In response to my post below, Jim Riley makes a wonderful point.
You see, it seems that our friends on the far Left have taken to calling themselves "Hussein" in honor of the Moonbatic ... er, Democrat nominee for President. Lowell Feld notes this over at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, RK ... er, whatever.
Even the sometimes logical Ben Tribbett, who is Not Larry Sabato, is now Not Larry Hussein Sabato.
Now, I suppose there's something to be said for doing so. After all, the Democrat nominee-presumptive is quite sensitive about sharing his middle name with the late and former Maximum Leader of Iraq, so much so that he whined about people who were pointing it out. Obviously, some Democrats worry that reminder of Obama's non-English, non-typical name will cost him votes and/or support. Taking the power out of it (much as adherents to Martin Luther's reforms took on the name "Lutheran," once an insult) is a legitimate tactic.
But remember two years ago, when Virginia's Moonbatosphere was was making sport of Senator George Allen's middle name?
So let me get this straight: "Felix" is to be ridiculed, but "Hussein," surname of one of the five most bloodthirsty dictators of the last half-century, is to be celebrated?!?!?!
Liberalism. It's not just a lifestyle; it's a mental disease.
Monday, June 30, 2008
"Hussein" Fashionable?
According to Lowell Feld, some moonbats ... er, "Democrats" have started putting "Hussein" in the middle of their names.
Doubtless, it a demonstration of solidarity with the late and former Maximum Leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. After all, these are the same moonbats ... er, "Democrats," who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. And who has lost more to the Bush Administration than Saddam Hussein?
Oh, that's not the reason?
Could've fooled me.
Doubtless, it a demonstration of solidarity with the late and former Maximum Leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. After all, these are the same moonbats ... er, "Democrats," who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. And who has lost more to the Bush Administration than Saddam Hussein?
Oh, that's not the reason?
Could've fooled me.
Wesley Clark: Four-Star Moonbat
I'll vote for John McCain, with grave reservations based upon some of his positions (hostility to the First Amendment, for example), but it's clear that the moonbat Left finds little in his military record to commend him.
According to Gen. Wesley Clark, on yesterday's "Face the Nation" on CBS, John McCain's heroic record isn't that big a deal:
According to Gen. Wesley Clark, on yesterday's "Face the Nation" on CBS, John McCain's heroic record isn't that big a deal:
In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.
He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded .... that wasn't a wartime squadron.
According to Newsmax.com, even this was too much for moderator Bob Schieffer, who raised the issue by citing similar remarks Clark has made previously, noted that Obama hadn't had those experiences nor had he ridden in a fighter plane and been shot down. "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark replied.
Really? Apparently, riding in a swiftboat was, however.
In a March conference call with reporters while he was still backing Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clark said: "Everybody admires John McCain's service as a fighter pilot, his courage as a prisoner of war. There's no issue there. He's a great man and an honorable man. But having served as a fighter pilot --- and I know my experience as a company commander in Vietnam --- that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved. It may give you a feeling for what the troops are going through in the process, but it doesn't give you the experience first hand of the national strategic issues."
It's utterly amazing that one would disparage that record. But when you're a moonbat who supports a guy who was, just a few years ago, a "community organizer," i.e., a professional rabble-rouser, and who has no significant legislative or executive record, you have to start by denigrating perhaps the most honorable service a man can render and which, among any but the moonbats of the far Left, makes a man --- objectively --- highly qualified for the highest office in the land.
Friday, June 27, 2008
You Can't Make This Stuff Up!
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, within two hours of the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, predicts "higher taxes to pay for extra police if his city's gun restrictions are lost."
A pretty good prediction in any Democrat administration.
A pretty good prediction in any Democrat administration.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Duh!
Perhaps the dumbest and most self-evident headline I've seen in a long time:
"HIV spikes in men who have sex with men."
Only the perversion lobby has ever suggested otherwise.
What's next? "STDs spike among the promiscuous"?
"HIV spikes in men who have sex with men."
Only the perversion lobby has ever suggested otherwise.
What's next? "STDs spike among the promiscuous"?
Heller: "...it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct"
Courtesy of SCOTUSBlog, we learn that the Supreme Court today affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in District of Columbia v. Heller. In so doing, the Court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, exposing the dishonesty of the gun-grabbing, liberty-destroying Left.
A link to the decision is here.
Liberty and the right of revolution lives!
As I will be arguing a case before the Court on 6 October, no further commentary will be offered.
A link to the decision is here.
Liberty and the right of revolution lives!
As I will be arguing a case before the Court on 6 October, no further commentary will be offered.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
*&@$#%! Airlines!
Amazing. Utterly amazing.
If you have a few bucks laying around, and are thinking about investing in an airline, DON'T DO IT!
Just got off the phone with Ruiz, at United Airlines. It seems that United just managed to find a bag that had been misdirected.
'Course, the flight that it was supposed to arrive on arrived on time at Washington Dulles International Airport ten months ago tomorrow!!!
That's right. United will be returning a bag (my mother's) from a flight from ten months ago.
You see, last summer, the Youngs took a trip to Alaska. For reasons discussed elsewhere, my mother came along.
On the way back, her single bag was misdirected.
Now, we were pretty sure as to what happened. When we got back to Dulles, and noticed that only her bag (among the seven checked by the five of us) was missing, I noticed that we had an errant baggage claim check. There was a different name on it, and it was for a woman (in the military) traveling on to Kuwait, as was our flight.
Well, we of course reported that information when we went to the Baggage Office for United to complain.
Thus began six weeks of conversations with people on the United toll-free line. 'Cept English wasn't their first language. And they weren't in the United States. Noooo, they were in New Delhi. Yeah. In India. And we begged them to contact Kuwait, and to have someone physically look for the bag. "No can do," we were told. We begged them for the phone number of the terminal in Kuwait, so we could do that which they wouldn't. No luck. It was so bad that I seriously contemplated asking a friend from church --- a Marine officer on his way to Afghanistan --- to check for the bag when he went through Kuwait. Figuring he had better things to do --- and having been assured by United that they had, indeed, checked in Kuwait, I declined to do so.
To make a long story a bit shorter, we received a check for about $1,200.00 about six weeks later. But no bag.
And now, one day short of ten months to the day after we returned home, United has finally found.
I'm sure that my mother will be delighted.
As for me, I have little doubt anymore as to the reasons for the sad state of American airlines.
If you have a few bucks laying around, and are thinking about investing in an airline, DON'T DO IT!
Just got off the phone with Ruiz, at United Airlines. It seems that United just managed to find a bag that had been misdirected.
'Course, the flight that it was supposed to arrive on arrived on time at Washington Dulles International Airport ten months ago tomorrow!!!
That's right. United will be returning a bag (my mother's) from a flight from ten months ago.
You see, last summer, the Youngs took a trip to Alaska. For reasons discussed elsewhere, my mother came along.
On the way back, her single bag was misdirected.
Now, we were pretty sure as to what happened. When we got back to Dulles, and noticed that only her bag (among the seven checked by the five of us) was missing, I noticed that we had an errant baggage claim check. There was a different name on it, and it was for a woman (in the military) traveling on to Kuwait, as was our flight.
Well, we of course reported that information when we went to the Baggage Office for United to complain.
Thus began six weeks of conversations with people on the United toll-free line. 'Cept English wasn't their first language. And they weren't in the United States. Noooo, they were in New Delhi. Yeah. In India. And we begged them to contact Kuwait, and to have someone physically look for the bag. "No can do," we were told. We begged them for the phone number of the terminal in Kuwait, so we could do that which they wouldn't. No luck. It was so bad that I seriously contemplated asking a friend from church --- a Marine officer on his way to Afghanistan --- to check for the bag when he went through Kuwait. Figuring he had better things to do --- and having been assured by United that they had, indeed, checked in Kuwait, I declined to do so.
To make a long story a bit shorter, we received a check for about $1,200.00 about six weeks later. But no bag.
And now, one day short of ten months to the day after we returned home, United has finally found.
I'm sure that my mother will be delighted.
As for me, I have little doubt anymore as to the reasons for the sad state of American airlines.
What A Huge Surprise!
The Democrat-controlled Senate Finance Committee has voted to increase your taxes!
Another fine example of why Chuck Colgan should have been retired last year by Bob FitzSimmonds.
Another fine example of why Chuck Colgan should have been retired last year by Bob FitzSimmonds.
Tell Me Again Why We Need More Taxes?
Senator (and future Attorney General) Ken Cuccinelli gets it right again!
In Richmond for Governor Timmy's! special tax-increase ... er, "transportation" session of the General Assembly, Senator Cuccinelli has apparently noted that while Virginians of all stripes are having to reprioritize their budgets to account for increased costs for transportation, only Democrats in the government of the Commonwealth are refusing to acknowledge reality by reshuffling budget priorities to spend more for transportation, and less (well, not really less, but smaller increases) for other areas of the budget.
I invite my few readers to play the Democrats' game. Rather than reordering your families' spending priorities, I suggest that you go into your bosses' offices, and demand a raise to account for the higher costs of gasoline for your commute.
When he or she finishes laughing you out of his or her office, call your state legislators and demand that they respond similarly to Governor Timmy's! tax-increase proposals.
In Richmond for Governor Timmy's! special tax-increase ... er, "transportation" session of the General Assembly, Senator Cuccinelli has apparently noted that while Virginians of all stripes are having to reprioritize their budgets to account for increased costs for transportation, only Democrats in the government of the Commonwealth are refusing to acknowledge reality by reshuffling budget priorities to spend more for transportation, and less (well, not really less, but smaller increases) for other areas of the budget.
I invite my few readers to play the Democrats' game. Rather than reordering your families' spending priorities, I suggest that you go into your bosses' offices, and demand a raise to account for the higher costs of gasoline for your commute.
When he or she finishes laughing you out of his or her office, call your state legislators and demand that they respond similarly to Governor Timmy's! tax-increase proposals.
Announcement: The Guilty Liberal Fund
Caught a caller to the Chris Plante Show on WMAL on the way to work today.
"Theresa" describes herself as a black single woman who makes over $120,000 per year, and supports the Dalai Bama ... er, Barack Hussein Obama (since I saw another blogger referring to "John Sidney McCain" the other day, with no complaints from his fellows in the moonbatosphere, I'm pretty sure I don't want to hear any more complaints about referring to middle names). Plante queried her for the reasons for her support, and she rendered the usual talking points about "health care for all Americans." Interestingly, she conceded what few close to the Dalai Bama will: that Obama will raise taxes.
That really doesn't bother "Theresa," since she's willing to pay more.
What Plante failed to ask her was "How much extra did you send in to the Federal government last year? The year before that? How about 2005?" Better yet, Plante might have asked her how much her tax refunds were for those years.
Plante also failed to ask "Theresa" for how many people --- other than herself and her family --- was she paying for health insurance.
You see, nothing in the world prevents people from sending in more to the Federal government. And "Theresa" is certainly free to purchase health insurance for whomever she wants.
And until someone advocating those positions favors us with that information --- and the answer is substantial --- I'm really not interested in hearing how "willing" he or she is to pay more taxes, or how he or she believes that "we" should be providing health insurance to "everyone," which by the way includes those who can "afford" it but are young, and/or healthy, and/or have decided to self-insure.
Of course, what "Theresa" means by "we" is that the Federal government should seize money from the productive at the point of a gun, and redistribute it to others. What she means --- assuming that she hasn't purchased health insurance for some unfortunate outside of her immediate family --- is that she doesn't take personal responsibility for her beliefs and put them into action.
Perhaps what we need to do to put the tax advocates to their proofs is to create the "Guilty Liberal" fund, so that Liberals who find themselves paying too little in taxes can assuage their guilt by sending in more than required by law.
Maybe then they'll leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, it's been tried in Virginia --- since 2002 --- and precisely five people have contributed to it.
"Theresa" describes herself as a black single woman who makes over $120,000 per year, and supports the Dalai Bama ... er, Barack Hussein Obama (since I saw another blogger referring to "John Sidney McCain" the other day, with no complaints from his fellows in the moonbatosphere, I'm pretty sure I don't want to hear any more complaints about referring to middle names). Plante queried her for the reasons for her support, and she rendered the usual talking points about "health care for all Americans." Interestingly, she conceded what few close to the Dalai Bama will: that Obama will raise taxes.
That really doesn't bother "Theresa," since she's willing to pay more.
What Plante failed to ask her was "How much extra did you send in to the Federal government last year? The year before that? How about 2005?" Better yet, Plante might have asked her how much her tax refunds were for those years.
Plante also failed to ask "Theresa" for how many people --- other than herself and her family --- was she paying for health insurance.
You see, nothing in the world prevents people from sending in more to the Federal government. And "Theresa" is certainly free to purchase health insurance for whomever she wants.
And until someone advocating those positions favors us with that information --- and the answer is substantial --- I'm really not interested in hearing how "willing" he or she is to pay more taxes, or how he or she believes that "we" should be providing health insurance to "everyone," which by the way includes those who can "afford" it but are young, and/or healthy, and/or have decided to self-insure.
Of course, what "Theresa" means by "we" is that the Federal government should seize money from the productive at the point of a gun, and redistribute it to others. What she means --- assuming that she hasn't purchased health insurance for some unfortunate outside of her immediate family --- is that she doesn't take personal responsibility for her beliefs and put them into action.
Perhaps what we need to do to put the tax advocates to their proofs is to create the "Guilty Liberal" fund, so that Liberals who find themselves paying too little in taxes can assuage their guilt by sending in more than required by law.
Maybe then they'll leave the rest of us alone.
Of course, it's been tried in Virginia --- since 2002 --- and precisely five people have contributed to it.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Difference Between Confidence And Sanctimony
Justice Byron White [UPDATE: Always check your citations! "flatearthakitt" rightly reminds me that it was actually Potter Stewart] once famously observed that he didn't know how to define the line between pornography (legally permissible) and obscenity (subject to legal sanction), but he knew it when he saw it.
It strikes me that one could make the same observation about the distinction between self-confidence and sanctimony. Not sure I could identify precisely where the line between one and the other is, but I sure hope that this guy at least waved when he breezed past it.
It strikes me that one could make the same observation about the distinction between self-confidence and sanctimony. Not sure I could identify precisely where the line between one and the other is, but I sure hope that this guy at least waved when he breezed past it.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Does This Justify An "I Told You So"?
A few months back, I was criticized on a certain blog for joining the challenge to the credentialing of a certain individual at the 2008 Prince William County Republican Convention. I took the not unreasonable position that his attacks upon a prior Republican nominee violated his pledge of "intent to support all Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election" when he had previously been elected as a Member of the Prince William County Republican Committee, and that any pledge made as a condition of participation and/or future membership was ab initio suspect.
Well, now he has this to say about the presumptive Republican nominee for President.
Now, I'm not thrilled with John McCain. But I believe we will at least have a country after four years of a McCain presidency. Four years of an Obama presidency [shudder] are likely to subject this nation to a wave of terrorist attacks to which the best response we might see is a chorus of "Kumbayah" and the raising of a white flag over the White House. Give Democrats control of Congress as well, and it is likely that the economy will be in a shambles from which it will take generations --- if ever --- to recover.
But I will vote for him in November, even if I will have little time during the heart of the campaign season to offer much more than rhetorical support, if that.
As he (quoting another favorably) notes in his most recent post: "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior...."
Tell me again why the individual in question can and should be trusted to fulfill his pledge of "intent to support all Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election"?
Well, now he has this to say about the presumptive Republican nominee for President.
Now, I'm not thrilled with John McCain. But I believe we will at least have a country after four years of a McCain presidency. Four years of an Obama presidency [shudder] are likely to subject this nation to a wave of terrorist attacks to which the best response we might see is a chorus of "Kumbayah" and the raising of a white flag over the White House. Give Democrats control of Congress as well, and it is likely that the economy will be in a shambles from which it will take generations --- if ever --- to recover.
But I will vote for him in November, even if I will have little time during the heart of the campaign season to offer much more than rhetorical support, if that.
As he (quoting another favorably) notes in his most recent post: "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior...."
Tell me again why the individual in question can and should be trusted to fulfill his pledge of "intent to support all Republican nominees for public office in the ensuing election"?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
With Men Such As These....
Spent the day as a "den walker" at my youngest son's Cub Scout Day Camp today, and had occasion to chat with the young "range master" for the BB gun station. Nice fellow. Active duty Marine. Gunnery Sergeant. Off to Iraq in a few months.
Before we went on to the next station, couldn't help myself. Just had to say "Thanks. For all that you do. And [quoting Sgt. Phil Esterhaus on Hill Street Blues] be careful out there." We exchanged a knowing handshake, and parted.
With men such as these serving their nation, one cannot help but remain optimistic.
Before we went on to the next station, couldn't help myself. Just had to say "Thanks. For all that you do. And [quoting Sgt. Phil Esterhaus on Hill Street Blues] be careful out there." We exchanged a knowing handshake, and parted.
With men such as these serving their nation, one cannot help but remain optimistic.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Yuk!
A report from our local police files on indecent and perverse public sexual behavior.
Reports that one of the suspects is known by the alias "Loudoun Insider" (author of this sophomoric smear) have not been confirmed.
I fail to understand why this deserved a special e-mail report from the Potomac News/Manassas Journal-Messenger.
UPDATE: Aww, poor "Loudmouthed Inciter" doesn't like my little bon mot, and his "amen chorus" of cowardly lions and the Old Whithered Wench have chimed in by misrepresenting the content of this post, but mainly, with name-calling, declaring me a "tool." As to the last, one is tempted to observe that they know from whence they speak.
I'm wounded.
Reports that one of the suspects is known by the alias "Loudoun Insider" (author of this sophomoric smear) have not been confirmed.
I fail to understand why this deserved a special e-mail report from the Potomac News/Manassas Journal-Messenger.
UPDATE: Aww, poor "Loudmouthed Inciter" doesn't like my little bon mot, and his "amen chorus" of cowardly lions and the Old Whithered Wench have chimed in by misrepresenting the content of this post, but mainly, with name-calling, declaring me a "tool." As to the last, one is tempted to observe that they know from whence they speak.
I'm wounded.
"Dangerously Naive"
So says Bill Clinton's first CIA Director, James Woolsey, on the Dalai Bama's declaration that terrorism is a law enforcement problem.
Makes Hitlary look almost reasonable.
Makes Hitlary look almost reasonable.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
In Other News, Sun Rises In The East
It seems that Reg Weaver, National Education Association president, is recommending that the teachers' union endorse Barack Obama. This follows an unbroken string of NEA endorsements of the Democrat nominees for President.
Given Obama's opposition to educational choice, it would only be news of Weaver recommended something else.
Given Obama's opposition to educational choice, it would only be news of Weaver recommended something else.
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Business Owner Who Dares To Determine His Own Business
Oh, foresooth!
From today's WaPo, via Blacknell.net, we learn of the proprietor of a new business who actually dares to make his own determination as to what services he will provide to the public.
At least one denizen of the moonbatosphere is all in a lather because Mark Semler has decided what products he will offer in his drugstore. And because he won't offer abortifacients, condoms, and birth-control pills, the moonbat in question suggests shopping elsewhere.
I guess the irony of suggesting that a consumer exercise his right to choose against a proprietor who has also exercised his right to choose is lost on the author.
In other news in today's Washington Post, the Ruby Tuesday and Papa John's in the same shopping center will be offering neither a sushi bar nor McDonald's products at their locations.
How dare they!
From today's WaPo, via Blacknell.net, we learn of the proprietor of a new business who actually dares to make his own determination as to what services he will provide to the public.
At least one denizen of the moonbatosphere is all in a lather because Mark Semler has decided what products he will offer in his drugstore. And because he won't offer abortifacients, condoms, and birth-control pills, the moonbat in question suggests shopping elsewhere.
I guess the irony of suggesting that a consumer exercise his right to choose against a proprietor who has also exercised his right to choose is lost on the author.
In other news in today's Washington Post, the Ruby Tuesday and Papa John's in the same shopping center will be offering neither a sushi bar nor McDonald's products at their locations.
How dare they!
Far Left Situational Ethics
Once again, the boys and girls at Ranting Kids ... er, Raising Dough ... er, Raising Kaine ... er, "RK," have demonstrated that the far Left has no real beliefs, except for the commitment to more power for --- you guessed it! --- other far Lefties.
Their latest rant? John McCain is no longer a "maverick."
Well of course not. When he was a useful tool for Democrats, he was a hero.
Now that he stands in the way of a Democrat becoming President, HE MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!
Their latest rant? John McCain is no longer a "maverick."
Well of course not. When he was a useful tool for Democrats, he was a hero.
Now that he stands in the way of a Democrat becoming President, HE MUST BE DESTROYED!!!!!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
WOW!
I was just cruising the Internet, and came across the biography of the Democrat Party's nominee for Virginia's Sixth Congressional District: Sam Rasoul.
It seems that Mr. Rasoul's biography makes reference to having visited "Palestine."
Interesting, but Mr. Rasoul doesn't appear to be old enough to have visited "Palestine," which hasn't existed since 1948. It's "Israel," Mr. Rasoul. Indeed, he has been identified as the youngest candidate for Congress in this year's cycle.
The reference itself speaks volumes about Rasoul's radical politics. And while ambivalence over Israel is about what I've come to expect from the modern Democrat Party, one wonders why those who have trashed clearly loyal Americans practicing Islam on the flimsiest of "evidence," using guilt-by-association tactics, haven't turned their attention to the actual statements of Mr. Rasoul, and their implications.
It seems that Mr. Rasoul's biography makes reference to having visited "Palestine."
Interesting, but Mr. Rasoul doesn't appear to be old enough to have visited "Palestine," which hasn't existed since 1948. It's "Israel," Mr. Rasoul. Indeed, he has been identified as the youngest candidate for Congress in this year's cycle.
The reference itself speaks volumes about Rasoul's radical politics. And while ambivalence over Israel is about what I've come to expect from the modern Democrat Party, one wonders why those who have trashed clearly loyal Americans practicing Islam on the flimsiest of "evidence," using guilt-by-association tactics, haven't turned their attention to the actual statements of Mr. Rasoul, and their implications.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
In Memoriam
There are men and women of a certain age in America for whom Jim McKay is synonymous with sports broadcasting. I am a man of that age.
He was a poet in a field in which many aspire to poetry, and few succeed.
He popularized many sports which theretofore gained little attention.
His humane coverage of the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games did perhaps more than anything to legitimize sports reporters as legitimate in his profession.
His "thrill of victory, agony of defeat" introduction of ABC's Wide World of Sports will be the defining sports introduction of his age, perhaps the defining introduction of his age.
Jim McKay, RIP.
He was a poet in a field in which many aspire to poetry, and few succeed.
He popularized many sports which theretofore gained little attention.
His humane coverage of the hostage-taking of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games did perhaps more than anything to legitimize sports reporters as legitimate in his profession.
His "thrill of victory, agony of defeat" introduction of ABC's Wide World of Sports will be the defining sports introduction of his age, perhaps the defining introduction of his age.
Jim McKay, RIP.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Empty Suit Fizzles in NoVA
Oh, how disappointing!
Over the last two days, Virginia's moonbatosphere has been boldly predicting that 50,000 people would show up for today's Obama campaign rally at the Nissan Pavillion, near Haymarket, in Prince William County.
Turns out, only about 10,000 people showed up, and is reflected on page one of the Internet version of the story. The only hint in the disappointing crowd size in the current WaPo story is this:
So much for "Obama fever." More like a mild headache.
Over the last two days, Virginia's moonbatosphere has been boldly predicting that 50,000 people would show up for today's Obama campaign rally at the Nissan Pavillion, near Haymarket, in Prince William County.
Turns out, only about 10,000 people showed up, and is reflected on page one of the Internet version of the story. The only hint in the disappointing crowd size in the current WaPo story is this:
State and local transportation officials had braced for a major backup on Interstate 66, but traffic was like that of a normal rush hour.Reference to the crowd expected by the moonbatosphere appears on page two of the Internet story, noting that one attendee had "heard reports that as many as 50,000 people were expected at the rally."
So much for "Obama fever." More like a mild headache.
What's The Exit Strategy?
It was on 8 January 1964, that President Lyndon Johnson declared a "War on Poverty." In light of the debacle he advanced in Southeast Asia (an undeclared war), it gives him the distinction of being the only American President to have lost miserably two wars.
Yet more than forty-four (44) years later, while we are out of Viet Nam, we are still engaged in the folly --- dare I say "quagmire"? --- of trying to fight a condition most frequently associated with bad personal decisionmaking by merely throwing money at it. By 1993, writes Robert Rector, we had spent more than $5 trillion without appreciably shrinking the percentage of Americans below the government-set "poverty line." Now, fifteen years later, the number may be as much as double the 1993 amount.
In the meantime, as Thomas Sowell observed:
Now, if I proposed a program to destroy marriage in the black community, I'd rightly be called a racist.
The Left did it, and they're portrayed as "compassionate."
Some compassion.
And it's funny, but it never seems to be enough for the far Left. Spending on social[ist] welfare programs increases in good times, when the economy is growing, and it increases in bad times. Now, I suppose one could make the case that government spending on handouts should increase when economic times are tough, but when the economy is growing!?!?! This fact, more than anything else, is the immediate tip-off that government welfare is not about "compassion," or "priming the pump," or "getting the economy back on track."
It is about power and control, pure and simple.
But I digress. My point is, in the spirit of our friends in the moonbatosphere who complain about spending $1 or $2 trillion dollars to free 25 million people, and bang the drum for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, even as conditions improve --- oh, wait, that's an official Democrat blog --- it seems fitting to ask:
What is your exit strategy from the War on Poverty?
From those of us who are footing the bill, and decidedly not engaging the social pathologies which cause poverty --- and which many of you refuse even to call "pathologies" any more --- tell us:
What is your timetable for withdrawal?
What are the conditions for "victory"?
When can we exit from the quagmire into which you have foolishly plunged us?
Perhaps when these questions are answered, we can take seriously complaints from these "deep thinkers" about Conservatives' commitment to win the war in Iraq.
Yet more than forty-four (44) years later, while we are out of Viet Nam, we are still engaged in the folly --- dare I say "quagmire"? --- of trying to fight a condition most frequently associated with bad personal decisionmaking by merely throwing money at it. By 1993, writes Robert Rector, we had spent more than $5 trillion without appreciably shrinking the percentage of Americans below the government-set "poverty line." Now, fifteen years later, the number may be as much as double the 1993 amount.
In the meantime, as Thomas Sowell observed:
The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.GMU economist Walter Williams points out that the defining characteristic of economic success is marriage, noting that "The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage — lower poverty in married-couple families."
Now, if I proposed a program to destroy marriage in the black community, I'd rightly be called a racist.
The Left did it, and they're portrayed as "compassionate."
Some compassion.
And it's funny, but it never seems to be enough for the far Left. Spending on social[ist] welfare programs increases in good times, when the economy is growing, and it increases in bad times. Now, I suppose one could make the case that government spending on handouts should increase when economic times are tough, but when the economy is growing!?!?! This fact, more than anything else, is the immediate tip-off that government welfare is not about "compassion," or "priming the pump," or "getting the economy back on track."
It is about power and control, pure and simple.
But I digress. My point is, in the spirit of our friends in the moonbatosphere who complain about spending $1 or $2 trillion dollars to free 25 million people, and bang the drum for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, even as conditions improve --- oh, wait, that's an official Democrat blog --- it seems fitting to ask:
What is your exit strategy from the War on Poverty?
From those of us who are footing the bill, and decidedly not engaging the social pathologies which cause poverty --- and which many of you refuse even to call "pathologies" any more --- tell us:
What is your timetable for withdrawal?
What are the conditions for "victory"?
When can we exit from the quagmire into which you have foolishly plunged us?
Perhaps when these questions are answered, we can take seriously complaints from these "deep thinkers" about Conservatives' commitment to win the war in Iraq.
Party Unity
Jim Bowden has a great post on what I believe to be --- at least as to the latter --- exaggerated reports that retiring Senator John Warner and Congressman Tom Davis are withholding their support from GOP nominee for Senate Jim Gilmore. The article discussing the facts seems to me to be an exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill.
I have no trouble believing reports about John Warner's perfidy. As one WMAL host has observed in other contexts, "Frequently appalled, but never surprised."
However, I would be very surprised if Tom Davis did not endorse his Party's nominee, notwithstanding any lingering bitterness over the fact that the GOP chose to nominate through a convention, and not a primary. Tom is a big boy, and my guess is that he understands that for many members of the State Central Committee, it was --- to quote a line from "The Godfather" --- "nothing personal; just business." Many of those voting --- at least those with whom I am acquainted --- have principled reasons for supporting conventions over primaries, as do I, and hold that conventions are the first and best method of choosing Republican nominees.
I said at the time that I would have been torn had Tom Davis run against Jim Gilmore for the GOP nomination for Senate, just as I was in the race between Gilmore and Bob Marshall (I ended up casting my ballot for Bob, but I am perfectly satisfied with Gilmore as the nominee). To be sure, I have had my differences with Congressman Davis, but I have known him for nearly as long as I have known Jim Gilmore. As Chairman of the PWC YRs when he ran for Congress for the first time in 1994, I worked hard for his election over then-incumbent Leslie Byrne. We've hosted him in our home. Our conversations have always been pleasant, and substantive. I consider him a friend.
I expect Tom Davis to do the right thing, because Tom --- unlike those Jim Bowden identifies as "RINOs" --- knows how Party politics are played. And even though it seems doubtful that he will stand for elective office again, I would be among those most surprised if he cast off a history of endorsing the Party's nominees from across the entire spectrum of those who are properly considered "Republicans" in order to gain the momentary and passing satisfaction of personal revenge.
Maintaining the filibuster in the Senate in a year that looks to be a good one for Democrats, and against the evils that they could perpetrate, is just too important.
I have no trouble believing reports about John Warner's perfidy. As one WMAL host has observed in other contexts, "Frequently appalled, but never surprised."
However, I would be very surprised if Tom Davis did not endorse his Party's nominee, notwithstanding any lingering bitterness over the fact that the GOP chose to nominate through a convention, and not a primary. Tom is a big boy, and my guess is that he understands that for many members of the State Central Committee, it was --- to quote a line from "The Godfather" --- "nothing personal; just business." Many of those voting --- at least those with whom I am acquainted --- have principled reasons for supporting conventions over primaries, as do I, and hold that conventions are the first and best method of choosing Republican nominees.
I said at the time that I would have been torn had Tom Davis run against Jim Gilmore for the GOP nomination for Senate, just as I was in the race between Gilmore and Bob Marshall (I ended up casting my ballot for Bob, but I am perfectly satisfied with Gilmore as the nominee). To be sure, I have had my differences with Congressman Davis, but I have known him for nearly as long as I have known Jim Gilmore. As Chairman of the PWC YRs when he ran for Congress for the first time in 1994, I worked hard for his election over then-incumbent Leslie Byrne. We've hosted him in our home. Our conversations have always been pleasant, and substantive. I consider him a friend.
I expect Tom Davis to do the right thing, because Tom --- unlike those Jim Bowden identifies as "RINOs" --- knows how Party politics are played. And even though it seems doubtful that he will stand for elective office again, I would be among those most surprised if he cast off a history of endorsing the Party's nominees from across the entire spectrum of those who are properly considered "Republicans" in order to gain the momentary and passing satisfaction of personal revenge.
Maintaining the filibuster in the Senate in a year that looks to be a good one for Democrats, and against the evils that they could perpetrate, is just too important.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Ben Tribbett Tries To Stir The Pot
And so we witness the fruits of the labors of the Gill-Haters: Democrat blogger Ben Tribbett asks:
I thought Ben was a friend of mine. Sure, we disagree on just about everything political, but I thought he read my blog, where his question is answered.
The short answer to your question, Ben, is "No." The result was close, but Gilmore certainly won the GOP nomination.
Now, to be sure, I had my doubts about the veracity of the outcome, but they were based upon apparent incomptence, not conspiracy. However, those concerns were promptly cleared up.
Perhaps even Ben knows the silliness of his suggestion. After all, Larry's not flippin' his hairpiece over this headline.
Did Gilmore Steal The Nomination????
I thought Ben was a friend of mine. Sure, we disagree on just about everything political, but I thought he read my blog, where his question is answered.The short answer to your question, Ben, is "No." The result was close, but Gilmore certainly won the GOP nomination.
Now, to be sure, I had my doubts about the veracity of the outcome, but they were based upon apparent incomptence, not conspiracy. However, those concerns were promptly cleared up.
Perhaps even Ben knows the silliness of his suggestion. After all, Larry's not flippin' his hairpiece over this headline.
The Empty Suit Speaks
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Mark Warner's Pre-Emptive Strike
Just received a missive from the Mark Warner campaign. How I got on that list I'll never know.
In it, we get an interesting insight into the strategy to be followed by the Boyish Governor in trying to avoid his impending spanking for lying to the voters of Virginia by promising not to raise taxes, and then doing precisely that.
Warner campaign manager Mike Henry complains that Governor James S. Gilmore, upon narrowly winning the GOP nomination, "immediately went on the attack against Mark Warner."
Whine.
Henry also cites friendly news articles immediately attacking Gilmore, and complaining about "bitter partisanship."
Whine.
This from the guy who finds comfort from the Moonbatosphere, which constitutes all attacks, all the time?
So there's the strategy: whine, ... er, call it "an attack" when Governor Gilmore points out the differences between the two candidates, and complain about partisanship while seeking to join the most bitterly partisan Democrat caucus in history.
Wow! If it weren't so nakedly ridiculous, it would almost be funny.
Here's Henry's letter in full:
In it, we get an interesting insight into the strategy to be followed by the Boyish Governor in trying to avoid his impending spanking for lying to the voters of Virginia by promising not to raise taxes, and then doing precisely that.
Warner campaign manager Mike Henry complains that Governor James S. Gilmore, upon narrowly winning the GOP nomination, "immediately went on the attack against Mark Warner."
Whine.
Henry also cites friendly news articles immediately attacking Gilmore, and complaining about "bitter partisanship."
Whine.
This from the guy who finds comfort from the Moonbatosphere, which constitutes all attacks, all the time?
So there's the strategy: whine, ... er, call it "an attack" when Governor Gilmore points out the differences between the two candidates, and complain about partisanship while seeking to join the most bitterly partisan Democrat caucus in history.
Wow! If it weren't so nakedly ridiculous, it would almost be funny.
Here's Henry's letter in full:
Friend --
The fight at the Virginia Republican Party convention this weekend was extremely close and hard-fought - and Jim Gilmore immediately went on the attack against Mark Warner.
Even the Richmond Times Dispatch said today that the tactic suggested "desperation" and noted that the Republicans are "more interested in posturing, more interested in appeasing interest groups, and more interested in partisanship than in getting things done." Yesterday, the Lynchburg News & Advance said our opponent will likely run "the kind of street brawl campaign you normally would expect to come across in New Jersey or New York." New Jersey and New York in Virginia??? The newspaper even asked him to "give the state's voters a campaign of ideas and civil debate, not the slash-and-burn techniques that have characterized the past."
Virginians deserve better. We have seen enough bitter partisanship to know that it doesn't get the job done. The only way we're going to create the jobs of the future, reduce the deficit, and put our country back on track is by working constructively to tackle the major challenges staring us in the face.
Will you write a letter to the editor telling your local newspaper that Virginians deserve a positive campaign focused on how we can move our country forward - not the divide-and-conquer politics of the past?
[Helpful link omitted]
Now that the other side has settled on their candidate, we need to ensure that we set the tone of this race.
Our country faces serious challenges and our political discourse must rise to a level commensurate with them. That's why we need to let every voter in Virginia know the truth about the type of campaign Jim Gilmore plans to wage.
We can prove that a positive, forward-looking campaign can defeat the same old tired, textbook political tactics that so many of us just don't trust anymore. But we need your help.
Write a letter-to-the-editor from our action center. Tell your local newspaper that we deserve a positive campaign focused on how we can move our country forward - not the divide-and-conquer politics of the past.
[Helpful link omitted]
Thanks so much for your support. Together, we'll get our country back on track.
Best,
Mike Henry
Campaign Manager
Lowell's List Of Lies
Well, one of the children at Ranting Kids, ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine, ... er, "RK," ... er, whatever, is at it again. That is, repeating the lies of the moonbat far Left. Since whomever is running that site has decided that dissent is not to be tolerated and banned me from posting (having pointed out a few uncomfortable truths), I guess I'll just have to respond here. Here are Lowell's lies, with rebuttal:
*Politicizing science --- No specifics, but I presume he refers to those who don't buy into the myth of human-caused global warming. Or is that just "climate change," in light in the slight changes in recent weather patterns giving the United States --- save for the mid-Atlantic --- one of the most severe winters in recent memory? No apology owed.
*Running his super-secret, "Kenny Boy" and ExxonMobil-dominated energy task force --- "Super-secret"? Worst-kept "secret" in Washington. And who does Lowell think should be involved with an "energy task force"? Luddite environmentalist wackos? No apology owed.
*Iraq, including the case for war citing an alleged relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, etc. --- Propagating again perhaps the single greatest lie of the far Left, and coupling it with misrepresentation of the main reasons cited as the casus belli. Lowell apparently doesn't understand the purpose of "pre-emption," which is, of course, to prevent the development of a smaller problem into a larger one, i.e., the potential coupling of Iraq's WMDs with radical Islamicist terrorist organizations. No apology owed.
*Abu Ghraib --- What? Cheney was personally in this prison and engaged in the misdeeds? Of course not. The criminals were prosecuted, by this Administration. Bold words from a man who didn't even hold Clinton responsible for his personal misdeeds. No apology owed.
*Extraordinary rendition, secret prisons in Eastern Europe --- And? No apology owed. Were it that Lowell had a history of problems with the "secret prisons in Eastern Europe" run by the late Communist regimes governing them, or the current ones in China. No apology owed.
*Waterboarding and other torture --- What "other torture"? And, of course, the premise is incorrect. Creating apprehension of grievous bodily harm is not "torture." Of course, lest we not forget, these are the same types of people who think the "health" of a pregnant woman is put at risk by any pregnancy, because the poor dears might suffer some offense to their mental health by carrying the child to term (as any parent knows, this is an exception big enough to drive a truck through). No apology owed.
*Gitmo --- And? What would Lowell do with illegal enemy combatants? Free them? The fruits of such foolishness were recently seen in southern Iraq, where a former Gitmo detainee became a suicide bomber. No apology owed.
*Enormous budget deficits --- Yes. These are all Cheney's personal fault. Congress and the socialist welfare state enacted by Democrat Presidents and a Congress dominated by Democrats for forty years had nothing to do with it. No apology owed.
*Continued addiction on Saudi oil --- Sure. It was Dick Cheney who prevented drilling off the coast of the United States and in ANWR. Such a criticism is silly, too, when one considers the criticism over the "super-secret energy task force." No apology owed.
*Outing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame --- Multiple lies in just a few words. Plame wasn't a covert agent when "outed," and hadn't been for the period covered by the relevant statute. The special prosecutor investigating the matter couldn't even prosecute anyone for doing so, and knew it quite early. And it was Richard Armitage who "outed" Valerie Plame's long-past activities, apparently inadvertently. No apology owed.
*War profiteering and sleazy no-bid contracts, including his former company Halliburton --- Again, maddeningly nonspecific, save for the reference to Halliburton, whose history of "sleazy no-big contracts" goes back to --- you guessed it! --- the Clinton Administration. No apology owed.
*Shooting a friend of his and then trying to cover it up --- A hunting accident? First, I believe that Cheney did apologize to his friend. Second, the notion that there was some kind of "cover ... up" is among the rankest lies I have ever seen on Ranting Kids, ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine, ... er, "RK," ... er, whatever. It became public knowledge more quickly than, say, Teddy Kennedy's involvement in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick. No apology owed.
*Claiming he "does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because his office is part of the Legislature." --- Uh, Lowell, the VP has a dual role, both executive and legislative. Might want to brush up on your Constitution. No apology owed.
*Gross negligence leading up to Hurricane Katrina and also in its aftermath --- As compared to whom? The New Orleans Mayor who left 250 school buses to be inundated? A governor of Louisiana who couldn't find her a** with both hands? The local board in charge of New Orleans levees which failed in its duties. Plenty of blame to go around, but it's Cheney who owes an apology? No apology owed.
*Snidely dismissing energy conservation as "a sign of personal virtue" --- Well, maybe he should apologize for this. "Personal virtue"? Or "moral exhibitionism"? No apology owed.
*Authoring unconstitutional and outrageous "signing statements" which "declare the president's intent to disregard provisions of bills he has signed into law that he proclaims are unconstitutional." --- You mean, like Democrat President Andrew Jackson's declarations of unconstitutionality? And when has Cheney ever "authored" any of these? Another fantasy. However, I would agree that the better course is to simply veto bills like McCain-Feingold. No apology owed.
*Engineering "the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978." --- A bald-faced lie. The NSA has not and does not "target[] American citizens." However, when American citizens receive international calls from suspect foreign nationals, it's another matter entirely, and rightly so. No apology owed.
Perhaps Cheney's West Virginia joke was in poor taste. Most humor is. But the notion that the Vice President owes an apology to anyone for even those activities in the above list for which he is responsible is just an example of the extremism of the moonbats setting the agenda for the modern Democrat Party. Apology implies responsibility. And for most of Lowell's complaints, even those which identify real --- as opposed to imagined --- wrongs, Vice President Cheney is not responsible, or not even remotely and partially responsible.
*Politicizing science --- No specifics, but I presume he refers to those who don't buy into the myth of human-caused global warming. Or is that just "climate change," in light in the slight changes in recent weather patterns giving the United States --- save for the mid-Atlantic --- one of the most severe winters in recent memory? No apology owed.
*Running his super-secret, "Kenny Boy" and ExxonMobil-dominated energy task force --- "Super-secret"? Worst-kept "secret" in Washington. And who does Lowell think should be involved with an "energy task force"? Luddite environmentalist wackos? No apology owed.
*Iraq, including the case for war citing an alleged relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, etc. --- Propagating again perhaps the single greatest lie of the far Left, and coupling it with misrepresentation of the main reasons cited as the casus belli. Lowell apparently doesn't understand the purpose of "pre-emption," which is, of course, to prevent the development of a smaller problem into a larger one, i.e., the potential coupling of Iraq's WMDs with radical Islamicist terrorist organizations. No apology owed.
*Abu Ghraib --- What? Cheney was personally in this prison and engaged in the misdeeds? Of course not. The criminals were prosecuted, by this Administration. Bold words from a man who didn't even hold Clinton responsible for his personal misdeeds. No apology owed.
*Extraordinary rendition, secret prisons in Eastern Europe --- And? No apology owed. Were it that Lowell had a history of problems with the "secret prisons in Eastern Europe" run by the late Communist regimes governing them, or the current ones in China. No apology owed.
*Waterboarding and other torture --- What "other torture"? And, of course, the premise is incorrect. Creating apprehension of grievous bodily harm is not "torture." Of course, lest we not forget, these are the same types of people who think the "health" of a pregnant woman is put at risk by any pregnancy, because the poor dears might suffer some offense to their mental health by carrying the child to term (as any parent knows, this is an exception big enough to drive a truck through). No apology owed.
*Gitmo --- And? What would Lowell do with illegal enemy combatants? Free them? The fruits of such foolishness were recently seen in southern Iraq, where a former Gitmo detainee became a suicide bomber. No apology owed.
*Enormous budget deficits --- Yes. These are all Cheney's personal fault. Congress and the socialist welfare state enacted by Democrat Presidents and a Congress dominated by Democrats for forty years had nothing to do with it. No apology owed.
*Continued addiction on Saudi oil --- Sure. It was Dick Cheney who prevented drilling off the coast of the United States and in ANWR. Such a criticism is silly, too, when one considers the criticism over the "super-secret energy task force." No apology owed.
*Outing covert CIA agent Valerie Plame --- Multiple lies in just a few words. Plame wasn't a covert agent when "outed," and hadn't been for the period covered by the relevant statute. The special prosecutor investigating the matter couldn't even prosecute anyone for doing so, and knew it quite early. And it was Richard Armitage who "outed" Valerie Plame's long-past activities, apparently inadvertently. No apology owed.
*War profiteering and sleazy no-bid contracts, including his former company Halliburton --- Again, maddeningly nonspecific, save for the reference to Halliburton, whose history of "sleazy no-big contracts" goes back to --- you guessed it! --- the Clinton Administration. No apology owed.
*Shooting a friend of his and then trying to cover it up --- A hunting accident? First, I believe that Cheney did apologize to his friend. Second, the notion that there was some kind of "cover ... up" is among the rankest lies I have ever seen on Ranting Kids, ... er, Raising Dough, ... er, "Raising Kaine, ... er, "RK," ... er, whatever. It became public knowledge more quickly than, say, Teddy Kennedy's involvement in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne at Chappaquiddick. No apology owed.
*Claiming he "does not have to comply with an executive order on safeguarding classified information because his office is part of the Legislature." --- Uh, Lowell, the VP has a dual role, both executive and legislative. Might want to brush up on your Constitution. No apology owed.
*Gross negligence leading up to Hurricane Katrina and also in its aftermath --- As compared to whom? The New Orleans Mayor who left 250 school buses to be inundated? A governor of Louisiana who couldn't find her a** with both hands? The local board in charge of New Orleans levees which failed in its duties. Plenty of blame to go around, but it's Cheney who owes an apology? No apology owed.
*Snidely dismissing energy conservation as "a sign of personal virtue" --- Well, maybe he should apologize for this. "Personal virtue"? Or "moral exhibitionism"? No apology owed.
*Authoring unconstitutional and outrageous "signing statements" which "declare the president's intent to disregard provisions of bills he has signed into law that he proclaims are unconstitutional." --- You mean, like Democrat President Andrew Jackson's declarations of unconstitutionality? And when has Cheney ever "authored" any of these? Another fantasy. However, I would agree that the better course is to simply veto bills like McCain-Feingold. No apology owed.
*Engineering "the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978." --- A bald-faced lie. The NSA has not and does not "target[] American citizens." However, when American citizens receive international calls from suspect foreign nationals, it's another matter entirely, and rightly so. No apology owed.
Perhaps Cheney's West Virginia joke was in poor taste. Most humor is. But the notion that the Vice President owes an apology to anyone for even those activities in the above list for which he is responsible is just an example of the extremism of the moonbats setting the agenda for the modern Democrat Party. Apology implies responsibility. And for most of Lowell's complaints, even those which identify real --- as opposed to imagined --- wrongs, Vice President Cheney is not responsible, or not even remotely and partially responsible.
Monday, June 02, 2008
This Is A Mistake
I say this as someone who voted for Bob Marshall at the Convention, and has known both men for nearly twenty years: this is a mistake. Bob Marshall is apparently trying to extract concessions from Jim Gilmore, and one he doesn't even need to extract:
The only Federal role would be on federal funding of abortions, and I presume that Jim Gilmore supports the Hyde Amendment.
What Bob wants, Bob is not entitled to get. It would be a meaningless gesture, in the sense that the United States Senate has no legislative role on this issue. And if Jim Gilmore were to agree to Bob's conditions, the only thing he would achieve would be to gain a reputation as a flip-flopper. It would be unpersuasive to his enemies, and offensive to his friends.
Bob Marshall needs to get behind the nominee, as his supporters are. Failure to do so only gives aid and comfort to the scumbags who are tearing the GOP apart from the Left, and justify their own bad behavior upon their caricatures of Conservatives.
This is one of those few occasions where we should not respond in kind, and should set the better example. It not only is a costless activity; it is the honorable course on the State Party Plan.
Bob Marshall should immediately and unqualifiedly endorse Jim Gilmore now. If a filibuter-proof Senate is elected with a President Obama, the cause of Life could be set back for fifty years.
C'mon, Bob! I'm pro-life, too, but this guy is running for the United States Senate, not the Virginia Senate. His primary ability to advance the pro-life cause is to confirm judges and Justices of the United States Supreme Court who will reverse Roe v. Wade for the constitutional monstrosity that it is, and return the issue of when or if to allow abortion back to the States, where it belongs.Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William) said today he ... probably will not be endorsing GOP Senate nominee James S. Gilmore III....
In an interview, Marshall said he remains upset about mailers Gilmore sent out during the final days of their race for the nomination. Gilmore, a former governor, defeated Marshall by less than 1 percent at the state GOP convention on Saturday.
A few days before the convention, Gilmore sent out a mailing that questioned Marshall's conservative credentials. The Gilmore campaign said it was responding to three negative mail pieces that Marshall had sent out.
"Why would Jim want my endorsement?" Marshall asked. "He says I am dishonest, so why would an honorable man like Jim Gilmore want an endorsement from someone he says is dishonest?"
But Marshall, who based his campaign on his staunch opposition to abortion and tax increases, added he will throw his support behind Gilmore if the former governor comes out in favor of banning all abortions.
The only Federal role would be on federal funding of abortions, and I presume that Jim Gilmore supports the Hyde Amendment.
What Bob wants, Bob is not entitled to get. It would be a meaningless gesture, in the sense that the United States Senate has no legislative role on this issue. And if Jim Gilmore were to agree to Bob's conditions, the only thing he would achieve would be to gain a reputation as a flip-flopper. It would be unpersuasive to his enemies, and offensive to his friends.
Bob Marshall needs to get behind the nominee, as his supporters are. Failure to do so only gives aid and comfort to the scumbags who are tearing the GOP apart from the Left, and justify their own bad behavior upon their caricatures of Conservatives.
This is one of those few occasions where we should not respond in kind, and should set the better example. It not only is a costless activity; it is the honorable course on the State Party Plan.
Bob Marshall should immediately and unqualifiedly endorse Jim Gilmore now. If a filibuter-proof Senate is elected with a President Obama, the cause of Life could be set back for fifty years.
Would You Like Some Cheese With That Whine?
The Convention's over; Jim Gilmore is our nominee; and those who supported Bob Marshall are lining up behind the GOP nominee.
Yet some --- most too cowardly to reveal their identities --- are still pining away over the fact that we had a convention to choose our nominee, and Tom Davis didn't even bother to run.
The iron fact of Republican politics is this: When Conservatives don't get their way, they support the GOP nominee; when "moderates" don't get their way, they continue to complain.
The funny thing is that the Tom Davis I have know for nearly twenty years isn't like this. The Tom Davis I know has always understood that loyalty is a two-way street, and delivers for those whom some of his supporters find to be "too Conservative."
It's really too bad that those who purport to support him don't follow his example.
Yet some --- most too cowardly to reveal their identities --- are still pining away over the fact that we had a convention to choose our nominee, and Tom Davis didn't even bother to run.
The iron fact of Republican politics is this: When Conservatives don't get their way, they support the GOP nominee; when "moderates" don't get their way, they continue to complain.
The funny thing is that the Tom Davis I have know for nearly twenty years isn't like this. The Tom Davis I know has always understood that loyalty is a two-way street, and delivers for those whom some of his supporters find to be "too Conservative."
It's really too bad that those who purport to support him don't follow his example.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Important Question Resolved
In a post late last night, I expressed concerns about the outcome of the GOP nomination for United States Senate. And the Republican State Convention yesterday, a number of delegate votes (approximately 22 or 23) were reported for Bob Berry, who had not qualified for nomination.
Under Robert's Rules of Order, which govern such questions in the State GOP under the Party Plan, those votes shouldn't have been counted at all, and certainly not reported, and the delegate votes split among Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall in proportion to the other votes in the unit.
My questions arose because: (a) we didn't know which unit they came from; and (b) because Jim Gilmore's margin of victory was so narrow that I feared it might have changed the outcome when properly calculated. Such a happenstance could be used by unsavory people (this links to my discussion of him, not to his site, as I will not link to racist sites) to hobble our nominee, in the same way that unscrupulous people did so with regard to last year's 51st House of Delegates District race.
Fortunately, the Chairman of the unit in question, the Salem Republican Committee (don't know his name), saw my post, and offered this helpful clarification of the issue:
In any case, I am happy that the issue was resolved correctly. My concerns have been laid to rest.
Unqualified congratulations to the Republican nominee, and the next junior Senator from Virginia, Jim Gilmore!
Under Robert's Rules of Order, which govern such questions in the State GOP under the Party Plan, those votes shouldn't have been counted at all, and certainly not reported, and the delegate votes split among Jim Gilmore and Bob Marshall in proportion to the other votes in the unit.
My questions arose because: (a) we didn't know which unit they came from; and (b) because Jim Gilmore's margin of victory was so narrow that I feared it might have changed the outcome when properly calculated. Such a happenstance could be used by unsavory people (this links to my discussion of him, not to his site, as I will not link to racist sites) to hobble our nominee, in the same way that unscrupulous people did so with regard to last year's 51st House of Delegates District race.
Fortunately, the Chairman of the unit in question, the Salem Republican Committee (don't know his name), saw my post, and offered this helpful clarification of the issue:
FWIW, the Berry issue was actually resolved correctly. The 6th District, and specifically Salem and Roanoke City, were where the Berry votes came from (I know because I counted the Salem ballots). While they were initially reported, they came back to us and told us to remove those Berry votes (our 5 votes cast for 44 delegates became 4 votes cast for 44 delegates). We then recalculated and the official numbers were based on these recalculated numbers (done according to Roberts Rules).I was sufficiently concerned that I raised my concerns at the Convention with Eleventh District GOP Chairman Becky Stoeckel, and to Kathy Marshall (a long-time friend). I have no problem with Jim Gilmore as our nominee; I simply voted for Bob for reasons stated elsewhere, and didn't want him harmed by any hint of impropriety.
In any case, I am happy that the issue was resolved correctly. My concerns have been laid to rest.
Unqualified congratulations to the Republican nominee, and the next junior Senator from Virginia, Jim Gilmore!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)