WE'RE WINNING! WE'RE LOSING! I'M SO CONFUSED!

If you're confused also, you're not alone. Trolling through the Internet for newsworthy items to comment upon, I found two headlines on The Drudge Report right next to each other. The first, from The Politico said "Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure' ". The second, from the British Times Online said just the opposite: "Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear'".

So which is the truth and which is the lie? Well, according to Montag's Immutable Law of Nature No. 6 ("What's good for America is bad for the Democrats and vice versa") it would have to be Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the House.

Oh, to be sure, Ms. Pelosi made a point of praising out troops in Iraq. “The troops have succeeded, God bless them.” After all, the Democrats' canards have always included "But we support the troops!"

So, if the troops have succeeded, where is the failure? The Politico tells us that Ms. Pelosi explains: “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq. They have not done that.”

Don't worry, folks! I'm as confused as you are! The troops have succeeded, but they have failed? That's sort of like John Kerry: "I actually voted for the $87 billion -- before I voted against it." Will the Legacy Media rush to Pelosi's defense and say that she, like Kerry, are too nuanced and intelligent for us mere mortals to understand?

The simple fact is, today's Democratic Party is owned -- lock, stock and barrel -- by the Kook Fringe. These are the lunatics who are still fighting over the 2000 election and how it was "stolen" from Al Gore. Many of them even think the 2004 election was stolen from Kerry. These are the guys who tell us it was all a war for oil, while the price keeps shooting through the roof. They are also those freaks who frequent web sites like 9/11 Truth and such. And if a Democrat dares to be sane? Well, look what happened to Joe Leiberman. The Kook Fringe Base will try to destroy him.

Pelosi goes on at length, denigrating the achievements we have made in Iraq. When asked by Wolf Blitzer (the report was about a CNN interview) if she wasn't worried about losing any ground gained by the surge, she replied:

“There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure. The troops have succeeded, God bless them. We owe them the greatest debt of gratitude for their sacrifice, their patriotism, and for their courage and to their families as well."

People, you can't make this stuff up! The troops have succeeded, but Iraq hasn't had the reconcilliation that Ms. Pelosi wants. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Constitution has no provision for the Speaker of the House to handle foreign policy, right? I mean, that's an Executive Branch responsibility, isn't it? I thought so.

And hasn't General David Petraeus reported, in an interview with Reuters, that the influx of foreign jihadists entering Iraq is down some 50%? And this is a failure how?

Could Iraq be doing better in the political sphere? I'm sure they could. But they just elected their own government, and they've got an awful lot on their plate. After all, the Founding Fathers didn't just conjur up a government immediately after the Revolutionary War. It takes time to build the institutions that make up a government.

And wasn't it only a couple of years ago that the Left was accusing the United States of creating a puppet government in Iraq? If it's a puppet government, then why can't the President just order the reconcilliation expected by Nancy Pelosi?

No, the Iraqis are governing themselves, and any reconcilliation or political reforms will be on their terms, not Nancy Pelosi's. But then when haven't the Democrats want things both ways?

Meanwhile, we have to go to Britain's Time Online to find out that captured documents and letters from Al Qaeda in Iraq show that the terrorist organization is crumbling and in disarray, thanks to the surge in American troops and the wholesale defection of Sunni tribal leaders who have decided to join the Americans and the Iraqi government in fighting the insurgents.

Correct me once again, but, if the Sunni tribal leaders are joining the Iraqi government, isn't that reconcilliation? What in the world is Nancy Pelosi talking about?

Well, don't expect Ms. Pelosi or Hillary or Barak to get any tough questions about American successes in Iraq. After all, we had to go to a British paper to find out about them. Haven't you noticed how Iraq has dropped from the Legay Media's coverage of the news? Sure! I know that "if it bleeds it leads" and all that. But let's not forget the political ripples good news such as this can create.

The Legacy Media is -- let's face it -- in the tank with the Democratic Party. L. Brent Bozzell and others have long ago documented their Liberal bias. It is an established fact. And since the Legacy Media is in bed with the Democrats, then you just know that any news that's good for America will be buried and/or ignored. So you can guarantee that the leaders of the Democratic Party won't get any serious questions about out successes in Iraq.

But then, that's what the New Media is all about. I'm talking about talk radio, places like the Drudge Report and Montag's World, the little blog that could!

Don't think that we'll let this happy nonsense slide by unremarked!

Copyright Feb. 11th, 2008

NO COMPARISON

Now it is all but official. John McCain has little, or nothing, between him and the Republican nomination. The rest of the primaries might be nothing more than formalities.


Mitt Romney has stepped aside, leaving Mike Huckabee angling for the Number Two spot in McCain's inexorable drive to the Republican nomination. Ron Paul, playing to part of the "crazy uncle in the attic that no one likes to talk about", is still in the race. Of course, that is merely for comic relief at this point.


Having read the speeches today of both Romney and McCain, I thought that a comparison would be in order. The two candidates show remarkably different attitudes toward Conservatives.


John McCain finds himself in terra incognita. His is one of the only campaigns that, having secured the nomination (or all but the signature on the document) he has to go back and secure his base. Ever since Richard Nixon, Republican candidates had to make more Conservative noises to gain the nomination, and then had to move "toward the center" to secure the election itself. Similarly, Democrats had to appease their most Liberal base for the nomination and move to the center in the general election. John McCain finds himself with broad support among Liberals, Democrats, moderates and Independents.


Unfortunately, the base of the Republican Party -- Conservatives, that is -- have been left cold by his penchant for "reaching across the aisle". McCain correctly notes that the Gold Standard for Conservatives, Ronald Reagan, often "reached across the aisle" to Democrats. This is supposed to allay Conservative fears, I guess. But Conservatives know that this is misrepresenting what Reagan was about.


Sure, Ronald Reagan "reached across the aisle" to the Democrats. However, he did so to bring them over to his point of view. Reagan didn't move his policies to the Left when he "reached across the aisle", he moved the Democrats to the Right. On the other hand, McCain has made a two decade career of siding with the Democrats on issue after issue.

• He explained his vote against the Bush tax cuts with Democratic rhetoric, calling them "tax cuts for the rich".


• He has sided with the Democrats over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, urging the closure of the base and the inclusion of enemy combatants in American civilian courts and prisons, presumably giving them access to the same rights as American criminals. He would also deny our interrogators the tools they need to quickly elicit information from detainees that would prevent further terrorist attacks.


• He has sponsored the most serious breech of the First Amendment in American history, teaming up with Russ Feingold to create campaign finance "reform", which neither gets money out of politics, nor empowers anyone but the Legacy Media and the unions. Does anyone seriously believe that he would ever appoint judges to the Supreme Court who would rule against McCain-Feingold?


• Speaking of judges, McCain led the infamous "Gang of 14", that left the Senate with the ability to block any judges they disliked with a minority of dissenting votes, rather than the majority demanded by the Constitution.


• McCain-Kennedy, meanwhile, made a mockery of the rule of law, failing to secure our borders, while simulaneously creating all sorts of incentives to violate American immigration law. He claims it isn't really amnesty, but it didn't provide for any real enforcement and totally ignored border security.


• And what Conservative in his right mind would suddenly decide that Global Warmism can be averted with Cap & Trade laws that would, incidently, stifle the American economy? And yet, here we have the putative nominee of the GOP cosponsoring the economically devastating McCain-Leiberman Bill.


• McCain is claiming the Pro-Life mantle, while voting for embryonic stem cell research, and opposing a Constitutional amendment to define, once and for all, marriage as a state between a man and a woman. So why vote for Barak or Hillary, when we've got McCain?

Now, today, with the nomination all but sewn up, John McCain speaks before the Conservative Political Action Committee, or C-PAC. Suddenly, he's a Conservative. He tells this august body of Conservative thinkers and activists that he has "a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November." So, where was he for the last 25 years?

He also makes this spectacular claim: "I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles..." Of course, in "reaching across the aisle", one should never let those "most basic of principles" get in the way!

Lest you might confuse him with being blind to his controversial nature, McCain acknowledges his "occasional" lapses from Conservative philosophy: "Surely, I have held ... positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives." Looking back at the above list, one could be excused for exclaiming, "Well, DUH!" Apparently, the Senator from Arizona has been hiding a mastery of understatement.

Of the November elections, he says that, rather than debating small differences between the Parties "We are arguing about hugely consequential things." OK! But where, exactly, besides the surge in Iraq, does McCain really differ from the Democrats?

In summation, McCain says that he is the Conservative candidate because he says he is. Therefore, all us Conservatives need to get over any belief that "...I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative..." and get behind him as the Republican nominee.

This is condescending at best. This is almost as insulting as Dorothy Rabinowitz calling Conservative critics of John McCain and his record "semi psychotic". As far as I'm concerned, the only thing "semi psychotic" is this inane effort to recast Conservatism as John McCain. Such an effort is Orwellian.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has shown what a class act he really is. Yes, he dropped out of the primary race. But he did so for the best of reasons: he wants to see whomever the Democratic nominee is to go down in defeat in November. Hence, although he has garnered enough support around the nation to continue, especially among Conservatives, he would step aside to prevent the sort of internecine bloodletting that would all but hand the White House over to the Democrats.

Of the need for Conservative values, he said "We face a new generation of challenges, challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future."

And of failure to embrace these Conservative principles? "I am convinced that unless America changes course, we will become the France of the 21st century—still a great nation, but no longer the leader of the world, no longer the superpower."

Truer words have never been spoken! One of France's biggest problems is that it is losing its culture thanks to unrelenting Muslim immigration and an overexpansive welfare state. An Obama or Hillary administration (or McCain, for that matter) will send us ever onward down that slippery slope.

Romney warns us of the perils of electing a Liberal to the White House: "Economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Don't forget that John McCain belittled Romney's business experience saying "I did it out of patriotism, not for profit", as if there was something unpatriotic about being a businessman.

Friends, put the two speeches, both delivered to C-PAC on the same day, side by side and compare. Clearly, Mitt Romney showed himself to the true Conservative. John McCain tried to obfuscate his record in Congress, while wrapping himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. (A comment posted on a news article about McCain said "I don't want to see what's under that mantle!")

Romney only had to speak of his beliefs, he needed no props. McCain had to trot out all those old photos of him with Reagan.

McCain kept claiming to be the Conservative candidate.

Romney merely spoke about what that Conservative stands for.

The distinction is clear. And the Republican Party didn't get the best man.

Copyright Feb. 7th, 2008

THE ELITES CHOOSE A CANDIDATE

Yes, that's right! It has become more and more obvious that the elites of politics and media are trying to choose the Republican nominee for the presidential election of 2008. And, just as in the past, the choice of these elites will go down in flames, leaving America weaker for their troubles.

What I am talking about is the almost monolithic drumbeat for the McCain candidacy. Over and over, we are told that only McCain can defeat the Democrats in November. Conservatives who criticize McCain's Liberal tendencies are called "semi-psychotic", in the words of Wall Street Journal editrix Dorothy Rabinowitz. Even the New York Times, which hasn't found anything nice to say about any Republican candidate, has endorsed John McCain. If that weren't reason enough to oppose him, I just don't know what is!

Since I've mentioned two of the media elitists who are in the tank for John McCain, let me explain who the political elties in this travesty are. I am talking about those Old Guard, country club, blueblood, "Rockefeller", Establishment Republicans. These are the real problem for the Republican Party, not the Democrats.

Hence forth, in the interests of accuracy and simplicity, we shall refer to these elitist snobs as RINOs, or Republican In Name Only.

Let's not quibble either. Let's name names:

• John McCain


• Mike Huckabee


• Arnold Schwazennegar


• Olympia Snowe


• Lincoln Chaffee


• Arlen Specter


• Dorothy Rabinowitz


• David Broder


• William Kristol


• Both Presidents Bush
  

This is only a partial list, but it will suffice for our purposes. These RINOs are known for their desire to be liked by the Democrats and the Legacy Media. Of course, I repeat myself, but they think they're separate entities. They do things like let Ted "Chappaqiddick" Kennedy cosponsor or cowrite laws, agree with Liberals on trampling the First Amendment, oppose tax cuts, claim to be tough on terror but go easy on detainees, help block originalist judges appointed by the president and grant illegal immigrants amnesty while denying that it's amnesty. This list of calumny is long and sordid and would take up more than one blog to encompass.

These RINOs have only one goal: their own personal political power. As such, they are opportunists of the worst sort. Take Johm McCain, for instance. Please! He has spent the last twenty or so years in Congress defeating or obstructing almost every Conservative initiative that came his way. He has barely supported the most minimal of restrictions on abortion. He's never voted for a tax cut, at least to my knowledge. He has no respect for the First Amendment. Nor has he any respect for our borders and our own national identity. These pecadilloes earned him the sobriquet of "maverick", and endeared him to the Legacy Media, which agreed with all of these positions. Therefore, McCain became the one Republican they actually like.

In short, McCain's positions are meant only to garner a free pass from the Legacy Media.

Now, though, he's running for the presidency. In 2000, his aura as maverick counted against him, losing, for instance, the evangelical vote due to his lack of respect for the religous. Also, he has learned that he must at least pay lip service to the Conservative base, without whom he will go down in defeat. So, suddenly he wants to close our borders, he sucks up to evangelicals, he's found the calling of tax cuts, and he wants to ban abortion.

Naturally, Conservatives aren't convinced at all about his sincerity. Where was all this Conservatism twenty years ago? Heck! Where was it last year when he was trying to deny his amnesty bill was an amnesty bill?

And what kind of a Conservative makes the case that he's the better leader on the economy by saying: "I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit."? Being a military leader makes him a better economic leader than a businessman? How so? Does he really say that successful businessmen are less patriotic than soldiers? If he is, then why hasn't he switched parties, other than the fact that most Liberals think they are more patriotic than soldiers?

Now, we all know that when the Clintons' lips are moving, odds are they are lying. But McCain has the "Straight Talk Express", right? OK, then what are we to make of his repeated lie that Romney wanted timetables for troop withdrawals from Iraq? And how's this for "straight talk": his claim that he voted against tax cuts because they didn't include spending cuts? Libby Quaid, of the Associated Press, did the fact checking on that: he never said anything about spending cuts, using the "tax cuts for the rich" mantra of the Democrats.

Time and again, we see John McCain trying to be like the Clintons, both in the political and the truthful sense. Unfortunately, he's in the wrong party for the political, and he just doesn't have Bill's smooth, unfettered facility with the Big Lie. Where Bill would parry and bury an attack on his veracity with ever more facile lies, McCain merely hunkers down and repeats the lie again and again. All it does is make him look foolish and curmudgeonly.

In the comments on a friend's blog, someone wrote "Our choices in November are Clinton and Diet Clinton." This might have been funny, if it werren't so close to the truth.

Once again, it seems, we Conservatives are afflicted with Electile Dysfunction. Sooner or later, we Conservatives are going to have to rid the Republican Party of these RINOs! It's coming time to let these elitists know who the real power is.

Copyright Jan. 31st, 2008