Quote of the Day

Peggy Noonan, discussing the Hillary-Geffen-Obama political dramatics:

Mrs. Clinton is like the little girl who steals the boy next door's candy and hits him on the head with a hammer. He runs, "Mommy, she stole my Snickers and hit me on the head!" She turns to the mother, hammer in hand, and gestures at the boy. "This . . . is the politics of personal destruction."

Who Should Be Allowed to Make Policy?

By now, pretty much everyone has recognized that Senator Boxer was wrong (and beyond stupid both politically and logically) in implying that Secretary Rice couldn't understand the implications of her policy decisions because she doesn't have children. But like John Kerry's "botched joke," Senator Boxer's comment was simply a Freudian slip that showed the end result of the absurd logic employed by many of the anti-war activists.

This is an issue that's always been particularly irritating to me, from the "absolute moral authority" of Cindy Sheehan (which ignores pro-war mothers), to the defenders of draft dodgers who only now demand that a President have served before he makes national security decisions. This absurd and un-democratic line of thinking is evident with every "chickenhawk" argument ever made. But I was moved to write today by a letter to the editor in today's Seattle Times which condemned Senator McCain for being pro-war despite him having a son serving in Iraq right now. Apparently, even if you DO have a "personal stake" in the Iraq war, you're only allowed to make the "correct" (liberal and selfish) decision.

So - if you're for the Iraq war, and have a son or daughter serving in Iraq (no one has children serving - those in Iraq are adults who have their own votes, opinions, and freedom to volunteer or not), you're exploiting your children for political gain. Pro-war and no kids, you're a cold hearted villain making decisions without understanding the impact on "real people." Pro-war and a veteran? Cynically exploiting your service for political gain. Pro-war and not a vet? Chickenhawk.

Of course, these are just the opposite on the other side of the isle. Anti-war with a family member in a combat zone? "Absolute moral authority." Anti-war with no family involved? Brave souls speaking out and "taking their democracy back." Anti-war and a vet? "How DARE you question a war hero!!!" Anti-war and not a vet? Well, they're speaking out for the soldiers who aren't allowed to because they've been silenced by their military-industrialist slave masters.

So how about this? Let's follow the "Chickenhawk!" shouters down their rabbit hole, and adopt their logic. Only veterans vote on national security issues, or parents whose soldier children are still minors and can't yet vote. Direct family members of active duty members get one half-vote, since they are impacted, but aren't risking their own lives. (I wonder how many hours the current Democratic Party would survive under this scheme - the shouters should be careful what they ask for...)

And then lets extend that to everything. Only taxpayers are allowed to vote on any issue which involves government expenditures, with more votes granted to those who pay more taxes. Only property owners are allowed to vote on eminent domain rules. Only people with children are allowed to vote on education policy.

And it doesn't need to just be about voting. We can have separate issue-specific legislatures, where only people directly affected by those issues are allowed to run for office. Only judges who have been through divorces can be on the bench in family court, only those with a history of drug use can prosecute drug crimes, and only convicted criminals can be Public Defenders. Better, let's require our judges, prosecutors, and public defenders to all have a personal stake in the outcome of the case they're involved with.

Or we can recognize that ALL Americans have a personal stake in national security, tax policy, education, and objective jurists. We can all recognize that "You don't know what it's like, man!" is a cowardly way to avoid having to make a hard policy decision yourself, and is "logic" best left on the playground. It has no place in the editorial page of the newspaper, or in the chambers of Congress.

How Not To Apologize, Part II

I've written about lame political non-apologies before. But let's review what not to do:

1. Say something insulting (on purpose, misunderstood, or Freudian slipped - it doesn't matter) about the intelligence of active duty military personnel a week before a tight election.
2. Go on TV in liberal Seattle, waggle a rhetorical finger, and announce that you "apologize to no one."
3. Take a brow beating from your betters within the party who can recognize your stupidity better than you. Wait until any offered apology looks like what it is - insincere political pander.
4. Post on your website (as opposed to making any kind of speech or public appearance) that you're sincerely sorry if people were too stupid to understand the obvious meaning of your comments, which goes double for all the troops, vets, and their families that you support, and who you would never criticize, even if they ARE too stupid to understand said comments. (It helps if you've had a long history of lying about the alleged atrocities of our servicemen and women.)
   
5. Post an editorial on your website saying that while you simply botched a joke about Bush, as anyone who's not stupid clearly understands, even if you had said that people too stupid to get an education would suffer the pitfall of military service, you would have been right - all those service people you would never malign really are stuck in Iraq because they couldn't navigate the education system and didn't do their homework. (Make sure you spend some extra effort making fancy graphics so people know it wasn't just a randomly linked article, but something you stand behind for support.)
6. Rinse, lather, repeat. See the other party surge in the polls because you single handedly reminded their base why they voted for the other guys last time.
   
7. Blame it on Karl Rove when Republicans easily retain the Senate in a year they should lose it badly, and even if they lose the House, lose it by a much slimmer margin than history says they should lose it by.

How has this guy survived in politics this long? Even in Massachusetts?

Most people already know this, but here's the demographic breakdown of entering military recruits, showing just how much better/smarter-than-average the average recruit really is. What a shocker - John Kerry and the Seattle P-I have their facts wrong...

That Kerry is criminally stupid is no surprise. That anyone in his party come to his defense is. Such excuse making does not speak well of his defenders, or their true feelings about who it is standing on the front lines of the fight against fascism.

More 1974 Than 1994

Ordinarily, divided governments don't bother me - a measure of infighting and inefficiency can be very good for individual freedom. But these are not ordinary times. John O'Neill does a fantastic job recounting the devastating consequences the last time Americans insisted on a wholesale replacement of inadequate Republicans with self-loathing liberal Democrats - millions of lives lost abroad, real abrogation of our world wide reputation, and a strong economy reduced to shambles. And Jimmy Carter wasn't able to appoint a Supreme Court Justice...

A Little Political Science: Polls

Today, USA Today displayed a poll proclaiming "Dems Gain Big Lead." Now I'm not saying I'm quite as confident now as I was before that I would win my bet with Publius, but it is interesting how un-useful generic "party control preference" polls really are. Take a look.

The pollers only actually polled 622 people who were self-proclaimed "likely voters" nation wide over the weekend. I'm assuming they cold called people, which is the standard method. There are 435 House races this poll purports to encompass. That means that they only polled an average of 1.43 people per Congressional district. It is likely many districts aren't represented at all. And there is no mention of how people see their OWN Representatives, who even now have approval ratings which average over 60%.

Also, publishing this poll during a major national crisis is just bad journalism. The North Korean situation is sure to re-focus voters away from the Foley situation, and as such, the data was already obsolete by the time they went to press.

I still think the GOP will retain the House, although it will be a much closer call. The Democrats overreached on Foley, and cannot answer the question, "What will YOU do about North Korea - try to bribe them again and just trust that they'll finally act in good faith?"

GOP loss in 2006 -- a victory for conservatives?

The Washington Monthly has an interesting feature this month, in which six prominent conservatives make the case -- compellingly, cogently, and passionately -- that a GOP defeat this November is the outcome that would most favor conservative government. The National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru made a similar argument in the New York Times earlier this week. I do think that conservative government would be better served by divided government -- a divided government can accomplish less, and the less government does, the better ...

So There WAS Ohio Voter Fraud...

The liberals were right. And I guess they would know. Because they were the ones who committed the fraud.

Somehow, though, it'll all be Karl Rove's fault...

No More Hammer

Tom DeLay is now gone, and I can't say that I miss him.

RedState has a blog on the subject today that I think sums him up fairly, and more eloquently explains the mixed feelings I have about the former Majority Leader. I think the most relevant part to me was this:

Tom DeLay made his bones as a warrior for the party. He was, in many areas, a dedicated conservative. But he was above all else a party man - familiar as he was with the political dirty tricks during Democrat domination of the Congress, DeLay was determined not to give an inch once Republicans took power. He fought the Democrats with every tool at his disposal, with parliamentary maneuvering, with political brinksmanship, and with redistricting, just as the other side had done for decades.

The emphasis is mine, and explains why his departure is good for conservatives, as opposed to Republicans (although it's also going to help the Republicans in '06). I don't trust people who put party above principle. It's like feminists suddenly deciding in 1998 that sexual harassment or a powerful boss taking advantage of a young girl was no big deal. It destroys their credibility as people who want to be seen as the best thing for their country, because you just get the feeling that given the choice between winning elections for their "team" and the success of the nation, they would always pick their party winning. That bothers me, even if, by and large, I would usually rather see Republicans in power.

I think a large part of the GOP's ridiculous spending habits can be attributed to this phenomenon. Get stuff. Bring home the bacon for constituents. Support the President at all costs, even if he's wrong. It's the letter of the law that matters.

I don't think Tom Delay was ever "corrupt" in the illegal sense. His "legal troubles" were so transparently politically motivated as to be humorous. (They probably helped him because of that.) And I am grateful that he was instrumental in wresting control of Congress away from the Democrats. But he unquestionably played down in the mud and in the back, smoky rooms. I think the Conservative Movement was better off for his presence, and is now once again better off for his resignation.

Chuztpah, Thy Name is Hillary

Here's Hillary Clinton's take on the Dick Cheney non-story:

"The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."

Holy friggin' cow.

This coming from the wife of a man suspended from the bar for perjury, from a woman who failed to report Vince Foster's suicide note to the media until 30 hours after the fact and his house had been sanitized, and from someone who has still failed to explain how Rose Law Firm documents she swore were destroyed ended up in her White House bedroom.

Unbelievable. Or not.

This, of course, despite the fact that Cheney immediately ensured his victim had emergency medical care, that he immediately notified the local sherrif, and immediately told the rancher on whose land they were hunting that he could tell the local media.

Please Don't Vote...

...if you aren't informed.

Even better, get informed, and don't forget to vote tomorrow. And if you live in King County, I don't suggest putting those rockin' Ronald Reagan stamps on your mail in ballot...

Temper Tantrum in the Senate

Sigh. This is just ridiculous in every way. Note that this happened a day after Senator Reid was informed that the Intelligence Committee was a week away from wrapping up their lengthy investigation of the very issues Reid claims were being ignored. To me, that speaks pretty loudly that Reid knew there wasn't going to be anything incriminating in the report, but wanted there to be. So he pulled this stunt instead to blow smoke, hoping people would (a) think a report had never been in the works, and (b) confuse his manufactured smoke for actual fire.

If Harry Reid actually knew something, he would reveal it. If any of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committe had dirt on lies, coverups, Hitler's brain in a jar, etc. and yawn, they'd spill it. And I for one would be glad that they did. But they don't, 'cause there ain't, and so the hysteria continues.

Does a kid throwing a temper tantrum in public focus one's attention on the kid, and away from whatever else is going on? You bet. But it doesn't exactly endear anyone to the kid throwing the tantrum.

The Republicans have done a lot of stupid, non-conservative things in the last few years. They'll continue to do it so long as the opposition party insists on being even stupider, and represents no threat. One party systems - no matter what the party - are never friendly to limited government. Frustrating.