The Necropolitan Sentinel

chi per lungo silenzio parea fioco

Home » Articles posted by King Shamus

If The Democrats Can Be Rehabbed, Then So Can The GOP

People, listen to Bob Belvedere:

Perhaps the number of people supporting our fight to restore our freedoms and liberties [which is all The Founders wished to do in the 1770's] is less this time than a third of the citizens of The United States.  Perhaps, as it dawns on more and more people that the Left In America is overthrowing The Republic, more of our fellow citizens will join our cause.  I don’t really care because I don’t think it matters.

What matters, what’s really important, is that we few, we blessed few, keeping fighting those who are waging war on everything America stands for because it is the right thing to do.

We are the good guys, the white hats.  We are the warriors for freedom and liberty, the defenders of tradition, morality, and Free Will — all that is good and decent and honest and true.

Since we represent what is Right, our numbers don’t matter.  Our cause is just.  We are on the side of the Timeless Truth.

Read The Entire Thing.  It's rousing.

Bob's post got me thinking about the nature of our political parties and how they fit in the modern American experiment.

The Democrat Party should not exist in 2013.  Look at its history.  This is a group that supported the enslavement of millions of Africans.  When abolitionists had the temerity to question why America was neck-deep in the slavery business, it was the Democrats who pitched a fit and started the Civil War.  During that conflict, many northern Democrats became little more than wily agitators against the Union.  In the post-war period Democrats created and aided the most vicious domestic terrorist organization in US history, the Ku Klux Klan.  When they weren't busy organizing lynch mobs, Democrats were gleefully enacting Jim Crow laws to make sure black people were completely subjugated.

Lest you think the modern Democrat Party has somehow reformed itself, ponder this:  Which partisan outfit is totally stoked about abortion, a practice that has killed nearly 55 million people?  Which side of the political aisle has more to gain from our broken discriminatory immigration system?  Which party supports the modern bigotry of affirmative action?

In a more just world, the Democrat Party would be little more than a vague memory, like the Whigs or the Federalists.  That the Democrats still thrive despite the malfeasance they've perpetrated says some very ugly things about the American political process.  At the very least, the Democrats continued existence is an example of the painfully short memory of the voting public.

But the Democrat's inexplicable longevity also means there is hope for the Republican Party as well.

The Donkey Punchers carry some of the most awful political baggage in American partisan life.  Yet somehow they've managed to reinvent themselves as an effective Leftist platform.  If the Democrats can overcome their support of slavery, segregation, ghettoization, tribalism and mass baby-killing then the GOP can put the failures of George Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney behind them too.

And if it's possible that the GOP can become a winning party again, it can also be refashioned into a potent force for conservatives.  One could argue that the only way to rehabilitate the Republican Party is for it to move to the right.  It will not be an easy process; for every Reagan, there seems to be a thousand feckless Karl Rove clones.  Nonetheless making the GOP the true representative of American traditionalism can be done, if the Right is motivated to do some heavy lifting.

Hey, it could by that conservatism is fighting a losing battle against statism.  That doesn't mean right-wingers must give up their principles just to accommodate the evil empire of socialism.  There is no honor in giving in to every single infantile proggtard whim.

More importantly, lets not have it come to that.  The Democrats have thrown their hideous past down the memory hole.  It's been so successful that today their are very few people who recognize the abhorrent history of the Democrat Party.  The GOP has comparatively few skeletons in their closet.  All this suggests that the Republicans can win and become the political voice of conservatism again.

The Ongoing Problem With Karl Rove

 

The Turd Blossom In His Most Natural Position

Why do I bring him up now?

Because Hugh Hewitt said this the other day on Twitter:

Still waiting for critics of Rove to nominate best GOP strategist…for most it is like hating your starting QB but having no back-up.

Hewitt's statement got my dander up a bit and then I sorta went on a rant.

Oops.

Allow me me sorta clean up my tweets for human consumption.

First, I have no other GOP strategerist to replace Karl Rove, so I'll concede Hewitt a well-earned point.  If I absolutely had to pick someone to run the 2016 Republican ticket, I'd hire the person who ran either Scott Walker's or Bobby Jindal's campaigns and then hope for the best.  At least those folks have had success in the last four years.  

Like every other facet of the GOP panoply, it's very tough to have confidence in politicos based in Washington DC.  Choosing somebody outside the Beltway might be the only viable option.

But here's something I've been wondering.  How come nobody–not the slick consultants, the overpriced underperforming tech gurus, or the high-powered campaign honchos–could figure out just how stupid and self-defeating Mitt Romney's pro-life positioning was?

Think about the journey Romney took to become an anti-abortion presidential candidate.  Homeboy was pro-abortion for most of his public life.  He only started making vaguely pro-life noises in 2005.  He then tried to assure the GOP faithful that he was pro-life.

There were several problems with Mitt's messaging.  Most pro-lifers were very skeptical of Romney's rather recent and not completely convincing conversion.  That alone probably depressed social conservative turnout and hurt Romney's chances on Election Day.

However, Mitt being perceived as an insincere opportunist wasn't his biggest problem.  Romney never used his pro-life position for anything except winning the GOP nomination.  Once he got that, being anti-abortion was more or less forgotten by the campaign and the candidate.

Funny thing is, Obamaton propaganda ministers David Plouffe and Jim Messina didn't forget. While Romney was trying and failing to make the election about the national debt going supernova and the sputtering American economy, Obama succeeded in making 2012 about Mitt being a misogynistic piece of dogshit.  Naturally, Team Barry used Romney's pro-life stance as the convenient hook to slam the former Massachusetts governor as a vagina-hating douchecanoe.  Romney never defended being anti-abortion except in the weakest most mewling ways.  Even worse, the GOP standard bearer never employed his pro-life stance as a club to beat up Obama at all.

For God's sake, Obama voted against the Born Alive Act when he was an Illinois muckety-muck.  He gave (and continues to give) lots of federal tax dollar love to Planned Parenthood, the same organization that was cool with giving abortions to what it thought were underage sex slaves.  There was plenty of anti-life extremism in Obama's curriculum vitae that could've been exploited by the Romney camp.  But they just couldn't bring themselves to do it.

So why did Mitt Romney even bother going through the motions to become a pro-lifer in the first place?  His position on the abortion issue didn't energize evangelical Christians and other components of the social conservative movement.  It didn't expand the party's base by getting significant chunks of the Latino vote, a constituency I keep hearing is full of natural Republican voters.  Further, Mitt never employed his pro-life stance as a pivot to attack Barack Obama's shockingly radical anti-life actions.  Once the primaries were over, being pro-life didn't help Romney in any way.  It can be credibly argued that being a squishy half-assed pro-lifer hurt Romney because it gave Obama an opening to create the War On Women narrative against the GOP standard-bearer.

This should be an iron-clad rule in politics:  If your ideological positions are not helping you, they will be used by your opponent to hurt you.  This is especially true when it comes to abortion, which is far more emotional and polarizing then an issue like energy independence or entitlement reform.  Mitt and his team forgot this law of partisan warfare and it cost them dearly.

I'll admit that this post is a lot of gussied-up Monday morning quarterbacking.  On the other hand, the Republican Party consultant class gets paid to figure this out before the election and they still don't know how to play the game.  If you listen to Karl Rove and his ilk, they still think the GOP's problems are caused by being too right-wing.  They've had just as much time as I've had to do a post-game analysis of the November debacle.  Their strongest recommendations involve letting Obama get his way on everything, then lather-rinse-repeat until 2016.

To be fair, Karl Rove won two presidential elections in the last decade, so its not like he's got no game.  The problem is that he doesn't understand why Mitt Romney got his ass beat two and a half months ago.  Nor does anybody else who runs anything in the Republican Party seem to get it either.  If Turd Blossom is the best the GOP can do, then they deserve to perish because they suck at politics.

RELATED:  I don't wanna belabor the point, but I'm going to anyway. 

Politics–like life itself–is often not about what you say, but how you say it.  If Barack Obama stated, "I'm going to raise your taxes because I think you're too stupid to know what to do with all your money", he'd win 10 states, tops.  If the President declared, "I'm going to obliterate the Second Amendment and incrementally take away your guns because I don't trust you, the great unwashed bitter clingers", his approval rating would hover just above herpes.  If Two-Pack Attack Barry admitted that ObamaCare was going to feature death panels to determine who gets what kinds of medical treatment, Romney would've won the 2012 election with seventy percent of the popular vote.

But of course, Obama doesn't do that.  The Duffer-in-Chief believes all those things in his heart, but he never says them out loud.  Instead, he always couches his ideology in nicey-nice pablum:  "balanced approach", "common sense gun laws", "Obama does care".  Even better?  As he describes his own campus Marxism as true-blue Americana,  he's turns the Republicans into the Ku Klux Klan, the Taliban and the Nazis all rolled into one big slimy ball of extremism.

It doesn't help matters when prominent candidates on the Republican side completely lose the plot and play into his hands.  The problem with the GOP isn't that Todd Akin misspoke on the life issue.  It's that Todd Akin was never taught how to speak credibly and effectively about his political views in the first place.

To stick with the abortion issue, being pro-life isn't enough for a political candidate.  Being extremely pro-life isn't enough.  Being pro-life and then turning your position into a cudgel to beat up your opponent is what has to happen if you want to win.  Allowing yourself to get bogged down in some weird rhetorical side street will only get you in trouble.  If you're not on offense, you're on defense.  That means you're getting your ass kicked.

This is true of every political issue.  Why take a stand on any topic if it cannot be weaponized and deployed against an opponent?

Super Bowl 2013–Ravens Versus 49ers

 

This year's NFL championship contest is, on paper at least, not all that exciting.  Neither team has been to the Super Bowl in a while.  While both teams have seen some success in recent years, both clubs lack the national followings of franchises like the New England Patriots or the Dallas Cowboys.

Beyond a cursory glance, Super Bowl XXXXLIQ Eleventy Gajillion has it's share of story lines.  The head coaches for each squad are brothers.  Both teams came painfully close to getting to the Super Bowl last year only to see their seasons' abruptly end just short of reaching the big game.  All-Universe Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis is playing in his final NFL contest.  San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick is starting in his eleventh NFL match.  Seen that way, it turns out there's a lot to latch onto for casual fans and die-hard football watchers alike.

Besides the human interest aspects, the two teams play decidedly different styles.  Specifically, their offensive philosophies have little in common with each other.  Joe Flacco, the underrated Baltimore quarterback, is a concrete birdbath when he  drops back into the pocket.  He's not particularly mobile,  but he's got a Howitzer where his right arm should be.  Flacco can accurately deliver bombs at any time to anywhere on the field.  More importantly, he comes into this game playing the best football of his life.  

Flacco is the field general for an offense that relies on talented wide receivers like Torrey Smith and Anquan Boldin as well as stand-out running back Ray Rice to make big plays both in the air and on the ground.  While the Ravens attack has guys like Dennis Pitta, a tight end that causes match-up problems for defenders, it is still a more or less traditional NFL system.  Watchers of the game will recognize most of the Ravens' offensive formations and plays.        

On the other side of the field, Colin Kaepernick is for all intents and purposes a rookie playing in the biggest sporting event on the planet.  Although he's inexperienced, he's got serious weapons like running back Frank Gore, tight end Vernon Davis and wideout Michael Crabtree.  Kaepernick leads a dynamic offense that employs the read-option and the pistol formation.  The pistol makes it very hard for defenses to understand what the offense is about to do.  Because it can be used for running plays or passing  attempts, the defense cannot simply assume a run or pass is coming at them.  

The pistol is even more devastating when paired with read-option plays.  The read-option means that on running plays the quarterback can read the defense to determine his next move.  He can elect to hand the ball off to his running back or keep it himself and take it upfield.  Here again, the key is confusing the defense to keep them from pinning back their ears and attacking whoever has the ball.

As great as these systems are for the offense, all the misdirection borne from them comes at a price.  By using the read-option and the pistol, teams put their quarterback in a position to take punishing hits.  As the quarterback is by far the most important player on the field, this is the ultimate high risk/high reward strategy.

There is no guarantee that Colin Kaepernick will be able to play the same way next year.  Hell, there's no guarantee that Kaepernick will be capable of performing at a top level next week.  Mobile quarterbacks are not known for their durability.  Just ask Michael Vick or Robert Griffin III how easy it is to stay healthy when regularly being flattened by psychotic 300 pound physical freaks.

Besides the risk of massive career-ending injuries to the team's key offensive player, the read-option and pistol are not unknowable puzzles.  Defensive coordinators across the league are already studying it.  Eventually, they'll solve the riddle as they always do with every new offensive scheme that comes out.  It's one thing to only have seven or eight days to prepare for the pistol/read-option's trickery.  It's quite another to have seven or eight months to study formations and plays.  

Realistically, San Francisco better win the Super Bowl today.  This season, the 49ers benefited from having an insanely-gifted athlete playing at the top of his game leading a previously-unknown offensive scheme that few teams have been able to stop.  Next year, it's very possible that none of those advantages will be applicable to the team.  

To me, this year's Super Bowl hinges on this question:  Can the Baltimore Ravens defense, lead by aging veterans like Ed Reed and Ray Lewis, contain Kaepernick and all the gadgets that San Francisco employs?  I have my doubts.  The Ravens pass rush has been spotty during the playoffs.  I'm not sure they can go after Kaepernick with just their down lineman and get to him.  If they can't at least put him on ground a few times, it's going to be a very long day for Baltimore.

Ultimately, this means that Joe Flacco and the Ravens offense will have to match Frisco's offensive output.  That might be very difficult.  While the Niner's defense has been shaky in recent games, it's less flawed than Baltimore's.  I think San Francisco can get to Flacco.  Perhaps not on a regular basis, but enough to knock him off his rhythm.

That leads me to think that San Francisco will win this game.  I see it ending in something like 30-24 or 28-20 in the 49ers' favor.  Since I'm so good at predictions, this means you should bet on the Ravens. 

From an emotional level, I don't care for either team.  It's amazing how Ray Lewis is a beloved figure in the NFL even though he mentions his love of Jesus every five seconds, but Tim Tebow's much less demonstrative proclamations of Christian faith have made him a divisive figure in sports media and in the larger culture.  Also, I don't know how the pious spiritual leader act fits with Lewis' deep involvement in an unsolved double murder.

On the other hand, San Francisco head coach Jim Harbaugh is an unrepentant asshole even by NFL head coaching standards.  When he won against Detroit, he started a fight with Lions coach Jim Schwartz because he' had to be a trash talking shit-heel.  When he lost to the Giants last year in the NFC championship game, he refused to do a post-game interview and take his licks like a man.  When things are going his way, Jim Harbaugh is a classless sore winner.  When his team is defeated, he's a classless sore loser.  Basically, Harbaugh is a younger less likable Bill Belichick with fewer accusations of cheating and no championship rings.

If I had to pick a team, I guess it would be the Ravens if only because it would be fun to watch Harbaugh, football's latest overgrown playground doucherocket, take yet another brutal loss.  Is that petty?  Yes.  But it's the National Football League we're talking about here.   If we didn't have silly small-minded peeves to nurse, we wouldn't have a league in the first place.

‘Immigration Reform’ Is Just Another Term For ‘Republican Suicide’

Playing the part of Doctor Kervorkian will be Senator John McCain.

John McCain:  Well, look, I’ll give you a little straight talk. Look at the last election. Look at the last election. We are losing dramatically the Hispanic vote, which we think should be ours for a variety of reasons, and we’ve got to understand that. Second of all, we can’t go on forever with 11 million people living in this country in the shadows in an illegal status. We cannot forever have children who were brought here by their parents when they were small children to live in the shadows, as well. So I think the time is right.

I stole this from The Other McCain.  Why not clicky that linky and read the rest of his post?  Come back when your finished.

Now please forgive me a moment, but I'm going to run a quick multiple choice quiz.  It's only one question, so don't sweat too hard.  Are you ready?   Okee-dokee, here it is.

What is the purpose of immigration?

A:  To help white guilt liberals feel good about themselves.

B:  To create a cheap labor source for crony socialist corporations.

C:  To give diversity trainers a reason to exist.

D:  To make the United States stronger.

If you answered "D", you win a free one year subscription to Conservative Commune and an E-High Five!

(Please note–there is no such thing as an E-High Five.  Sorry Tennessee…and everywhere else.)

The only reason why you bring immigrants into the country is to make it better.   Any immigration policy that doesn't make America a more powerful nation, in observable quantifiable ways, is idiocy soaked in stupidity slathered in mendacity wrapped in a zesty bullshit crust.  Also, score it a total loss if the purveyors of any new policy employ multi-culti pablum like 'Diversity Is Strength', 'Live in the shadows' or 'Nation of Immigrants' to justify the program.

For those who think the GOP congress will get a pat on the back from Hispanic voters for passing an some sort of amnesty immigration reform, I have one simple phrase:  "1965 Civil Rights Act".  More Republicans voted for it than Democrats.  Senate Democrats fillibustered the thing  as much as they possibly could.  Of course, who got the credit?  Part-time Democrat President and full-time mega bigot Lyndon Johnson, naturally.

So here's how it's going to go down:  

Republicans desperately want to be BFFs with Latinos, so they lead the charge to get an amnesty bill passed.  It'll be filled with a lot of tough talk about enforcement and triggers and other folderol that will be nothing more than rhetorical fig leaves meant to fool conservatives.  The amnesty that dare not speak it's name will blow through both chambers of Congress with massive bipartisan support.  Obama will have an enormous signing ceremony, surrounded by his usual cadre of human props.  Steve Kroft will lead the MSM cheerleaders praising the Democrats for finally solving this decades-long problem.

Meanwhile, Republicans will quickly get swept aside in the media narrative of 'Barack–Benevolent Guardian of Hispanic Hopes And Dreams'.  Marco Rubio will get emo after he does all the work to get this monstrosity passed and none of the glory.  When Telemundo dutifully points out that many GOPers didn't vote for shamnesty, the RNC will be shocked to find Latinos still think the Party of Lincoln is populated by racists.

Here's the real kick in the teeth.  If you want a picture of the future, imagine eleven million formerly illegal immigrants voting Democrat—forever.  Republican permanent minority party status: ACHIEVED!

Conservatives Don’t Have To Fix The National Republican Party (With Updates!)

Since even before Mitt Romney went down to defeat, Drew M over at Ace of Spades has been very down on the Republican Party.  I'm kinda in the same boat.  Which is why I was surprised when he wrote this the other day:

A conservative country that claims to support smaller government doesn’t elect Barack Obama not once but twice (no matter how awful Romney was). A conservative country doesn’t run up annual $1 trillion deficits and a $16 trillion cumulative debt. A conservative country doesn’t accept ObamaCare as either good policy or a law within the bounds of the Constitution. A conservative country doesn’t build a welfare state that has unfunded liabilities of "$86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP" and growing.

I could go on but you know the rest.

Far from being a bulwark against this out of control spending and growth in federal partner, the GOP has been at best an enabler and at worst a perpetrator.

And I don’t blame the GOP one bit.

Political parties and politicians are about winning elections. In the end the best way to win an election is to give a majority of the people in the electorate what they want. What far too many Americans want (even some conservative Republicans in good standing) is other people’s stuff.

How many people who voted for Mitt Romney or actual conservatives for Senate and the House want their Social Security and Medicare left untouched? How many of them give lip service to a flat tax proposal but would freak if their various tax credits and deductions were eliminated? How many of them talk a good game about getting rid of the Department of Education but would freak if aid to their kid’s district were cut?

Of course Republicans are going to respond to these people. But these people who support all sorts of government spending while talking about “the damn government” and taxes are the problem.

It's a must read, so go ahead and hit that link.  I'll be here when you come back.

Here's the slightly weird situation the Republican Party finds itself in circa 2013.  The House of Reprazentin's GOP majority is still fairly solid, at least if you're going by raw numbers.  Many members of the current House were elected in the 2010 anti-Obama wave.  They can cite their '10 and '12 elections to credibly argue that the constituencies they represent didn't elect them to become President Leftist McDreamboat's rubber stamp brigade.

So there are motivated conservatives in the House.  That's great.  Problematically, they may only be a slim majority of the lower chamber's majority.  Given how many of the GOP representatives have voted recently, that may be a wildly optimistic count.  Then, slap the number of conservatives Republicans with the all-but-extinct Blue Dog Democrats.  Add them together and it's unclear if there is a working right-center coalition in the House that can get anything done on entitlements, spending or tax reform.

The other big hurdle to conservative reform is the fact that the American people just re-elected the most liberal president since LBJ and the most liberal Senate majority since the Oliver Cromwell took over England.  The House GOP could eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 10% VAT at 9:00 am tomorrow.  By 9:01, Harry Reid would've killed the bill in the Senate and by 9:02 Obama would be using page one of the statute to fire up his Parliament Ultra Lights.

In Congressional races, when the constituency is often more conservative than the general US population, a Republican can do well selling a right of center message to the voters.  This is why a solidly blue state like Illinois can still to elect six Republican congress-peeps out of their 18 seat delegation.  Get beyond the House level and it's harder for the current GOP to sell it's message to voters in national races.

So should the Republican Party just pack it in?  Obama certainly wants them broken and divided.  The GOP has been so cowardly that there's been talk that the National Rifle Association could become the opposition party.

Drew M suggests that conservatives focus on winning back the American culture.  That's a very necessary thing, but not everyone is a novelist, filmmaker, musician or television director.  Non-artsy conservatives need a role in creating a more favorable political environment for the Right.

The state and local levels of government have a viable blueprint.  There the Republican Party is not just surviving, it's thriving.  Conservative ideas are winning in Obama-fied blue states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Ohio.

Scoring victories in state races and gubernatorial elections doesn't sound as sexxxy as vaporizing Harry Reid's Senate majority, but it is.  Our federalist system gives conservatives fifty states to win governorships, mayors' contests, school boards memberships, town council positions and representative races.  Getting decent people into these spots will foster a saner, less suicidal political culture at the grass-roots level.

Helping right-of-center candidates win local elections doesn't just have an immediate positive impact on communities.  It also creates a deep bench of conservative political talent.  The Republican Party has the worst congressional leadership since the 1960's.  The last two presidential elections have seen the party field it's weakest candidates since FDR was trouncing Herbert Hoover and Alf Landon.  

It doesn't have to be this way.  You want leaders that don't cry or cower every five seconds?  Then you have to encourage anti-Boehners and non-McConnells to stand up.  The process of getting them into positions of of national power starts by getting them elected in local contests.    

The Right is simply too DC-centric.  We keep saying how the Beltway culture is poison to our values.  Worse, we can see that the federal government isn't going to get any friendlier to conservative ideas any time soon.  Well, if that's the case, then it makes sense for traditionalists to go someplace where they can actually do some good.

It's time we stop caring so much about what Eric Cantor does.  It's long past time that we start paying very close attention to what our state senator is saying.  Who knows, that person might just get elected President some day. 

 

MORE TO THE STORY:  You know why else conservatives don't owe the national Republican party jack shit?  The national GOP hasn't really done anything for them lately.  Forget about how the Tea Party never got the credit it deserved for the 2010 midterms.  Don't bring up the way the Republican Senate Election dudes can't pick decent candidates to take back upper chamber.

More damning than all that is the GOP's last two presidential picks.  They both seem purposefully designed–at least in hindsight–to alienate as much of the conservative party base as possible.  John McCain snubbed religious conservatives nearly every time he could afford to.  Mitt Romney's pro-life/pro-gun/pro-marriage stances were of a suspiciously recent vintage.  Even more stupid than Mitt's trying to buy conservative bona fides was his decision to defend those positions in the meekest more apologetic least forceful way possible.  If you're gonna jump on the pro-life bandwagon, you may as well use it to your advantage.

The GOP is just not that into conservatives.  Republicans  will take right-wingers on a date and hook up with them back at the frat, but that's as far as it's gonna go.  Playas are gonna play after all.

It's just one more reason why the right should forget about the establishment Republicans in Washington.  They suck at politics, they can't win and they dislike their base.  That's enough for me.

I hope Reince Preibus is still bosom buddies with Sheldon Adelson. 

ONE MORE THING: Bob Belvedere of the brilliant Camp Of The Saints wrote about this like three days ago.  As usual, my timing is awesome.  Check it out.

…it is time for a showdown between the forces that want to aggregate to the national government more powers than those that are enumerated in The Constitution and those of us who believe that it should be followed to the letter.

‘Legal expert’ Jeffrey Toobin, per usual, gets it wrong:

“A sheriff does not get to decide whether laws are constitutional,” he said. “Unless a court invalidates a law, he’s obligated to enforce it.”

That’s become the practice, but it is simply not the way it is or is supposed to be. All officials who take an oath to The Constitution are individually responsible for assuring that it not be violated. Further, by said oath they are obligated not to enforce any law or regulation that they believe would cause them to violate their oaths. If someone disagrees, the matter may be settled in a court of law, but oath-taking officials do have this power/responsibility. And they should not fear exercising it. It’s their duty.

The national government is beyond hope.

Emphasis mine.

Read the whole thing.

Fighting Chuck Hagel–Not The Worst Idea Ever

 

Why?  Let's let Robert Stacy McCain…I mean Bear Bryant Reincarnated…explain.

…conservatives should not hesitate to roast liberals for the hypocrisy and cynicism inherent in the “Democrats for Hagel” bandwagon. If that vicious bastard Andrew Sullivan supports Hagel, this is reason enough for any patriotic American to oppose the Hagel nomination. And the obverse of this brutal logic is that we must welcome every ally to our cause of defeating Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, in order to inflict maximum embarrassment on the Democrats. They might “win” — Hagel’s nomination may be approved by the Senate — but the conservative strategy must be aimed at making that “win” as damaging as possible to the reputation of the Democratic Party.

If we can’t beat them, at least make sure we hurt them.

I knew I was sorta miffed at this Jazz Shaw piece, but I really couldn't figure out why until I read The Other McCain's post.

The thing is, I sorta agree with a lot of Shaw's argument.  Hagel isn't the worst nominee Obama could pick for the job of Secretary of Defense.  The President could always find someone less qualified, more chicken-shit or more leftist than Hagel, so fighting him might not be all that productive.

Under certain circumstances, I'd probably counsel the same thing.  If it was early in Obama's first term, fighting against Hagel would be more painful.  The GOP would've had a much harder time beating up on a Hagel nomination at that point, and it would've cost them more to do so.  

However, floating the Hagel trial balloon now means a Republican nomination fight makes more sense.  Obama's had far too many victories lately.  He won a bitter election just a few months ago.  He just got the GOP to cave on taxes during the fiscal cliff train wreck.  The President has momentum and the Republicans should being trying to halt it using any opportunity at hand. 

What does a fight actually cost Republicans?  Congress' approval ratings are a burning-hot eighteen percent.  Serious conservatives, people who at one point identified with the GOP brand, are kinda done with the party.  In a way, the Republicans almost have to have a fight, if only to remind people that they still exist.

Even more importantly, it's not like Chuck Hagel is some beloved conservative stalwart.  Yeah, I guess he helped spike the Kyoto Treaty back in the day.  When pondering that, it's also important to remember that the sun shines on a dog's ass every once on a while.  Meanwhile Hagel was against the surge in Iraq.  Hagel has said no to a military strike against Iran, which won him the enduring respect of Iran's mullah-run media.  Even fellow RINO maverick John McCain doesn't like the guy. 

Hagel has been wrong about a lot of stuff.  Wrong about military stuff.  That should be good enough for Republicans to pick a fight with him and his BFF Commander-in-Chief. 

The era of Republican reasonableness should be over.  They have nothing to lose by confronting Hagel.  They have a lot to gain.  Obama is the one with his political capital hanging in the wind.  It's time for the GOP get a win–any kind of win–against the President for a change. 

Al Gore Sells Current Network To Al-Jazeera

 

Al "Cash Money" Gore

Alternate Headline:  Two Bloated Government-Subsidized Anti-American Entities Collide.

Al Jazeera, the pan-Arab news giant, has long tried to convince Americans that it is a legitimate news organization, not a parrot of Middle Eastern propaganda or something more sinister.

It just bought itself 40 million more chances to make its case.

Al Jazeera on Wednesday announced a deal to take over Current TV, the low-rated cable channel that was founded by Al Gore, a former vice president, and his business partners seven years ago. Al Jazeera plans to shut Current and start an English-language channel, which will be available in more than 40 million homes, with newscasts emanating from both New York and Doha, Qatar.

"Low-rated"?

Current doesn't even sorta compete with bottom-crawler MSNBC.

Whatevs.  If the Old Grey Lady wants to soft-pedal Al Gore's failure as a broadcaster, that's fine.  Every breathless teeny-bopper wants to believe their idol is infallible.      

Now, here's the best part.

Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. 

Because when Mitt Romney uses legal ways to avoid taxes, he's a ghoulish blood-sucker.  When Al Gore does it, there is nothing to see here.  Thank for clearing that up, New York Times.

The #Newtown Atrocity, Children and America’s Priorities

By now, you know that monstrous evil has visited Newtown, Connecticut.

After killing his mother in her Newtown home, 20-year-old Adam Lanza drove her car to Sandy Hook Elementary, where officials said she taught, and gunned down 20 children and six adults before killing himself.

Most of the dead were found in two first-grade classrooms, police said.

Students described being ushered from their classrooms hand-in-hand, with their eyes closed, to the safety of a nearby fire station as police converged on the school. Anguished parents rushed to the scene.

State police sources told The Courant that Lanza had his brother Ryan Lanza’s identification, which initially led to confusion about his identity, police said. He was dressed in black fatigues, police said.

His motives are unknown.

We may never know what made the shooter commit such a heinous crime. From our current information, we do know that he turned the gun on himself.  The last act of a monstrous fiend, who murdered innocent children for some insane reason, was to take the coward's way out.  

Sickly appropriate.

While the rest of America was still trying to sort through this heinous crime, the American progressive movement rushed to take advantage of a crisis.  We've heard the Hollywood Left bleat out their usual cliched stupidity.  David Frum and the rest of the news media vultures have thoroughly beclowned themselves.  They're playing the same tired old gun control song and dance that they always do.  

Why do these folks carry on like this?  Because they're stupid.  Gleefully stupid, in fact.  The ever-present race for gun control can only be explained by the foolishness of the people making the argument.  They're uninformed idiots who react to everything using their dopey emotion-rich logic-deficient ideology.

So let's not fall into their trap.

If we really want to do something to prevent gun violence at schools, ponder a glaring inconsistency in our society.  The citizens of the United States are very comfortable hiring armed men and women to guard places like banks and credit unions.  This is seen as a reasonable deterrent to thieves who try to steal our property.  

So as a nation, we've made the decision to guard our money with armed security officers.  Great.  At the same time, when Americans send their children to school, what guards them?  School secretaries.  Video cameras.  Metal detectors.  Gun-Free zones.

In other words, nothing.  

Parents routinely drop their children off at schools that cannot deal with a mad man determined to bring death on a large scale.  They do this because we cannot imagine that this kind of isolated incident will happen in our communities.  For whatever reason, Americans think that it can't happen to them.

Then a malignant human cancer comes along and violently shatters our delusions.

If this country really loves its kids, we'd better start protecting them at least as well as we protect our money.