I'll post later on the Harold Ford kerfuffle regarding the allegedly racist ad sponsored by the RNC but in the meantime had to pass this along, a homemade ad, linked courtesy the American Spectator blog.  Enjoy, and do send it along to all your liberal friends. 

It's about the future...

I am sure some member of the Progressive Chrurch of the Perputually Offended will find something nasty here, but it will be awfully hard, even for them.  It's a nice listing, and even better presentation, of facts, which, as you know, are stubborn things.  But what the heck, even if it won't convert them, at least you get the fun of pi$$ing them off. 

 

I wasn't going to write anything on Micahel J Fox promoting candidates who are promoting embryonic, or "anything goes", stem cell reasearch.  As a rule I don't give much weight to celebrities ideas on anything, let alone science. Since I now have to endure similar ads here in Wisconsin, comment is warranted. 

As for the alleged ill treatment of the suffering victim du jour, Michael J. Fox; Sorry pal, politics ain't beanbag. When you enter the ring spewing outright falsehoods don't start whining when someone returns a punch!  Free speech does not guarantee silence of opposing viewpoints regardless of your personal status or state of health.  A good argument will stand on it's own merit but the weak ones require props, or actors.  If you can't take a punch, don't throw any, stay out of the ring, and STFU.

Another observation is recognizing, once again, how liberals employ the tactic of using presumably unassailable surrogates as a substitute for actual debate. The ploy Ann Coulter explained by example of the Jersey Girls in her book must work or they wouldn't keep doing it.  This has several unpleasant but familiar traits of modern Dems, desperation because it's just sleezy, deliberate obfuscation because it muddles rather than informs the debate, and of course their ever present, and seemingly bottomless, underestimation of voter intelligence.

On that last point, that they don't even bother to offer a distinction between embryonic and other stem cells pretty much says it all.  Anyone following this debate knows that research on other stem cells has shown much more promise so this is clearly a crass effort to misinform those who haven't.  I'm not sure which is worse, assuming electorate stupidity or its deliberate perpetuation.

Second case in point; equating being against government funding of embryonic stem cell research with being against all stem cell research is not only misleading but is probably more likely an attempt to paint both social and fiscal conservatives with the same anti-science brush. 

I honestly feel sorry for Mr. Fox but given his lack of compunction in lying about peoples records for his own selfish purposes, however worthy they might be, has lowered my opinion of him considerably.  I will give him the benefit of the doubt in ackowledging that the truth must be harder to grasp, or at the very least, is much more malleable, for people who pretend to be other people for a living.       

As to the larger debate regarding the stem cell research.  Anyone who believes that, politically speaking, stem cell research is more a sincere endeavor for medical advancement than an emotion driven tool for election year devisiveness was born very recently, like yesterday. 

The fact that liberals equate being against stem cell research with being against government funding of stem cell research illuminates the differences between capitalists and socialists.  The former is confident that if sound science justifies investment based on market potential the private sector will stop at nothing to make it happen.  The latter assumes it is the governments responsibility to force the issue regardless of either sound science or market potential. 

Speaker to be accidently tells the truth...

"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."--Nancy Pelosi

Boy did she ever nail that one!  But somehow I doubt she meant to be so accurate.
If this utterance doesn't prove her the deer in the headlights dim bulb she appaears to be nothing will.  Third in line to the Presidency if Dems win.  Yikes!

 

Mr. Blankley raised quite a few ires with his column this week suggesting potential home- stayers for this coming election could be accurately labeled stupid.   I agree. 

As they say, read the whole thing 
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/TonyBlankley/2006/10/18/no_thanks,_were_stupid                                              
It has so far garnered 163 responses. 

Here is mine:

The stakes are too high to let the obstinate "that'll teach 'em" rule the day.

Face it folks, in this system, a non-vote or third party vote is a defacto vote for Democrats. Period. Regardless of how poorly you think the conservative movement may have been served, remaining true to the movement still requires you vote for the party with a larger number of its advocates.

Until then bite the bullet, hold you nose a little tighter this time, and let your conscience guide you on that basis. And remember the adage; if you don't vote for the lesser of two evils, the bigger evil wins.

Also, think about this; the Dems hopes are pinned on the strategy of keeping you home on election day. In sitting this one out you are allowing yourself to be played by Democrats. This not only plays right into their hands, but also rewards their cynicism, and worse, makes us look as stupid as they think we are. I am tired of our ideological purists making us all look like idiots.

It's not about being played.  We are all being played all the time - - it's called politics. It's about the collective integrity of the players. Not voting hinges on the hope some grown-ups might emerge from the Dem ranks and, judging by the leadership, that is a risk I am not willing to take.

With a hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy I present:

You know you are a WISCONSAP if:

… you think a “tax freeze” and a $1 billion increase in property taxes are the same thing.

…you think the Patriot Act threatens your rights but the McCain Feingold Act doesn’t.

…you think voting for an Attorney General candidate, who has never prosecuted a case in court is a good idea.

…you think the documented flurry of e-mails and phone calls to Democrat Election Board appointees from Doyle operatives, on the eve of their decision to retroactively outlaw certain contributions to Mark Green, was a coincidence.

… you believe that Jim Doyle, after vetoing two bills mandating cost-free voter ID, wants anything to do with clean elections.

… you think prioritizing children and capping enrollment for charter schools is in any way consistent.

… you think allowing tavern owners to have poker machines violates the Wisconsin Constitution’s prohibition on the expansion of gambling but an open ended deal for life to Indian gaming doesn’t.

… you think granting residency tuition rates and special low interest mortgages is the more appropriate response to illegal immigration than a fence along the border.

… you think a concealed carry law in Wisconsin will somehow result in more guns, or gun violence, even though it didn’t in the 48 other states that passed such laws.

… you believe Wisconsin is a pro business state when in 2005 we opened 15 new manufacturing plants compared to 1325 in neighboring states. (IA - 135, MI – 505, IL – 510, MN -175)

Coherence is almost as alien to liberalism as progress is to progressivism.

Whoa! Dick Armey slams James Dobson.  Courtesy Instapundit link to Ryan Sager.

Sager's book, The Elephant in the Room, currently on my nightstand, chronicles the growing unease between social and economic conservatives.  I haven't gotten to his suggestions for reconciliation but doubt they will be too different from my own suggestion of marginalizing the Christians for the greater good of the party.

I hope to be able to finish it this weekend, amid popcorn/Cub Scout fundraising, funerals, and other family fun, and will post accordingly.  I would also recommend you get a copy.  It's a pretty good read, not all that long at 200 + pages and presents the libertarian slant on contemporary history that is not usually found elsewhere.   

It all boils down to what the great William Safire wrote in his column while he was still at the New York Times, back when it was worth reading, to paraphrase; " no one minds, in fact we welcome, social conservatives on the bus.  We just don't want them anywhere near the steering wheel." 



 

 

Looking Ahead

Not surprisingly, even the specter of a legitimate nuclear threat is not enough to change the subject for the many Democrats hellbent on regaining power. Ever the optimist however, I see silver lining in what has become the black cloud we know as the 2006 midterm election.

First of all, Democrats banking on the idea that a sex scandal (one absent sex by the way, but why haggle over details?) involving one obscure congressman is sufficient to sink the entire party, is more than a bit of a stretch. But it does prove useful in eliminating any doubt about the extent of their desperation and depth of depravity.  What else can one conclude when they have decided their best chance for winning is to convince their opponent's voters to stay home? We have reached a new low in political cynicism, and this from the party of ideas.

Secondly, if this works and they do win, it is not because they successfully sold their stance on the issues but only because they successfully conflated a comparatively minor incident into a major scandal. Their vacuity will be center stage for all the world to see. Let the show begin. But expectations of a sudden infusion of seriousness should be held in check.

On one hand, an unblinking camera on Democrat negativism for two years might not be a bad thing. On the other, the stakes on the table at this point in history puts that gamble a bit out of my comfort zone. Optimism here requires confidence that some grown-ups might emerge from their ranks. The problem with that is, none are apparent - - especially among the leadership.

That they are betting the farm on the suppression of GOP voters tells a lot about todays Democrat party. It is also a mis-underestimation of the highest order. I just can't believe cooler heads in the GOP leadership honestly fear this media-fueled controversy will result in the wholesale abandonment by their base. Call me a heretic, but any voter who would stay home because of something like this is not a voter worth keeping.

Another possible positive outcome of a Democrat win; if the Evangelical Christian faction sits out, effectively handing over victory on a silver platter, they will be also be handing over the keys, and driver's seat, of the bus. In my estimation the long-term survival of the GOP requires changing the focus from maintaining existing factions to converting fence sitters.  Now might be the time to give small government conservatives a chance behind the wheel.  After all, their ox has been gored more often and for much longer that the Christians. Especially in the last six years.

Polarized as we may be, elections are still determined in the middle. Alienating the hard Christian right could help because, it is my hunch, their dominance has prevented more conversion of independents than it has garnered recruits.

Put another way, a conservatism steeped in the principles of the constitution has a broader appeal than one steeped in the sanctity of the New Testament.  The time just may be ripe to put that theory to the test.

So I find solace in the possibility that election 2006 may be the final straw causing the divorce of the marriage between libertarian and social conservatives. Facing the possibility that this marriage of convenience has outlived its usefulness is the mark of a mature evolving movement.

And as in many divorces, the long term benefits outweigh the short-term damage.

My letter in the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is posted below.   They limit submissions to 200 words.  For the argument beyond the sound-bite scroll down.

Mine does have the distinction of tying it to Doyle specifically which, I must admit, is good enough.  It falls short of saying he has blood on his hands but the accusation of using the tragedy for political advantage holds.  Anyone caring to look up how he did in that county against Scott McCallum in 2000 could confirm or refute me easily enough and I welcome the feedback. 

UPDATE: Governors Race 2002 - Richland County:
(D) Doyle 36% (R) McCallum 36% (L) Ed Thompson 24%  
Hunch confirmed. I rest my case.  Anyone thinking there were no political considerations in his making a show of attending that funeral are pretty naiive or are clueless about Jim Doyle's true charecter. 

Not a risky one but I am predicting most of those Liberatrians will swing toward Green.
 
There were many letters on this topic (to read more click here  http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=510395 ) and, predictably, most dismiss conceal carry and Rep Lasee's proposal out of hand opting for the canned response that more guns = more violence.  Just as predictably, that so-called argument is smugly left to stand on it's own.  It doesn't.  The best they can offer is wild-eyed speculation of worst case scenarios, kids caught in the crossfire, wild west shootouts and the like.  But hey, even if that were the case, at least the fish in the barrel could shoot back.

This proposal simply posits an alternate equation: 
1 more gun in the right hands > guns in wrong hands only = safer schools. 

This line of argument might look vaguely familiar.   Advocates of distributing free condoms in high schools use it all the time: "it's inevitable so we might as well make it safer".  Substitute students having sex with students having guns and you have exactly the same rationale - - only the stakes are higher...

Look, I'm not deluding myself in thinking there will ever be a law allowing guns in schools nor do I submit this is the only answer.  Addressing the culture of violence, in movies, video games etc. and cracking down on bullying are good ideas too, but, obviously, they have fallen short.

They also beg a question; why attack first ammendment rights when the second ammendemnt offers a partial remedy?  Ideally, all remedies must pass constitutional muster but in this debate it seems not to be a matter of whether, but how many, of those rights are we willing to compromise.   

Complex problems need a combination of remedies where each component contributes a certain pecentage to the ultimate soultion.  I just hate it when a serious, reasonable, factually supportable, component doesn't even get a fair hearing because it gets drowned out by emotionalistic drivel.  The debate suffers and the fish in the barrell swim around unprotected.

anyway, the letter...  

Remember Doyle Veto

I read with great sadness the account of the funeral for the slain Weston Schools principal. Among the news was that Gov. Jim Doyle sat with the family at the funeral and was on hand to greet students when they returned to school. How nice of him.

What gall. The only way someone can stoop lower than using a grieving family for an election year photo op is having the chutzpah do so after refusing to use one's power to decrease the chances of the tragedy.

The fact that the concealed-carry legislation that Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed could have decreased the possibility of, if not prevented, this tragedy is unavoidable. And for a stiff dose of irony, one of his main concerns justifying the veto was his fear of guns in schools.

Frank Byrne
Milwaukee

I have been notified my letter to the editor regarding the travesty of failing to pass a conceal carry law will be in the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

It is a controversial position so, as an effort of fortification, I humbly submit this snippet from todays Investors Business Daily Editorial:

The NRA ....doesn't believe in disarming potential victims, and supports concealed-weapons laws that have demonstrably reduced crime and murder rates around the country.

Gun control advocates such as (Rosie) O'Donnell prefer laws like the Gun Free School Zones Act, which have turned the area inside and outside schools into a free-fire zone for wackos who know there's little possibility they'll be confronted by an armed guard, teacher, principal or parent who might prevent these tragedies by confronting, keeping at bay or disabling an armed intruder.

• Last year, seven people were killed at a high school in Red Lake, Minn., that did have a security guard. But the guard, the one individual who could have prevented the tragedy, and who saw the armed and dangerous shooter approach the school, was unarmed. The problem in Red Lake was not that the nation has too many guns, but that it had one too few. An armed security guard could have held the killer at bay or disabled him. On more than one occasion armed citizens have successfully intervened in school shootings to save lives.

• Few Americans are aware that in an October 1997 shooting spree at a Pearl, Miss., high school that left two students dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and immobilized the shooter until police arrived, preventing further killings.

• A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., that left one teacher dead was stopped only after the owner of a nearby restaurant pointed a gun at the shooter while he was attempting to reload and held him at bay, again preventing more deaths, until police arrived 11 minutes later.

• Another school shooting occurred in January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, when a disgruntled former student killed Law Dean L. Anthony Sutin, associate professor Thomas Blackwell and another student. Two of the three students who overpowered the gunman were armed; they ran to their cars to get the guns they used to disarm the shooter and prevent more deaths.

Bullets (no pun intended) and emphasis mine.

The foregoing stories show, if not prove, that guns in the right hands can thwart potential damage by guns in the wrong hands.  Tragically, last weeks body counts in Lancaster County PA and Cazenovia WI not only bolster the argument but provide the harshest possible lesson of anti-gun zealotry.  The infantile response that conceal-carry=more guns=more violence has become a Tourettes Syndrome blurt in lieu of reasoned argument in this debate.  Grow up people!  There are lives in the balance!

The ultimate irony is that preventing deaths is, presumably, the goal of both sides.  I use the qualifier "presumably" because I fear that behind every devoted second ammendment abolitionist is the fantasy of a gun-free world.   Hey, I like a good fantasy as much as the next guy and, in its own right, that one is compelling, noble, and possibly even a worthy goal.  The problem is it has everyting to do with the world they want, but nothing to do with the world we have.  It comes down to wishful thinking versus reality based pragmatism.  In light of recent events, the idea that the former is winning the debate in Wisconsin is absurd, embarrassing, and dangerous.    

In the meantime, kids remain vulnerable, the body count rises, and legislators dither.  It's time Wisconsin joins the 48 other states that have opted for common sense conceal carry legislation as advised by the State Supreme Court years ago. 

For this and other reasons it's time to DUMP DOYLE.  From perpetuating dirty elections, to pay for play contract awarding, to unconstitutional gaming negotiations, to tampering with the elections board, this one has moved to the top of the list. 

Someone dies and the one guy who prevented a measurable step that could have averted the tragedy uses the funeral for a photo-op.  If that isn't the perfect example of base political depravity I'd like to see a better one.  Wisconsin deserves better.       

 Add this to the list of good news, for all but Democrats at least...

Budget Deficit Drops to $250 Billion
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON

As we approach the weekend here are some headlines...

• Oil Prices Fall Below $60 per Barrell
• Dow Reaches Record High Third Consecutive Day
• NATO Assumes Control in Afghanistan
• Gas Prices Dip Again

Is it any wonder the Democrats and their water carriers in the main stream media want to perpetuate the feeding frenzy on Foley's follies?  Media bias is not so much what they say or print but what they choose to report.  Good news goes under reported if reported at all, especially if there's a chance it may cast a positive reflection on the Bush White House.

I think it was Limbaugh who put it so succintly when he said good news for the country is bad news for Democrats.  If this week isn't proof there isn't any.

Have a nice weekend.   

Courtesy of Clarice Feldman at the American Thinker

Present state of play—the Dems and CREW are implicated; ABC’s Brian Ross has his own Rathergate, the FBI and Ethics Committee are going to find out which Dems were involved and CREW will probably lose their tax exempt status. The Dems have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to use homophobia to win when they have no saleable platform or issues; the Republican base is charged up and once again Soros turned his gold into Dem dross.

Adds some credence to my explanation to Spokes the other night; that the more curiouser aspect of this alleged scandal is the timing - - simply way too advantageous to be coincidental.

As for Hastert, I'm not quite ready to stick a fork in him yet but, in view of his overall track record, wouldn't see it as much of a loss, sort of along the lines of Trent Lott awhile back.  So far, the main reason I would keep him is that it would prolong the Democrat orgasmic, mouth-frothing, overreach.  Well, that and to expose their use of homophobia for political advantage, the type of tactic we've come to expect from the tolerant Dems, who never fail to disappoint.

You gotta give them credit for cajones though.  Deliberately exploiting one of their most loyal constituencies while simultaneously accusing their opponents of devisiveness and claiming the moral high ground is no easy feat.  Nor is it believable, but their regard for the intelligence of the average voter has never been very high.    

In coming to that conclusion it occurred to me though that problem with people in powerful jobs is they start to consider themselves more important than their positions.  It must be the corrupting influence of power because the longer they stay, the more they blur the line between themselves and their job.

Politics is no different than any other arena - - no one is indispensable, especially in a representative republic.  The problem is they spend so much of their time trying to convince constituencies of their indispensability that they begin to think it's true. 

Clinton is a classic example.  If he had half the class of Mark Foley, or even Nixon for that matter, he would've resigned out of respect for the office.  If he had anywhere near as much respect for the office as he did love for himself Al Gore would have run as an incumbent and who knows where we'd be today? And the worm turns.         

Per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel .... 

LASEE PROPOSAL WOULD ARM SCHOOL OFFICIALS

After a recent wave of violence in schools, including a principal's death at Weston High School in Cazenovia last week, a state representative has proposed allowing school administrators and certified personnel to carry weapons.

Rep. Frank Lasee (R-Bellevue) wants to introduce legislation that will give teachers, principals, administrators and other school representatives the option of carrying concealed weapons in educational institutions.

Teachers well-trained in carrying and handling weapons gives them the ability to keep their students safe, said Lasee, who contends the program has worked in other countries such as Israel and Thailand, where schools are often subject to terrorist attacks.

Arming teachers there has resulted in less violence and safer learning environments, according to Lasee.

Elsewhere in the paper it tells how Governor Jim Doyle sat with the principals family at the funeral and that he will be on hand to greet students tomorrow. How nice.

The only way you can stoop lower than using a funeral of a tragedy as an electoral backdrop is if you have the chutzpah do so after failing to use your power to decrease the chances of the tragedy - - not once, but twice.   And for your daily dose of irony; among his strongest concerns cited at the time was guns in schools.  Liberal logic comes home to roost. 

You can count the seconds on one hand how fast Doyle will veto this bill if/when it reaches his desk.  But like Rep. Pope Hyphen whats-her-name, it's probably just not his "idea of public safety". 

Explain that to the family Governor. 

Caught his on one of the talking heads shows last night and had to pass it along. Pretty much sums up much of current political class.  Glad to see someone finally point it out.

Hilarious...
http://www.christy2006.com/pages/download_ads.cfm

 

I ran into Spokes Dumbrowski down at the Idle Potato Bar & Grill last night. Spokes is a good guy even though, in my view, he tends to be little confused in his politics. He voted for Jimmy Carter, Reagan and Clinton twice, and no Bush, ever. That doesn’t keep us from being friends though. In fact I rely on Spokes to see which way the liberal windsock is blowing as he does with me for the rightish side of things.

He got his nickname because he works in the wheel department at the local motorcycle factory just like his Dad did before him. His Mom was a teacher in the Milwaukee Public School system. He is a born and bread Milwaukee everyman, union member and Democrat, mostly out of habit because it saves a lot of heavy thinking, not really Spokes’ strong suit.

Anyway, I see Spokes at the end of the bar, “what’s up? I’ve been out of town for a couple a days.”

“Hey Redwing, pull up a stool and let me buy you a cold one”. Spokes calls me Redwing cause I’m a red guy in a blue state, and while I know it’s because he thinks I’m right wing, he assures me it‘s a tribute to my Native American heritage. (Really, it is only 1/16th on my Dad’s side, but that still makes me more of an Indian than Ward Churchill ever was.)

I always gird myself for political gloating when Spokes is so anxious to talk.

“Well”, he says, “looks like a Republican congressman got caught messing around with page boys’’.

“What do you mean page boys, he was styling someone’s hair?” I heard about Rep Foley’s misadventures all the way home on the radio yesterday but I just like messin with Spokes.

“No, not the haircut wise-*ss, those kids they use in congress to run errands and stuff. Apparently this pervy Congressman from Florida sent some dirty emails to one of these kids and all of Washington is in an uproar. He even quit.”

“No! Say it ain’t so! Emails? Really? How awful! Did he have sex with him?

“No”

“Were any laws broken?”

“Not sure”.

Were there any pictures?”

“No”.

“Was this a one-time deal a single page or an ongoing affair with all kinds of youths?”

“One kid, far as I know. What’s yer point?” Spokes huffs, looking a little annoyed.

“Nothing really” I say, “but it sure doesn’t take much to start an overblown brouhaha in Washington around election time.”

“Whaterya talking about?”

“Well, all I’m saying is that, to me at least, the timing of the story is at least as interesting as any of the other details.”

“How’s that?”

“Well, for starters, 2 Florida newspapers knew about those emails last November, AND, the organization that gave the scoop to ABC knew about it back in July.”

“So.”

“So? So don’t you find it a little curious that this just happened to come out right when Bush’s poll numbers start heading upward and the Democrats lead in the polls pretty much disappeared?”

“Well, when you put it like that” Spokes nods, “but you’re really starting to sound like one of them conspiracy kooks.”

“It doesn’t take a suspicious cynic, even though I’ve been rightly accused of being both, to see something so obvious” I replied.

“Maybe so” says Spokes, the gloat glow fading to glumness. “But even if it was timed for political advantage, the guy is a creep and got what he deserved.”

“In that my friend, we are in total agreement”. Cheer up. There’s still 5 weeks til the election, plenty of time for more October surprises.”

“October what?”

“Oh never mind, I’ll explain that another time. How bout dem Packers eh?”

“Wow” Spokes grimaced, “you really know how to hurt a guy.”