Friday, June 15, 2007

 

Reid and Pelosi: Killing American Troops

Just a quick one here. Have you heard? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have sent a letter to the President informing him that the troop surge has failed. Then they talked about that same "fact" publicly.

Of course, even opponents of the troops surge realize that it has only just gotten up to full strength, and it is too early to tell whether it has accomplished the goals the President intended.

And let's not forget: We have boots on the ground. We have troops fighting, bleeding, sweating and dying for their country right NOW, as we speak. And Pelosi and Reid just told them they've failed. This gets more American troops killed. Terrorist forces that want us out of Iraq know that the more troops they kill, the more Reid will declare defeat and ask for a pullout. It's like handing the insurgents victory on a silver platter. It's one thing to discuss turning over security responsibility to the Iraqis, but...Jesus. Worst of all, it's politically motivated, just as it was when Clinton and Obama voted against the emergency funding bill (and Clinton voted to send those same troops into harm's way).

But wait! If you order now, there's still more. Reid also was overheard earlier in the week, as he spoke to a liberal group. He was heard talking about how Generals Peter Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and David Patraeus (unanimously confirmed by the Senate as commander of American forces in Iraq) were incompetent! The pandering and intellectual dishonesty is beyond disgusting.

And this is all because the Democrats don't have the cojones to end the war with a straight vote. It's all politics. They need the Left for the primaries. But since they can't and won't keep their promise of ending the war, they'll pander and play political games. The problem is this time, the pawns are the troops in the field.

SDW



 

Immigration Update: Lott, Now You're On My List Too

The immigration bill debate is about to enter Round II, and the Washington Politicians are continuing to miss the point. Today Trent Lott said this:

The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill."


Ding! Another Republican Senator on my shit list. Once again Trent: We tell YOU what to do. We ARE talk radio. Without US, there would be no Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Had enough? I have. I don't know about you, but I think the problem is that CONGRESS is allowed to run the country.

SDW





Wednesday, June 13, 2007

 

Party-Induced Stupidity

Newsflash!  Award-winning director Steven Spielberg endorses Hillary Clinton for President! Film at 11!  

That was basically the headline on Drudge today.  At first, I just rolled my eyes.   I mean, the shock!  A personal friend and past major campaign donor for the Clintons will endorse Hillary Not-Rodham-Anymore Clinton.  Imagine.   But then I saw this Spielberg quote on Clinton's website: 

"I've taken time to review the impressive field of Democratic candidates and am convinced that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House"  

Let's begin with the Spielberg.  Now, we know the man's a liberal.  That's fine.  But what's really astonishing is the subtext of this quote.  

1.  Impressive field of candidates?  What?  Who is impressive, exactly? Obama speaks in soaring rhetoric and platitudes while offering no specific proposals.  Hillary is, well, Hillary.  Edwards?  You mean Mr. The War on Terror Isn't Real?  That guy?  Who else is impressive? Richardson, who recently self-destructed on Meet the Press?  Kucinich?  Gravel?  I mean really..support Hillary, but come on.  

2. Notice he only mentioned Democratic candidates.  The man, along with many Americans, is totally brainswashed.  It's fine to support a party.  But when you flatly ignore the other party just because they are the "other" party?  When you won't even acknowledge their existence?  When the thought of crossing party lines in voting for President doesn't even, well, cross your mind?  That's being brainwashed.  Or stupid.  Or possibly both.   Now, does that mean I'll be voting for a Democrat next year?  Nope.  But there's a reason for that:  I think they're all terrible candidates and wouldn't make good Presidents.  If I did see a Democratic candidate that was strong on security, wanted tax reform, opposed nationalized healthcare, etc....I'd vote for him or her if the Republican challenger wasn't as strong.  Yeah, I know..."cold day in hell" with that wish list and the modern Democratic party, but the point remains.  Spielberg, on the other hand? There's only one party to him.  There's only one "just and fair" party that "fights for the poor" and "supports minorities" and "wants to end the war."  Thank god for that.  We'd all be screwed without them.  

3.  Notice the dig at Clinton even as he announces his support.  This man WANTS to support Obama.  Here's why:  "[Hillary] is the most qualified candidate to lead us from her first day in the White House."   

Hmm.   Notice that? She's the most qualified out of the field, which despite the term "impressive" that he used earlier, isn't saying much.  

But the kicker is the last part:  "from her first day inthe White House."  It couldn't be more clear.  He likes Obama better, but knows he doesn't have the experience to lead the nation and would have to learn on the job more than another candidate.   So he phrased his release like he did.  He endorsed her, but took a little dig at the same time.  I suppose we should expect this. After all, Clinton invented the non-apology apology.   Now we have the non-endorsement endorsement.   

But what concerns me is that I think there are a lot of Americans who think just like Mr. Spielberg.   They vote Democrat or Republican because that's just what they are.  They're "very liberal" according to their own descriptions just because it's an easy and familiar way for them to define themselves.   When confronted with facts, they dismiss them.   Or, in the case of a colleague of mine, they'll vote for Hillary because they like her husband.   The number of people who don't think through their positions is astounding.  For example, when I asked this colleague (who has become a friend of mine) why she liked Bill, she said "because of how he ran things, ran the economy."  So I asked her what he did to aid the economy.  And she responded "things were great under him."  Uh, yeah...but what did he do, other than raise taxes?  Can you show a single example of a policy that benefited the economy?  Can you show that it was the government that caused the boom in the late 1990s?   Of course not.  

I have no problem with principled political disagreements.  Some will vote Democrat because they truly are liberal.  Some feel the GOP is so corrupt and are so angry about the Iraq War that they will not vote for a Republican for years.   Some really do think that nationalized healthcare, higher taxes, hysterical environmentalism and the like are all good things.  I think they're nuts, but at least they have a reason to vote the way they do.  It's sad that more people don't really examine their core beliefs and then choose the best person to represent them. 

For example, take Joe Liebermann.  Take Zel Miller.  Those are Democrats that I could consider supporting.  But they are out of power...shunned as the likes of Harry "We've Lost the War" Reid, Nancy Pantsuit Pelosi and Jack "Earmark" Murtha have taken over.  But if someone like Miller or Lieberman ran and I thought his ideas were better than a GOP candidate?  You bet I'd vote for him.  I don't care what the letter next to his name is.  

But Spielberg?  He's supporting Hillary because she's Hillary.  And he's Steven Spielberg.  And ladies and gentlemen....Steven Spielberg is a Democrat.  

SDW




 




Monday, June 11, 2007

 

Congress: Positively Un-American, Part Deux!

And we’re back. Days after I wrote about my dissatisfaction with President Bush over the immigration bill (and many other things), the immigration bill “died.” Yippee.

But wait…I’m not happy. Not at all. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that the bill died. It was going to make the immigration problem worse, not better. It was needlessly complicated. It didn’t do enough to address border security. You’ve heard the list of criticisms, so I won’t reiterate them further.

During the first “debate” (if it can even be called that), I took issue with Lindsey Graham’s statement that “this bill may be our only and last chance to get something done” or something to that effect. I thought that was outrageous. The message was that we, the people should just suck it up and accept this disaster of a piece of legislation, because it was the best we were going to do. That was infuriating. We give the orders around here, Senator. Not you, or your colleagues. We tell you what to do. If we’re not happy, you have to "suck it up" and come up with something better. That’s how it works—or is supposed to work, in America.

When the bill was about to die, Harry Reid absurdly declared that if the bill fails, the headline will read “another failure for the President. This is the President’s bill!” But now Congress has gone even further. Soon the headline will read: Immigration…it’s baaaaccckk!”

And Congress has already begun its total misunderstanding and arrogant presumption as to how our system should work. This week, Dianne Feinstein said that “talk show hosts” are drumming up their audiences, angering them and causing them to write “racist” e-mails and make phone calls to her office (and others’ offices). According to Feinstein, she hadn’t seen such anger and “racist” feedback in her 15 years in office.

Oh, I see. The hundreds of thousands of Americans writing their reps in opposition to the bill (and by most accounts, the feedback was at least 90% against it) are now racists. And irrational. And possibly uneducated fools Nice!

Of course, this is the very definition of elitism. As Ronald Reagan once said “[a little intellectual elite cannot plan our lives better than we can plan them ourselves…]” Yet, that’s exactly what Ms. Feinstein and company (read: both parties in Congress”) are doing. They know better than we do. All who oppose them and their ridiculous proposals are “racists”. We’re a bunch of hicks, at least according to some "moderate" Republicans and the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Ms. Feinstien.

If only we understood the complexities. First, we heard “read the bill.” Then we did, and we opposed it more than ever. Then it was “it’s not amnesty.” Then we showed that not only was it amnesty, it didn’t even address border security first. Then we were told the bill wasn’t “ideal” and in the words of Senator McCain “it isn’t the bill I would have written.”…but we should support it anyway because it was the best we peons could expect. Gotcha.

But we won. The bill died. And we’ll win again. We’ll win the debate of ideas by sending this message:

"Dear Congress:

Here is what we want. Please do it, or we’ll vote you out, thereby giving you an “education” as to how our system works. "


1. Seal the border first. Really seal it. With a fence. And barbed wire. And technological surveillance. And border patrol agents that are allowed to do their jobs.

2. AFTER #1, we want you to address the people already here. They will be required to register with Homeland Security within 1 year. They will be given a tamper proof ID card. They will pay taxes. If they commit crimes (3 misdemeanors or one felony) they’re gone. No social services for them. Fail to register? You go home. Forever.

3. All guest workers who want to be citizens go to the back of the line. If they cannot prove they came here legally top begin with, they pay a $5,000 fine. Both legal and illegal immigrants will be required to learn English to become citizens.

4. We want a federal law prohibiting communities from NOT enforcing federal immigration laws. We can ask anyone to prove they are legal. If they’re not, they get reported and deported.

5. Fine employers of illegals to the tune of $100,000 per worker with a maximum $10,000,000 fine. Three offenses and the offending employer goes to jail.

That’s what most Americans want, Congress. We’re not racists. We’re not stupid. We want meaningful reform. We recognize the contributions many illegals make and most of us realize you can’t deport them all. We just want the border secured. We want laws enforced. We want you to stop lecturing us. We're supposed to lecture you. After all, we're in charge. You might do well the learn that.

SDW


Thursday, June 07, 2007

 

I Don't Know How Much Longer I Can Hold Out

I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.

Really, I don’t. What am I talking about? My support of the Republican Party and President George W. Bush. Losing power! Must go on. Must...go...on. Mu---

I was a Bush voter in 2000 and 2004. In fact, I was an enthusiastic Bush voter both times. I have voted Republican in most elections, with some exceptions including casting a vote for Ed Rendell in 2002 (that was rectified last year, I assure you). I supported the Iraq War. I supported the President’s tax cuts. I support the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps and more. I can’t stand the Left’s defeatism and calls for surrender. They savage the President…and it’s wrong. But:

I, like a great many other conservatives, am mad as hell. I will never become a Bush-hater or say that I regret my vote, because I don’t. But the immigration bill and Bush’s rhetoric about the people that oppose it (or “the opposers” as Bush might say) really jerked my chain, so to speak. “They don’t want to do what’s right for America?” What? As Peggy Noonan basically said, it seems Bush is trying to piss off the remaining 30% of the public that supports him.

The immigration bill represented the final fall of the curtain. Behind it lay the real George Bush, the one who is actually a liberal on everything except war and tax cuts. Spending is out of control. The immigration bill is a one thousand page disaster (and I’m fairly liberal on immigration)! Gone is the swaggering, confident Bush who promised to get Osama “dead or alive” and gave the middle digit to France and Germany when we invaded Iraq. Gone is More Tax Reform Bush. Gone is Reform Social Security Bush. Gone is Cut Spending Bush, even if he ever existed. Instead he’s been replaced by Post-Katrina Bush, his not evil but much more subdued twin.

In fact, it was right around the time Katrina struck that everything changed. Where was the post-9/11 like leadership? Anyone that knows me knows I don’t blame the federal response for that disaster as much as I do the local and state one. Yet, I recall one major speech. Where was Bush standing on the rubble? Where was the megaphone? What happened to that guy? I loved that guy.

And it seems “that guy” has disappeared on other issues as well. He fired Rummy the day after the election. He should have canned him 6 months prior, and not just for political reasons either. Gone is the Bully Pulpit, unless it’s being used on the people that got him elected, apparently. What happened?

I still think Bush will be judged much more kindly by history than he is being judged now. His post-9/11 leadership was nothing short of phenomenal. He’s done many good things, from tax cuts to ousting the Taliban. But right now it’s getting tough as a conservative to support the man for any reason other than respect for the office and for the troops under his command. He’s just not a conservative (see: Prescription Drug Bill as a prime example).

I know this…if the immigration bill passes as is, I’m off the wagon. Either way his rhetoric about the bill’s opponents is misguided and frankly insulting. George, we “thirty percenters” as it were stood by you through thick and thin, through Al Gore’s ridiculous behavior, through 2004, through absurd and shameful Democratic attacks of every kind…through it all. Now it’s time to listen to us…the people that put you in office. We know you’re not running again. The big secret is that as much as we dislike the Democrats, we’re not so disappointed about that fact.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?