbled three years ago? Just one. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
As Dean says, "I hate the Republicans and everything that they stand for." Hate. But Bush hatred was not enough to beat Bush in 2004 -- Democratic turnout was up, but Republican turnout was up more -- and doesn't seem likely to beat Republicans in 2006 and 2008. The left blogosphere has driven the Democrats into an electoral cul de sac.
Whereas the GOP took a different approach:
The Bush campaign, quietly, used the Internet to build an e-mail list of 7.5 million names and a corps of 1.4 million volunteers, who produced more new votes than the Democrats. But the right blogosphere was different from the left. There was no one dominant website and no one orthodoxy...The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans' adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.
Can Democrats reverse their fortunes? Not likely IMO, they first need to get over the hate, which means admitting they have a problem.
Amanda Monti, 24, flew into a rage in May last year after Geoffrey Jones, 37, who had ended their long-term relationship, rejected her advances. She grabbed him by the genitals, tearing off his left testicle, then hid it in her mouth before a friend of Jones handed it back to him saying "that's yours."
I guess the big question for me is that if he was rejecting her advances, why were his balls accessible in the first place? Never underestimate the dangers of mixing alcohol and PMS.
HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY!
The problem for Dean's Democrats is that they're in thrall (for money as well as votes) to the hard George Soros left of their party, which is so blinded by Bush hatred that it's still half-hoping for bad news from Iraq.Who's really in the driver's seat here?
John F. Kennedy Â— who pledged to "pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty" Â— wouldn't recognize his own party. Until Democrats sound more like JFK, they won't come back from the wilderness.
February 13, 2005
Fasten your seatbelts gentleman. It's going to be a bumpy ride.
...and fun to watch.
February 12, 2005
If you've stumbled upon this post looking for that long sordid tale of how I got here, congratulations. The bad news is that you've got a lot of reading to do (but for your convenience, I've put the links to the prior chapters below). You can go back to any previous posts here:
And now...the rest of the story (apologies to Paul Harvey):
9/11/01 and beyond:
September 11, 2001 (my 8th wedding anniversary, BTW) was a day that was one of those moments in history that causes a tectonic shift in the destiny of a nation. The United States faced this kind of crisis at least four times in its history.
- April 20, 1775 - British march on Lexington and Concord, MA
- April 12, 1861 - Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, SC
- December 7, 1941 - Bombing of Pearl Harbor, HI
- October 18 - 29, 1962 - the Cuban Missile Crisis
In each case, the nation was staring down two distinct and separate paths that had been placed before it. One led to victory, the other to utter ruin. In each case, the correct path was chosen. And in each case, the nation - either through pure luck or Divine Providence - was led by a man who had the courage, the wisdom and the conviction of his principles to make the right choice.
- George Washington
- Abraham Lincoln
- Franklin Roosevelt
- John Kennedy
Whether these situations required a series of choices that were made over several years - as in WashingtonÂ’s case - or decisive action over the course of days - as with Kennedy, each of these men looked into their hearts and their souls to bear the responsibility that would drastically determine the very future of the people they led.
These were leaders in the true sense of the word. Whether the qualities that these men possessed in innate or learned, it is clear that for each of them it was at least instinctive because they didnÂ’t have time for navel-gazing and indecision.
IÂ’m not saying that George W. Bush ranks up with the greatest Presidents - historians will look back a hundred years from now and make itÂ’s evaluations in the proper context. But from what I see, Bush at least has demonstrated the qualities that those individuals possessed as they found themselves poised at such important cross roads in U.S. history.
ItÂ’s been more than three years since that day and while so many of the memories are etched into my mind, what I can recall today is more akin to fleeting emotions than distinct images. We all have our recollections about that moment and the days that followed, but IÂ’m willing to bet they are no more unique than the other 280 million Americans who wondered if they had really woken up that day - of if it was all just a bad dream.
The most important observation I have made since that day is that the Democratic Party no longer stands for anything. It was merely weeks after the attack that members of Congress who represented the party symbolized by the donkey - the jackass - began to wage the kind of political war that is usually reserved for peacetime. The stakes for the future of our nation - and of the world - are too high for this kind of bullshit. If the Democrats are so obsessed with regaining the power that they so wantonly squandered then they need to be exposed for their efforts every step of the way.
In the last few years the MSM has lost its grip on the stranglehold they once had on the information dolled out to the public. The new media - radio, cable TV and the internet have blown away the old template for disseminating information. The power of the blogosphere is awesome. Just ask Dan Rather, John Kerry or Eason Jordan.
ItÂ’s the power of the internet that allows simple folk from various backgrounds and expertise to find, research and share information. ItÂ’s also that power that allows someone like me to share his ideas, whether they be read by a million people or only the writer himself. I live in a "Blue State". And itÂ’s mighty tough to find people of similar philosophy. But thatÂ’s OK. I like where I live and IÂ’m happy here. But IÂ’m not going to feel like an outsider just because my point of view isnÂ’t necessarily shared by the majority of my neighbors. The world is a big place and neither time nor distance are a factor in finding a receptive audience to the opinions I have to share.
IÂ’m not the kind of person who looks for conflict or argument. I hear statements every day that I not only disagree with but I sometimes even find offensive. But I have a perspective to share. I understand what itÂ’s like to be a Democrat. I understand what it feels like to be angry, and maybe a little bitter that the opposing team is calling the shots. I know whatÂ’s like to put a ton of faith and hope in a candidate - even a cause - and watch them lose in a way that can only seem unfair.
However, I have watched people take these emotions too far. I have seen people become unhinged because they are more interested in the outcome of an election - or the reacquisition of their power - than they are in the future of their country. I am watching day after day a political party that I once called my own collapse onto itself because it has been taken over by extremists whose only creed is "kill or be killed". No compromise, no middle ground, no surrender - all ideology and no ideas. NO VISION. They have ceded the identification as "the party of reform" to the GOP and can now only be associated with dependence on government and special interests, obstructionism and maintaining the status quo.
I do not take relish in this destructive process though I admit to taking some amusement in it. That is why this Blog is called Ex-Donkey. Like an expatriate, an ex-Communist or an ex-junkie, my experiences have helped create who I am today, having accumulated an imposing stack of lessons learned. I understand the current opposition all too well and how they got to where they are now. I also can see where they are going. And itÂ’s not a pretty sight.
Rumor has it that NBC is so impressed with the ratings that they're thinking of picking it up for their 2005 fall lineup.
You can check out details of the series at Sci-Fi.com.
114 queries taking 0.0769 seconds, 276 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.