Entries Tagged as 'politics'

Obama spam

A couple of times a week I check my spam folder. Yeah, I hate wading through that sewage (titles, not contents!), but I usually find something, once a week or so, that should have made it to my mail folder. Today, something caught my eye. Obama spam. References to his extraordinary male prowess, or at least photographic evidence of it. Really? Obama porn? Does anyone R-E-A-L-L-Y want to go there? I’m thinking this is a first: political porn spam, but I don’t really care to research my speculation. First he’s the next messiah and now he’s a porn spam star???

If I now get McCain spam porn, I’ll know we are one step closer to the end of this world.

Sister Souljah moment?

This morning, I heard a strange phrase on the top of the hour news from the ABC Radio News that left me wondering: what in the world is a Sister Souljah moment? I googled it and learned that it is a phrase that dates back to 1992. Where have I been? Actually, I remember the Clinton years - I turned off the radio and television for 8 years until he was no longer our president.

The Follies of Instant History

The recent news of a poll by today’s historians didn’t make as much news as I had hoped it would. Where was the analysis by pundits? The poll’s premise - that today’s historians could pass judgment on President Bush’s legacy 8 months before he leaves office - was ridiculous. The only good analysis I could find was from an openly anti-Bush historian who did a really great job of explaining his concerns about this poll:
On the recent poll:

We have gotten ourselves into such a state in this regard that most historians no longer even see any problem here—they no longer see a principled distinction to be made between our present politics and our historical judgments. Indeed, I suspect few of my colleagues see anything wrong with this kind of poll, and think I am out on some fringe somewhere with my concerns. And I fear I am. That is the real tragedy of it: this conflation of politics with historical scholarship is so commonplace that old-fashioned historians like me have become fringe characters by stint of our unwillingness to move along with the postmodern crowd.

Simply put: it is foolish to think that historians can offer an historical judgment on the Bush presidency (even a tentative one) while that presidency is still in motion. We cannot short-circuit the processes of historical research and scholarship and produce anything remotely related to valid historical judgments.

He also wrote back in 2006, after a similar poll:

Historians have both a right and a duty to try to influence public policy in ways they think desirable. As public intellectuals, they can and should speak out about Bush Administration policies. But they cannot pretend that, qua historian, they are giving us a professional assessment of the presidency of George W. Bush, while that presidency is still in motion. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty to pretend that the discipline of historical analysis currently certifies—as a matter of learned scholarship—that Bush can be judged, even tentatively, as among our worst presidents. A historians can say—as a political liberal—that she disagrees with Bush policy in a number of areas, and she expects these policies to turn out badly. But she cannot play the coy game of pretending that this is the objective assessment of the history profession—no matter how many historians are polled in similar gestures of the same arrogance.

Source:  The Follies of Instant History: Another Meaningless Poll of Historians  and Should Historians Try to Rank President Bush’s Presidency, both by Larry DeWitt on George Mason University’s History News Network

If you want to understand America…

“Religion is the single most important factor that drives American belief attitudes and behaviors. It is a powerful indicator of where America will end up on politics, culture, family life. If you want to understand America, you have to understand religion in America.”

~ Michael Lindsay, assistant director of the Center on Race, Religion and Urban Life at Rice University on the latest Pew report

The Pew survey, available on the Web at http://religions.pewforum.org/, was conducted between May and August of 2007.

Norm Coleman: “Friendship trumps ideology…”

Yet another reason why I’ll be voting for Norm Coleman:

From the StarTribune:

Liberal Al Franken is good enough and smart enough to win some of conservative Ben Stein’s money — and doggone it, Stein likes him.

Stein, an actor, writer, economist and former Nixon speechwriter, has contributed $2,000 to Franken’s U.S. Senate campaign. The two men have known each other for about 30 years…

Here’s the money quote: “Friendship trumps ideology - by the way, as it should,'’ Coleman said. “Friendship, family, there are some things more important than ideology. Was he in ‘Ferris Bueller’? I think it was a good movie.'’

I think that quote summarizes Coleman’s good sense. He’s still got my vote. It really isn’t a tough choice, though - Franken or Coleman? Come on.

Pity poor Susan…

I discovered a great feature of a fellow Minnesota blogger, The Lady Logician, on women who think and speak logically and make it into the news for such. That’s a great idea!

I also found a great post on a woman who has ranted on why a recent peace rally was a failure. Her rant gives insight to an extreme left-wing mindset. The Lady Logician writes…

Pity poor Susan…she is sorely disappointed.

A few weeks back I rode my bike to the State Capitol for a peace rally. It had everything a rally should have — labor, veterans and Gold Star mothers, respected speakers, a sunny day — except people.
It was subdued and surreal, like the final scene from “On the Beach,” the 1959 movie about nuclear annihilation, in which banners flutter over an outdoor stage and flyers scuttle across the flattened grass and no one is there.

In her typical over-reactionary style, Susan then goes on to talk about the peace rally that flopped and her hyper-imaginative reasons why it flopped. Read on…

I’m glad Lady Logician noticed this in the paper. I’d like to think that logic-less thinking is on the decline, but I’m probably wrong.

Barack Obama talks to college students about being wasted…

Barack Obama speaking at Iowa State University. Click on photo to view video.

You know…I’ve spent more than a few moments this past year wondering how in the world I would get myself pumped back up to cover the upcoming presidential race. No more! Thanks to Barack Obama I now have full confidence in my ability to opine on comments like this one made at Iowa State University last weekend:

We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and to which we now have spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted. ~Barack Obama

Now to be fair, let’s see what he had to say afterward when called on by the press to explain his comments.

Obama, in an interview with the Des Moines Register right afterward, told the paper, ‘’I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'’ he said. ‘’Their sacrifices are never wasted. . . . What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission.”

There! That made things perfectly clear. Can’t wait to hear four years of explanations like that! And to think that liberals like to accuse President Bush of being incoherent. Watch the original speech on YouTube.
Hat tip to James Taranto’s Best of the Web (WSJ Opinion Journal feature) and the Chicago Sun Times.

At least the Dixie Chicks admitted it…

The Grammy Awards now serve as a voting vehicle for politics. The many talented artists of this past year have gone unrecognized so that the music establishment could shove their opinions down America’s throat. Gnarls Barkley, Corrine Bailey Rae take note: make sure to become obnoxious in sharing your political views, become avoided by many and then be assured of a Grammy win. Don’t worry about producing quality music. At least the Dixie Chicks showed a little embarrassment as the final award was, once again, given to them and they realized that they were just another political pawn. What a waste of my time tonight. Even the Police reunion that I was so excited to see was not that exciting.

Who speaks for conservatives?

On local talk radio last Friday, Ian Punnett was claiming that several of the largest leading conservative organizations had made public statements against the announcement of Mary Cheney and Heather Poe’s pregnancy. As an avid reader of conservative opinion, I was confused by his statement. Other than one or two AP reports, I haven’t seen any coverage of this story. Is there a religion angle? Well, yeah there is. The few organizations that have made comments are religious organizations and not merely conservative organizations: Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family. To me, it’s a leap to take a press release from a religious group and call it a statement by a political group, although that leap is made all the time. I realize there is a relationship between politics and religion and it’s artificial to keep the two separate, but it is still important to know what parts of an issue are religious and what parts are political.
So on Friday, I searched out my usual conservative and religious blogs and websites this morning and couldn’t find any mention of the issue. This story came out last Wednesday, I think.

Technorati- only being mentioned by liberal bloggers
Minnesota Organization of Bloggers - not one word
Confessional Lutheran Blogosphere (using my own feed aggregator) - not one word
Get Religion blog- not one word
Christianity Today - not one word
Townhall - nothing
Instapundit - one brief mention in the form of a link to a small blog
Pajamas Media - one mention of the AP news report; nobody commented on the post
World Magazine - no mention

It’s my opinion that the evangelical movement that took control of conservatism in the Reagan era are out of step with today’s conservatives and are issuing condemnations not supported by most conservatives. It is also those same leaders who cannot offer a valid explanation for why conservatives did not vote for their usual candidates this year. Although we sometimes have issues in common, Focus on the Family and Concerned Women for America don’t speak for me as a conservative.
Of course, another explanation could be that media and others are refraining from commenting out of respect for the Vice President. What is the likelihood of that, though???

Jeane Kirkpatrick

From James Taranto of the Opinion Journal…”One of the three great U.S. ambassadors to the U.N. is dead. Jeane Kirkpatrick, 80, “died in her sleep at home in Bethesda, Md.,” the Associated Press reports. “The cause of death was not immediately known.” Kirkpatrick is perhaps best remembered for her 1984 speechat the Republican National Convention.” I read the speech and decided to post it below. It is very applicable to today, in many ways. Some of the names have changed, but the concepts and players really haven’t changed.
Jeane Kirkpatrick’s 1984 Speech
Thank you very much for that warm welcome.
Thank you for inviting me.
This is the first Republican Convention I have ever attended.
I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.
I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:
“The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details.”
He continued:
“The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man.”
That’s the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.
These were the men who developed NATO, who developed the Marshall Plan, who devised the Alliance for Progress.
They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn’t doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others.
They didn’t imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.
They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.
I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

Foreign Affairs
A recent article in The New York Times noted that “the foreign policy line that emerged from the Democratic National Convention in San Francisco is a distinct shift from the policies of such [Democratic] presidents as Harry S Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.”
I agree.
I shall speak tonight of foreign affairs even though the other party’s convention barely touched the subject.
When the San Francisco Democrats treat foreign affairs as an afterthought, as they did, they behaved less like a dove or a hawk than like an ostrich - convinced it would shut out the world by hiding its head in the sand.
Today, foreign policy is central to the security, to the freedom, to the prosperity, even to the survival of the United States.
And our strength, for which we make many sacrifices, is essential to the independence and freedom of our allies and our friends.
Ask yourself:
What would become of Europe if the United States withdrew?
What would become of Africa if Europe fell under Soviet domination?
What would become of Europe if the Middle East came under Soviet control?
What would become of Israel, if surrounded by Soviet client states?
What would become of Asia if the Philippines or Japan fell under Soviet domination?
What would become of Mexico if Central America became a Soviet satellite?
What then could the United States do?
These are questions the San Francisco Democrats have not answered. These are questions they haven’t even asked.

Carter Administration
The United States cannot remain an open, democratic society if we are left alone - a garrison state in a hostile world.
We need independent nations with whom to trade, to consult and cooperate.
We need friends and allies with whom to share the pleasures and the protection of our civilization.
We cannot, therefore, be indifferent to the subversion of others’ independence or to the development of new weapons by our adversaries or of new vulnerabilities by our friends.
The last Democratic administration did not seem to notice much, or care much or do much about these matters.
And at home and abroad, our country slid into real deep trouble.
North and South, East and West, our relations deteriorated.
The Carter administration’s motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed and mistaken.
They made things worse, not better.
Those who had least, suffered most.
Poor countries grew poorer.
Rich countries grew poorer, too.
The United States grew weaker.
Meanwhile, the Soviet Union grew stronger.
The Carter administration’s unilateral “restraint” in developing and deploying weapon systems was accompanied by an unprecedented Soviet buildup, military and political.
The Soviets, working on the margins and through the loopholes of SALT I, developed missiles of stunning speed and accuracy and targeted the cities of our friends in Europe.
They produced weapons capable of wiping out our land-based missiles.
And then, feeling strong, the Soviet leaders moved with boldness and skill to exploit their new advantages.
Facilities were completed in Cuba during those years that permit Soviet nuclear submarines to roam our coasts, that permit planes to fly reconnaissance missions over the eastern United States, and that permit Soviet electronic surveillance to monitor our telephone calls and our telegrams.
Those were the years the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran, while in Nicaragua and Sandanista developed a one-party dictatorship based on the Cuban model.
From the fall of Saigon in 1975 ’til January 1981, Soviet influence expanded dramatically into Laos, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, South Yemen, Libya, Syria, Aden, Congo, Madagascar, Seychelles, Nicaragua, and Grenada.
Soviet block forces and advisers sought to guarantee what they called the “irreversibility” of their newfound influence and to stimulate insurgencies in a dozen other places.
During this period, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, murdered its president and began a ghastly war against the Afghan people.
The American people were shocked by these events.
We were greatly surprised to learn of our diminished economic and military strength.
We were demoralized by the treatment of our hostages in Iran.
And we were outraged by harsh attacks on the United States in the United Nations.
As a result, we lost confidence in ourselves and in our government.
Jimmy Carter looked for an explanation for all these problems and thought he found it in the American people.
But the people knew better.
It wasn’t malaise we suffered from; it was Jimmy Carter - and Walter Mondale.

Election of Ronald Reagan
And so, in 1980, the American people elected a very different president.
The election of Ronald Reagan marked an end to the dismal period of retreat and decline.
His inauguration, blessed by the simultaneous release of our hostages, signaled an end to the most humiliating episode in our national history.
The inauguration of President Reagan signaled a reaffirmation of historic American ideals.
Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency confidence in the American experience.
Confidence in the legitimacy and success of American institutions.
Confidence in the decency of the American people.
And confidence in the relevance of our experience to the rest of the world.
That confidence has proved contagious.
Our nation’s subsequent recovery in domestic and foreign affairs, the restoration of military and economic strength has silenced the talk of inevitable American decline and reminded the world of the advantages of freedom.
President Reagan faced a stunning challenge and he met it.
In the 3 1/2 years since his inauguration, the United States has grown stronger, safer, more confident, and we are at peace.
The Reagan administration has restored the American economy.
It is restoring our military strength.
It has liberated the people of Grenada from terror and tyranny.
With NATO, it has installed missiles to defend the cities of Europe.
The Reagan administration has prevented the expulsion of Israel from the United Nations.
It has developed flexible new forms of international cooperation with which to deal with new threats to world order.
The Reagan administration has given more economic assistance to developing countries than any other administration or any other government, and has encouraged the economic freedom needed to promote self-sustaining economic growth.
The Reagan administration has helped to sustain democracy and encourage its development elsewhere.
And at each step of the way, the same people who were responsible for America’s decline have insisted that the president’s policies would fail.
They said we could never deploy missiles to protect Europe’s cities.
But today Europe’s cities enjoy that protection.
They said it would never be possible to hold an election in El Salvador because the people were too frightened and the country too disorganized.
But the people of El Salvador proved them wrong, and today President Napoleon Duarte has impressed the democratic world with his skillful, principled leadership.
They said we could not use America’s strength to help others - Sudan, Chad, Central America, the Gulf states, the Caribbean nations - without being drawn into war.
But we have helped others resist Soviet, Libyan, Cuban subversion, and we are at peace.

Blame America First
They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn’t blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.
But then, somehow, they always blame America first.
When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the “blame America first crowd” didn’t blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn’t blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.
But then, they always blame America first.
When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don’t blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.
But then, they always blame America first.
The American people know better.
They know that Ronald Reagan and the United States didn’t cause Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua, or the repression in Poland, or the brutal new offensives in Afghanistan, or the destruction of the Korean airliner, or the new attacks on religious and ethnic groups in the Soviet Union, or the jamming of western broadcasts, or the denial of Jewish emigration, or the brutal imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky and Ida Nudel, or the obscene treatment of Andrei Sakharov and Yelena Bonner, or the re-Stalinization of the Soviet Union.
The American people know that it’s dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.
They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.
He wrote: “Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself.”
With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.
And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.
Thank you very much.
(*Sources:* This is the Associated Press text of United Nations Representative Jeane J. Kirkpatrick’s speech as delivered Aug. 20 to the Republican National Convention, in Dallas.)