Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Circus Comes to Town

Mark Steyn peeks under what he calls the Big Tent.

If I could just sneak out in the middle of the night and saw off Rudy Giuliani's strong right arm and John McCain's ramrod back and Mitt Romney's fabulous hair and stitch them all together in Baron von Frankenstein's laboratory with the help of some neck bolts, we'd have the perfect Republican nominee. As it is, the present field poses difficulties for almost every faction of the GOP base. ...

as National Review's Jonah Goldberg pointed out, the mainstream media are always demanding the GOP demonstrate its commitment to "big tent" Republicanism, and here we are with the biggest of big tents in history, and what credit do they get? You want an anti-war Republican? A pro-abortion Republican? An anti-gun Republican? A pro-illegal immigration Republican? You got 'em! Short of drafting Fidel Castro and Mullah Omar, it's hard to see how the tent could get much bigger. As the new GOP bumper sticker says, "Celebrate Diversity."

Over on the Democratic side, meanwhile, they've got a woman, a black, a Hispanic, a preening metrosexual with an angled nape – and they all think exactly the same. They remind me of "The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album," which Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs, new cover. When your ideas are identical, there's not a lot to argue about except biography. Last week, asked about his experience in foreign relations, Barack Obama noted that his father was Kenyan, and he'd been at grade school in Indonesia. "Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations," he said, "is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." When it comes to foreign relations, he has more of them on his Christmas card list than Hillary or Haircut Boy.

So who's got the advantage, the lone Jedi Masters or the Clone Troopers? Steyn knows who he prefers. But that's not quite the relevant answer.

Let me ask a question of my Democrat friends: What does John Edwards really believe on Iraq? I mean, really? To pose the question is to answer it: There's no there there. In the Dem debates, the only fellow who knows what he believes and says it out loud is Dennis Kucinich. Otherwise, all is pandering and calculation. The Democratic Party could use some seriously fresh thinking on any number of issues – abortion, entitlements, racial preferences – but the base doesn't want to hear, and no viable candidate is man enough (even Hillary) to stick it to 'em. I disagree profoundly with McCain and Giuliani, but there's something admirable about watching them run in explicit opposition to significant chunks of their base and standing their ground. Their message is: This is who I am. Take it or leave it.

"This is who I am. Take it or leave it." Maybe, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you" works better.


Blogger NahnCee said...

Pre 9/11 I voted for Bill Clinton because he amused me. I'll vote for either Rudy or Fred on the same basis -- which one of them will be the most fun to watch. Then which will do the most to keep Mexicans out of America. Then which will be the meanest to whatever terrorists are left in the world.

I would NOT vote for Hillary because she is unamusing and her husband has managed to turn himself into a court jester.

At this point, I really don't give a tinker's damn about Iraq and what happens there any more. It's now up to them to hitch their belts up and go to work to build whatever kind of a life they want to have. If we need to use Iraqi land as a jumping off point to make an explosive point with Iran/Syria, then the Iraqi's had better shut up and be polite about it. It's not too late to take their oil away from Malaki's government and give it to the Kurds, or even to Turkey if the Turkish military promises to make its mullahs behave themselves.

11/24/2007 03:07:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Iran says it is processing it's own nuclear fuel now. Just suppose ... that in three or four months time Iran announces it has several nuclear weapons after a successful test.

And makes demands. US out of the Gulf. Israel out of Israel. Americans submit to Sharia. Perhaps coupled with a coup in Pakistan. What then?

How can Democrats respond, within the iron cage of their base. I think the Republican candidates more than anything else represent the diversity of the "Not Democrats" crowd.

We know who/what the Democratic coalition is. Rich coastal yuppies who fancy themselves the new aristos against the people, various ethnic/identity groups. That's it. Pointedly defined as "not white, not middle class."

The diversity of Rudy, McCain, Romney, Fred, etc. is due to the diversity of the white middle class. Which surely understands what is ranged against it: aristos and identity groups. But otherwise is a highly diverse Jacksonian group.

11/24/2007 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Arthur Dent said...

NahnCee said...

Pre 9/11 I voted for Bill Clinton because he amused me.
Carter is far more funny than Romney or the G guy. Edwards is even more amusing.

11/24/2007 03:58:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

How's Iran gonna test a nuke without us knowing about it?

And don't you think tht if they *do* ever get it together to test something, that will be the signal for the Pentagon to drop the hammer in return with 24 hours?

The Mad Mullah's had better have their list of demands all thought out and written up because once they make the step to overtly test something, they will NOT have any time left to be parsing their punctuation.

11/24/2007 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger TmjUtah said...

Does anyone believe that Ron Paul actually rates daily media coverage as a candidate, or is it rather simply an article that MSM is desperately grooming him as the Perot of 2008?

I see zero substance on the Left - even granting Kucinich props as the only individual on their stage remotely approaching "authentic" (and clinical, but he's one with his base).

I wish McCain would fold his tent and retire on his hero laurels. I salute his uniformed service and can forgive his failures as a senator but that's far, far short of allowing him any more opportunity to screw up the constitution or the country.

The Islamists may find themselves an irritation on top of the coming crisis with the Chinese. I want Giuliani for that reason, and that reason alone.

If it was just about business, I'd be all over Romney. I watched the Salt Lake Olympics rise from the dead, and he finished his terms as governor in Massachusetts without running away from indictments or scandal.

I don't see the Democrat party surviving past the 2012 election. To many real crisis to be dealt with, too little wiggle room left to kick the can down the road. But then I am not so sure we'll be here by then, either....

This is one major reason why I have all but stopped blogging.

11/24/2007 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger bobalharb said...

Titter,titter, tehe, chuckle, chuckle, I'm votin' for Kucinich cause he's so funny, an rhymes with spinach.

This country was screwed when it gave women the vote.

11/24/2007 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Math_Mage said...

Seems to me that Thompson's the most consistently conservative of the lot, but for Mitt (who just converted to dyed-in-the-wool conservative). Pro-war, pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and (AFAIK) anti-illegal immigration. And he comes without McCain-Feingold baggage, or personal-life issues, or any of that stuff. The only complaint is an unfounded one about "lack of energy" because he came in late and doesn't like the stupid parts of politicking. As something of a social liberal, I guess Giuliani fits my view of the issues better, but I think a Fred-Rudy/Rudy-Fred ticket would make a lot of people happy.

11/24/2007 07:23:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Nahncee -- the test would be part of the open intimidation.

Consider: 1979 Embassy takeover (act of war), 1983 Beirut bombings (Embassy and Marine barracks also act of war), 1994 Buenos Aires bombings (violation of Monroe Doctrine, possibly act of war), 1996 Khobar Towers bombing (act of war), assistance in 9/11 (act of war), kidnapping Brit sailors (act of war), killing US soldiers/marines in Iraq (act of war).

Iran has been taught that when they use force against the US, we either surrender, appease, retreat, or ignore them. At no time have we taught the Iranian regime that it is dangerous to poke the US with sticks.

Very likely the Democratic/Media press of "hands off Iran/they deserve nukes" is strengthening hardliners who argue that overt possession of nukes will allow them to threaten the US and make us surrender.

11/24/2007 07:23:00 PM  
Blogger Charles said...

My first round choice is duncan hunter. my second round choice is Mitt. Alas, I fear that guy having run right will likely govern left -- meaning he'll give up US sovereignty to the internationals and --out of deference to his wife's fear/stupidity--will bend over for the sodomites. (fyi the sodomites have wedded themselves to the internationals.)

I don't believe that thompson has the stomach to be president. He's a southern liberal which is not the kind of guy you want in the presidency. imho the rest of the republican field is to the left of Romney. That is, Romney has done the best job of running right among the pack of liberal republicans now running for president.

Duncan Hunter is the only actual conservative guy who will stand up to the open border/internationalists/sodomites.

It doesn't look like he'll get the nod this time. However, he'll likely run again. He looks like the type who will eventually win the presidency. Sadly, the way the American system works is that by the time he gets into office the really horrific damage to the USA --that he might have averted -- will have already been done.

11/24/2007 08:43:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

whiskey - the question the mullah's need to be asking themselves is what does Bush have left to lose if he *does* nuke them? A lot of people say it's out of the question, that we're stretched too thin, yadda yadda. I just don't see that at all.

The only thing Bush is protecting right now is his legacy. Would you rather leave your second term as President of the United States with the history books saying that you tamed Iraq, bombed Iran and brought the concept of democracy to the Middle East. Or that you folded worse than Jimmy Carter and allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

11/24/2007 11:18:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Nanhcee --

1. I think the Mullahs will calculate based on the past history of appeasement and nothing else. They've been taught over nearly 30 years that America will run away when confronted and nothing has been done to change that lesson.

2. I think Democrats will prevent Bush from responding by threatening impeachment if he bombs Iran. They may even pass a law. They probably have the votes.

Bush is weak and lazy. He lacks any stomach for anything but Clintonian kicing the can down the road.

11/25/2007 12:15:00 AM  
Blogger JJ Joseph said...

And then there's Mike Huckabee . . .

11/25/2007 12:55:00 AM  
Blogger JJ Joseph said...

And then there's Mike Huckabee . . .

Say spook, can you do something about your dreadful Blogger posting system? It goes like this:

1. It sez "Youy're currently posting as JJ Joseph
2. So proceed to Create post
3. Enter 7-letter verifier
4. Advised that you're NOT logged in after all
5. Enter login info
6. Screen clears and new login request appears
7. Enter new 7-letter verifier
8. Now your post has disappeared, but logged in
9. Page back to find post & ctrl-C to copy
10. page forward to logged in screen and paste in post
11. Password disappears, and sequence must be repeated.
12. Note: this is how your Blogger works every time.

11/25/2007 01:03:00 AM  
Blogger JJ Joseph said...

And then there's Mike Huckabee . . .

Say spook, can you do something about your dreadful Blogger posting system? It goes like this:

1. It sez "Youy're currently posting as JJ Joseph
2. So proceed to Create post
3. Enter 7-letter verifier
4. Advised that you're NOT logged in after all
5. Enter login info
6. Screen clears and new login request appears
7. Enter new 7-letter verifier
8. Now your post has disappeared, but logged in
9. Page back to find post & ctrl-C to copy
10. page forward to logged in screen and paste in post
11. Password disappears, and sequence must be repeated.
12. Sequence must be repeated again
13. Note: this is how your Blogger works every time.

11/25/2007 01:03:00 AM  
Blogger JJ Joseph said...


14. Post disappears and post-box sits there empty, asking for word verification again.
15. Copy and post message again
16. See that post has been posted TWICE!

11/25/2007 01:05:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

JJ, try entering your e-mail address instead of your user name. When the post appears, it'll be as your user name, but I think it wants confirmation that you really are who you say, so you have to enter e-mail and password every single time. It's an awkward system, probably created by the French.

11/25/2007 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger amr said...

whiskey_199: the Iranians did get kicked around during the undeclared Tanker War of 1988. It took the Gulf states appealing for help to get us to do it, but we did it pretty well.

The Iranians just don’t believe we still have the guts to do it again with all of the semi-appeasement, let’s talk only, rheortic in the media and by politicians. If we do nothing, we will have many atomic weapons owned by many countries in the Middle East. I always think of the playground and how order was maintained by we kids. If the tormentors in the playgound had carried fire arms, all bets would have been off, as they are in many playgrounds in America today. No preceived concequences results in rash and irresponsible actions by kids as well as leaders of countries.

11/25/2007 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Whiskey - you're being stupid in your relentless defeatism. The Dem's can threaten all they want, but NO one is going to go through the hassle of impeachment at this point in time. THey thought they had a majority after the last election, and they haven't even managed to cut the budgetary flow of money for the Iraq adventure.

In any case, Mr. Bush will be out of office by the time impeachment could drag through all the assorted processes. You've been reading too much KosKids and vitriolic wishful thinking if you think that's even an option.

YOu might as wall offer we can't nuke Iran because our bombs are too dated, and we can't afford the gas to fly that far because oil prices are too high.

11/25/2007 08:25:00 AM  
Blogger Elijah said...

The U.S. completely encircles Iran.

-Two (perhaps 3) carriers and their battlegroups to the south

- Afghanistan to the northeast scattered with U.S. air assets/platforms

- Pakistan to the southeast (the US has broached with Pakistan the issue of "help and assistance" in respect of its standoff with Iran (Musharraf is sent Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz to NATO headquarters in Brussels)

- U.S. bombers more south at Diego Garcia

- Iraq to the west scattered with
air bases/platforms

- Further west- Naval assets and marine expeditionary goups in the Med

- To the North, Azerbajain air bases?

11/25/2007 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

I am not being defeatist merely realistic.

Bush has done nothing to prepare the nation and the political opposition for an attack on Iran to prevent them from going nuclear. Obama and the rest of the Democrats have explicitly said they can live with a nuclear Iran. Significant portions of the Press (hardly the Kos Kidz) and political/cultural leaders of this country say "hands off Iran/no illegal war."

Stupid but predictable. Nor will Israel paralyzed by Olmert and politically ambitious folks do anything save a coup.

We certainly have the military means to deny Iran nuclear weapons. As we did Pakistan and North Korea. In both cases we explicitly backed down because we lacked political will. Osama's and Khomeni's and Ahmadinejad's charge against America is that we are weak because we lack will to use violence, they are strong because they have the will. In this case they are right.

Too much comfort, too much suburbia leading people to think the entire world is filled with safe middle class people, and too much influence of women sad to say pretty much guarantees that Iran WILL get nuclear weapons and after they have them overtly threaten the US into backing down.

I can well understand Naomi Wolff and other feminists opposition to any measures against jihad. Women don't gain anything from war, they are politically and culturally marginalized. Sex and the City status-consumerism and feminine concerns over moving up the social ladder get thrown out in favor of can-do masculine values. Meanwhile women are defenseless against an enemy attack when it happens. Women are not any good in a street fight. Can anyone seriously imagine a woman confronting and shooting the "White Lion?"

Women have a critical influence over foreign and national security policy, and operating on their own self-interest on balance they in aggregate favor appeasement and surrender over action for these obvious reasons.

11/25/2007 01:56:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...


Disguising your defeatism as sexism (and anti-Semitism) doesn't make it any more logical or likely.

You're edging dangerously into Stoopid, and Stoopid is tres annoying.

11/25/2007 02:19:00 PM  
Blogger MIA said...

I wont vote for any republican or democrat who isn't about stopping offshoring or H1bs. We export millions of lines of code to China - guess where that will show up someday. Evidently the middleeast smokescreen grows driven by Bush and Clinton and no one see the real issues.

11/25/2007 04:19:00 PM  
Blogger bobal said...

"and too much influence of women sad to say"---tres good whiskey

11/25/2007 07:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger