Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, recently called John McCain a “blatant opportunist,” in response to McCain’s new ad. The ad shows a young McCain in Vietnamese captivity, calmly giving his name, rank and serial number to a (presumably North Vietnamese) questioner. (The voiceover, by the way is Powers Booth).

I realize that there is a personal history between these two men. Dean’s brother was kidnapped in Laos during the 1970’s. John McCain was by his side when then candidate Howard Dean received the recovered remains of his late brother four years ago. This makes the “opportunist” charge all the more disgusting. How can anyone call John McCain an opportunist for bringing up his war record? This page has taken issue with McCain policies, in particular on free speech and global warming, but we have never even hinted at McCain’s character being less than heroic in the truest sense of the word.

In contrast, John Kerry, who repudiated the military and slandered the troops with whom he served, can fairly be called an opportunist. When the prevailing sentiment was anti-military, John Kerry was the leader of the Winter Soldier movement. When the winds changed, Kerry was suddenly “reporting for duty,” and trumpeting his military credentials.

John McCain, on the other hand, had multiple opportunities to either end his personal suffering or avoid Vietnam altogether. His father and grandfather both reached the rank of Admiral in the Navy, surely strings could have been pulled. When John McCain was involved in the horrific accident aboard the USS Forrestal, he was seriously injured while trying to rescue another pilot. Surely he could have been quietly reassigned stateside, or stayed with the Forestall and her crew in drydock. Instead, he volunteered for a transfer to the USS Oriskany so that he could remain in theatre, fighting the Vietnamese. It was three months later, from this carrier, that John McCain flew the mission that resulted in his six years of captivity. During that time, McCain was subjected to torture and repeated beatings (including knocking out of his teeth, which liberal bloggers are all too happy to mock). Because of his father’s rank, McCain could have ended his ordeal at any time by simply saying what the Vietnamese wanted him to say. By simply ‘confessing’ the sins of his comrades and yielding anti-American propaganda, he would have been released.

By saying, under duress, what John F. Kerry said to serve his personal ambition, John McCain could have been home asleep in his own bed. John McCain never did that. He never caved, he never sought the easy way out. He never allowed his principles to take second place to his ambitions. John Kerry did. He’s an opportunist, John McCain is a hero. And Howard Dean? Well, he’s not just and opportunist, he’s a douche bag.

Much has been said about Obama’s supposedly historic speech, which, in my mind, converted a non-racial, “I hate America” issue into a racial one. He played the race card eloquently, but it’s still the race card. It’s called that, by the way, because there is no appropriate response from the other side. What can we say? “No, blacks don’t really hate us that much”?

One thing that was telling about the speech, however, was how opportunistic Obama has suddenly become. Back in October, the media half-heartedly reported Obama’s refusal to wear a U.S. flag lapel pin. Of course, most of the media saw this as “heroic,” though I obviously disagree. Obama’s response was to say that the flag should not be a substitute for patriotism. Okay, but is it mutually exclusive with patriotism? If you’re running for office as leader of a country, shouldn’t you show some visible signs that you support it, lest you be confused with someone running for President of France?

In any event, the flag’s symbolism has apparently had something of a revival for the Obama campaign. After the two closest human beings to Obama, his wife and his pastor, have been caught making anti-American comments, Obama gave his “historic” speech beset by Old Glory:

It reminds me of the 2000 election dispute over Florida. Each time Gore or Bush came out, the podium would be flanked by increasing numbers of American flags. With Obama, if you browse the recent news photos (at Yahoo news, linked to the photo), you’ll notice he seems to have wrapped himself in the flag lately. Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Even more telling is Obama’s willingness to throw his poor, old grandmother under the bus for a little moral equivalence. This is a woman, still living, who raised him. To equate one private comment (which she may not have even made) with a lifetime of publicly fostering bigotry, hatred and racial animus from a church pulpit is neither eloquent, accurate nor honorable. It’s despicable. And the fact he used his grandmother makes it all the worse. Mr. Obama is going to great lengths to assure the nation that, when it comes to race baiting and the anti-American agenda of the left, he’s more status quo than change we can believe in.

Barack Obama, fresh on the heels of his well-received speech on race, has spoken out again today in Pennsylvania. Mr. Obama, in prepared remarks, addressed another religious leader, whose Anti-Catholic and Anti-American rhetoric has shocked many. “I vigorously disagree with the Muslim Cleric, Osama bin Laden, and his remarks involving Western democracy and theology,” said the madrasah-educated Senator from Illinois. “But I can no more disown him than I can my white Uncle Jedediah who still lives in Hawaii. Uncle Jeb, not unlike Mr. bin Laden, is a raving lunatic and racist, who once said the Japanese should be damned to the fires of Hell.” Barack Obama’s aging uncle, Jeb Dunham, a Pearl Harbor survivor who lives in Honolulu, could not be reached for comment.

Senator Obama continued, “I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Mr. bin Laden that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.”

“Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals,” continued the freshman Senator, “there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough….Like other predominantly Muslim churches across the world, Wahabism embodies the Muslim community in its entirety – the arms dealer and the suicide bomber mother, the model student and the former capitalist. Like other Muslim churches, Wahabism services may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the Muslim experience in the world.”

Several news outlets were quick to call this second address “worthy of [President] Lincoln.” George Stephanopoulos said Obama’s refusal to renounce this highly controversial man was, “in many ways an act of honor.” And on CNN, Campbell Brown called the speech “striking” and “daring,” asserting that Obama had, quote, “walked the listener through a remarkable exploration of religion from both sides of the beheading divide, from both sides of himself.”

Liberals often make fun of “conservative gun nuts,” making reference to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories and half-baked theories linking Al Qaeda with rural militias. I have to admit, I don’t own a gun, nor do I belong to a militia. I signed up to be a cadet in the civil air patrol once, but it was boring and short-lived. (It turns out, there isn’t much flying involved). But, as an American with a firm grasp on the murky pages of history, I fully understand the importance of gun rights.

Your right to own a gun goes far beyond your right to defend yourself from muggings, home intruders or car jackers. It is designed to protect you from the one thing that can take everything from you: the government. The right to defend yourself from government tyranny is as fundamental today as it was 225 years ago. A government that doesn’t fear its people will quickly begin to take advantage of them.

Liberals often make the specious argument that, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, the most powerful personal weapon was the musket. They argue that our right to bear arms should therefore be limited to the modern equivalent of muskets, and should not include semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons. (So much for a living, breathing constitution.)

These critics are plainly wrong. The Founding Fathers knew that government would expand. They knew that governments always grasp for more power in the name of the “public policy.” They knew that “[no] country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.” Just as weapons technology has advanced for our police and military, the arms of government enforcement, so should our individual right to defend ourselves against government. Our right to bear arms should now include F-117 stealth fighters, M1A1 Abrams tanks, armored personnel carriers and even the occasional aircraft carrier.

I know. You think I’m crazy. Who could reasonably argue that “government is out to get them” and we need an aircraft carrier to protect us? How about Susette Kelo and Wilhelmina Dery? Susette lived in the City of New London since 1997. Wilhelmina lived in the same house since she was born there in 1918. They owned their land and enjoyed living there. But the City of New London, greedy for tax revenue, decided that Pfizer would do more with the land than Susette and Wilhelmina could, so they evicted the women from their respective homes and sold the land to private developers. Let me say that again, the government confiscated their homes, demolished their houses and sold the land to a private developer for a profit.

Surely, this cannot stand. Surely the Supreme Court would step in and protect their Fifth Amendment property rights! Doesn’t the Fifth Amendment guarantee that the government can only take your land for a public purpose? You know, like building a highway? Not according to 5 justices in Washington.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that 90 year-old Wilhelmina jump into a Bradley fighting vehicle and open a can of whopass all over the mayor of New London. But how long will government reach into your pocket to steal your money; confiscate your property for private developers; and read your emails and listen to your phone calls? Right up until the collective might of the People present a real and credible threat to the government.

Of course, you say, this is all just talk. We live in a peaceful democracy. There’s no need to threaten the government with guns, tanks and fighter planes. Have you ever thought about what happens if you defy the government? Do they come and try to argue reason with you? If you stopped paying taxes, would the government call you, and say “I believe we have a misunderstanding here, perhaps we can discuss it.” No. They send men with guns to your home. If you don’t answer the door, they kick it in.

Today, the United States Supreme Court again hears oral argument on a case involving a fundamental right. The Court must decide whether the citizens of the District of Columbia have a right to bear arms, or if vague notions of “public policy” yet again trump the rights of the governed. Their decision will either put America back on track as a vibrant and independent democracy, or it will continue the slow, ugly slide into the yawning void of tyranny and oppression. If the Supreme Court again misinterprets the Constitution in the name of public policy, buy a gun and start saving for that tank.

Don’t you just love election years? They’re full of pandering to special interests, saying one thing and meaning another and, especially if a Republican is in office, negative talk about the economy. Don’t get me wrong, things are getting bad out there, but the press almost seems happy about it. It’s as if the positive news coming out of Iraq is too depressing for them, so they need to get their fix with a weak dollar and the long overdue housing bubble bursting.

But the real joy is in the Democratic primary. Barrack Obama is starting to show signs of mortality. His once teflon exterior is starting to melt away in the sunlight of some (still gentle) media scrutiny. There are still far too many unanswered (and some still unasked) questions about his dealings with Mr. Rezko and his connections to extremists like William Ayers. Now, questions are even being raised against his passionately anti-American pastor of 20 years. From all reports, it may have been better politically for Mr. Obama to have stayed Muslim. At least Islam is a religion of peace.

Florida & Michigan
The other thorn in Mr. Obama’s side is the twin-headed monster of Florida and Michigan. Hillary Clinton is and will be very much alive at the DNC convention in August, and she will continue to harp on three things: (1) “Obama is unelectable (beacause I’ve made him so)”; (2) “I’ve won all the big, important states”; and (3) “I’ve got the momentum to lead this party into the general election.”

The first argument is the modus operandi for the Clintons. Why build when you can destroy? They’re the political equivalent of Bizzarro Superman.

The second argument is also classic Clinton: self-serving, illogical and yet oddly effective. Clinton has been arguing that she has won all the big states needed to win the general election. This is clearly specious in Democratic enclaves like the People’s Republics of California, Massachusetts and New York. It’s not as if those states are going to swing Republican because Hillary is not the nominee. It’s patently ridiculous in Texas, which hasn’t gone Democratic since it went for Carter in 76. I think they learned their lesson.

The argument, however, is slightly more seductive, however, in places like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. These are the swing states that actually decide who becomes president. Of course, the fact that Hillary wins a Democratic party beauty contest in these states does not, necessarily mean she will win the general election there. After all, McCain won those states by an even larger margin. But, and this is the grain of truth in the ridiculous, it does mean she has better ground troops there. It means, arguably, her organization is better positioned to fight in those states. On balance, however, I think whatever advantage she has over Obama in those states will not survive Hillary Hatred or the new McCain Democrats.

On the momentum issue, here is where it gets tricky for Mr. Obama. Hillary can show momentum by continuing to win big states and by keeping the popular vote close, or even passing him. In delegates, Obama leads Clinton by about 10%, and neither Obama nor Hillary have a realistic chance of sealing the deal before the convention. But Obama currently leads the popular by about 13.3 million to Hillary’s 12.6 million; if you include Florida, that lead nearly halves from 700,000 to 400,000. Both will need “super” delegates to win.

Hillary will probably win Pennsylvania by the same 10% or so she won in Ohio. This will do little to help her in delegate count, but it will put a dent in Obama’s popular vote lead. With the stakes being so high and such a long lead up to Pennsylvania (still five weeks away), look for high turnout, which I believe will favor Hillary. Also look for voter fraud, but that’s par for the course in PA, especially with a Clinton running.

As for Florida and Michigan, only the kind of person who feints at political rallies believes Obama has a chance of winning Florida. Hillary is sure to win and, given that this election will actually count, turnout is going to be better than it was in January. (Meaning a Hillary win will bring the popular vote even closer). If there is a revote, especially so close to the convention, Hillary will have another big state win, a jump in her popular vote count and Obama will have proven himself unable to win in any big state (other than his native Illinois).

Obama’s best bet is to mathematically allocate the Florida delegates and take the wind out of Hillary’s sails. The same is true for Obama in Michigan, although he may play better in Muslim regions where his middle name is an asset, not a racial slur, as he now claims. Even if he applies the 60/40 split of the January votes in Florida and Michigan (which is the best mathematical split Clinton could reasonably hope for), he will only lose a handful of meaningless delegates. He will also be able to paint himself as reasonable and generous in giving up those delegates and Hillary Clinton as mean and petty when she inevitably demands that the popular votes count as well. A small price to pay to show the world the obvious.

I’ve been off for a week, in the words of a liberal friend, “gleefully” enjoying the Spitzer ordeal.  I try not to take joy from the misery of others, but in Eliot Spitzer’s case I will make an exception.  Mr. Sptizer built his career on overzealous prosecution.  he used tactics more fit for totalitarian states, personally threatening those who had the audacity to challenge him or his politically motivated prosecutions.  His holier than thou attitude should never be condoned in government service, but because he attacked those evil corporations, the media “gleefully” allowed it to pass without challenge.

The fact that Mr. Spitzer’s downfall involved prostitution comes as a surprise.  In fact, it demeans the oldest profession.  As part of the libertarian wing of the Republican party, I have no moral conviction against prostitution.  It is illegal, but as Michael Barone points out, not really illegal.  It is only illegal around election time when politicians need to justify their over inflated budgets.  Anyone who has spent more than 5 minutes on Craigslist knows how to get hold of a prostitute.  If it were really illegal, why is it so easy to find?  Of course, sometimes the best you can do is charge Capone with tax evasion.

As for Mrs. Spitzer and her children, I have nothing but the greatest of sympathy for them.  I would assume that they feel more betrayed than anyone, though the NY Times has reported that Mrs. Spitzer encouraged her husband to stay governor.  That is a curious bit of trivia as most people in her shoes would be perfecting their Lorena Bobbit impression, not engaging in career counseling.

Also interesting is the fact that it was the New York Times that broke the story in the first place.  Is it completely coincidental that this exposé comes only a few weeks after a botched hit job on Mr. McCain?  As one commentator noted, Republicans must beware the ides of March.  Surely the media will not let a Democratic scandal go without a Republican one of equal or greater value.  In fact, most mainstream media are not even mentioning the fact that Mr. Spitzer is a Demorcat, or even a Hillary supporter.  (In fact, one news agency even called him a Republican).  This labelling campaign is one of the most subtle and damaging forms of media bias.  If you listen carefully, you will notice that only Republicans and “independents” do bad things in the media.

The irony in this case is, just by itself, delightful.  Apparently, Mr. Spitzer had created shell bank accounts and had been making large cash deposits and withdrawals.  That raised suspicions with his bank, who filed suspicious activity reports with the IRS and FBI, as required by laws that, ironically, Mr. Spitzer championed.  Following his lead, though with far less fanfare, federal prosecutors followed the money all the way to Kristen.   There are two important differences between the prosecutors who brought down Mr. Spitzer and the former governor himself: (1) they didn’t need a media smear campaign to coerce a confession; and (2) their criminal charges will stick.

As I said, I don’t believe prostitution should be illegal.  I don’t believe anyone should go to jail for what is really a moral issue and a victimless crime.  But, in Mr. Spitzer’s case, we should make an exception.  He built his career on prosecuting businessmen for practices that were not only legal (as evidenced by his stunning 0-fer conviction record), but also commonplace.  Mr. Spitzer should be made to live up to his own standards.  Especially after the unremorseful speech he gave.  Al qeada operatives have appeared more contrite.

Finally, I can’t let this go without repeating a the funiest Spitzer comment I’ve heard.  As you probably have heard, Spitzer allegedly asks his prostitutes to “do something that most people might not think is safe.”  As one Fark commentator put it, “yeah baby, run an under-capitalized hedge fund for me!”  Alas, Spitzer is revealed to the world for what he is, a bad joke that you need a law degree to fully appreciate.

There’s an interesting argument developing on the Left.  Having Hillary’s Attack Machine up against the Audacity of Hope Machine has been very enlightening for some Democrats. First, Hillary supporters are now seeing first hand what it’s like to be called racist, simply because you don’t vote for a candidate who is Black.  Of course, there may still be some people who won’t vote for a Black person only because they’re Black, but the syllogism falls apart when you say if you don’t vote for Obama, you must be racist. It’s also telling that Obama’s supporters cannot image why anyone would want to vote for anyone other Obama, even Hillary. There’s nothing scarier than the devout who accept a leader without questioning or comparing alternatives.

Obama’s supporters are also finding out what it’s like to suffer violent personal attacks in response to policy arguments. Welcome to our world, folks. The funny thing is that, somewhere, Ken Starr is wondering “What the hell? All I did was ask about their finances, too.”

The real interesting development, however, is the growing “fear mongering” complaints. Obama’s supporters are complaining about Hillary’s 3 a.m. ad, which questioned Obama’s ability to deal with a crisis. Of course, the unspoken threat is terrorism.  Obama’s supporters are also, ironically, complaining about Hillary scaring people with losing their jobs.  (Look for Hillary’s camp to make similar complaints about Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric.)

The interesting thing is that Democrats are finally realizing that the “Republican tactic” of reminding people that it’s a dangerous world out there is just as “unfair” when you play to people’s fears about their jobs as when you remind them of the ever present threat of terrorism. Personally, I have never thought that this argument is unfair at all. If you’re running for President of the United States, you should be able to allay people’s fear of the unknown. You should be able to defend your policies and convince the people who elect you that you are capable of keeping them safe.

The argument is slightly less valid, however, when you play to people’s fears of losing their job. The president has direct control over the military and the national security assets that keep us safe. No one is infallible, and attacks will happen. The question is, what will you do to keep us safe? The president has no direct effect on jobs, however. (Of course, some Democrats are still hoping for a worker’s paradise where the government is the only game in town.) The president can advocate tax cuts, can suggest legal reforms and some regulations, but the president doesn’t close the factory. Claiming that electing the old so-and-so will cost you your job is more inflammatory than claiming he or she won’t keep you safe.

Of course, accepting responsibility for your actions is not one of the Left’s strong suits.

In a special Profiles in DisCourage puff piece, the New Yorker profiles Barack Obama’s “outspoken” wife, Michelle.  (Look here for the Newsbusters summary if you don’t have the intestinal fortitude for the full dose.)  There are many frustrating and hypocritical things about this piece, not least among them is crying poverty when you make over $300,000 a year.  The one thing that really caught my attention, though is her offhanded comment about Vice President Cheney.

Talking about her and Barack’s upbringing and how they worked to afford their Ivy League educations: “[W]e didn’t have trust funds. I’m still waiting for Barack’s trust fund. Especially after I heard that Dick Cheney was s’posed to be a relative or something. Give us something here!”

It took me less than 20 seconds to confirm that Mr. Cheney, like Mrs. Obama, came from humble origins.  In fact, Dick Cheney’s father was, literally, a dirt inspector for the Department of Agriculture.  Why does this matter?  Clearly she was joking, but the joke has an underlying assumption, that the Vice President comes from wealth.  (Of course now, like the Obamas, he is a wealthy man–no one can rise to their level without making a lot of money).

So why is this a problem?  First, Michelle Obama is blindly repeating a stereotype.  If he’s a white Republican, he must have a trust fund, right?  Wrong.  In fact, Cheney did not get the Ivy League education that Mr. and Mrs. Obama received, he graduated from a state school in his home state of Wyoming.   Second, why, exactly, does Mrs. Obama feel that she and her millionaire husband are owed anything from anybody?  Were they personally wronged at some point?  Have they given any of their millions to the relatives they share with Mr. Cheney?  Finally, as I said, this took me 20 seconds to disprove.  Why is it the New Yorker feels this assertion (along with the many specious arguments repeated in the article) should go unchallenged?

June 8, 2009

President Barack Obama, speaking at a press conference in the Presidential underground bunker, recently expressed regret over invading Pakistan and generally causing the nuclear exchange last week that eradicated 95% of human civilization.   “Let me, let me, let me, let me just be absolutely clear what happened,” Obama answered, “it was a boneheaded move.”  The President was responding to questions from the three remaining journalists, several military personnel and a handful of the civilians that were spared the nuclear holocaust.

President Obama was clearly irritated by the prolonged questioning regarding the escalation of military exchanges that lead to the devastation.  “These requests, I think, could just go on forever,” the president said, before rushing off the broken crate serving as a podium.  “Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions.”

Gloria Steinem continues, in futility, to try to make herself relevant. Over the weekend, she made two comments that illustrate the intellectual dishonesty and moral equivalence that permeates the Left.
The Victim Card
First, not because it is more important, but rather more easily dealt with, is her assertion that women are and have been more oppressed than Blacks, and therefore women who do not support Hillary Clinton are betraying their own kind. This is pitiful indeed. Who a person votes for should not be determined by their sympathy for the type of person the candidate represents. If that were the case, the mentally retarded and maimed animals would win elections handily. I accept, of course, that many mentally retarded individuals have won elections by large margins, and this explains why Congress is what it is and has a 20% approval rating. Nonetheless, the weakest argument a candidate can make is “Vote for me because I’ve been tortured the longest.” Were that a valid argument, we could swear in John McCain tomorrow, notwithstanding what Mrs. Steinem says, referred to below.

McCain Slander
Second, Gloria Steinem actually mocked the torture Senator McCain received at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Torture that left him physically (and I would presume emotionally) scarred for life. She also noted that being tortured for eight years doesn’t qualify Mr. McCain to be president. There is an obvious emotional reaction to this for anyone with any common decency. There is also a strong temptation to further demean the whole political process and point out that, while Mrs. Steinem was getting groped at the Playboy Club before going home to a warm and cozy apartment, John McCain was being beaten every two hours because he wouldn’t say a bad word about the country for which he served.

Putting the emotions aside, this is clearly another intellectually feeble argument from the Left. First, the single most important quality in a President should be that person’s character. Character is the ability, not only to know right from wrong, but to summon the will to do what is right. John McCain could have, at any time, allowed the North Vietnamese to use him and his family connections for propaganda. (Propaganda that, it should go without saying, Steinem and her friends gave freely without coercion). John McCain’s time as a POW is one of the primary reasons so many Americans have such a deep and abiding respect for him. It shows strong moral character, determination and a willingness to sacrifice his personal comfort for the greater good, even when, most people would have given their capitulation.

Second, what is it about Mrs. Clinton’s experience that makes her qualified for office? Is staying married to a serial rapist and chronic liar suddenly a crucible through which good leadership is formed? Are shading real estate investments and cattle future windfalls the test of a born leader? Perhaps interning for the Black Panthers and cajoling the release of Puerto Rican terrorists is the mark of a President in the making?

As you would expect, upon public outcry, Senator Clinton’s campaign distanced itself, saying that Steinem’s comments “do not represent Senator Clinton’s thinking in any way.” Indeed. Nor do the comments represent that Gloria Steinem is thinking in any way, either.

On the wikipedia page for Mrs. Steinem, there appears a quote for which, I assume, she is famous: “Evil is obvious only in retrospect.”  How telling a philosophy.  I suppose, if that were true, you could get away with anything if you wrote the history books.