The Offended Offenders

I was reading the World Net Daily today when I came across this interesting column by Larry Elder concerning "The Liberal's Loathing Of The Right."

Elder's piece can best be summarized by his final paragraph:

Bottom line: Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.

But of course. That is why we browse the political section of book stores and see books written by altruistic conservatives trying to redirect us. Books with titles such as:

"Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism" by Sean Hannity

"Treason: Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism" by Ann Coulter

"The Party Of Death: The Democrats, The Media, The Courts, And The Disregard For Human Life" by Ramesh Ponnuru

Humorously enough, directly beneath Elder's column are ads for "Related special offers":

"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder: Savage Solutions"
"Liberwocky: What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean"

Yes, I feel the love even as I type these words.

Now I won't argue that liberals aren't often guilty of the same tactics as conservatives. My angle is that I believe conservatives have weak and often very silly arguments and viewpoints. I believe Larry Elder is making a very dumb argument in this column. Any observant person ought to be able, with just a little honest thought, to see the shallowness of it. Anyone who listens to talk radio and has heard Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage, or has watched the O'Reilly Factor on Fox (to name just a few), knows full well that what I say is true. Elder is flat out wrong.

When conservatives constantly accuse us of being in favor killing babies, of being Godless, of aiding and abetting terrorists, of not supporting the military, of being guilty of treason, of being unpatriotic, of being of unsound mind, of being communists and socialists, on and on and on, it is ridiculous to take seriously the suggestion that conservatives really believe we are merely "well-intentioned, but misguided."

Does this liberal loathe the right? Better to say I loathe most of what they stand for. I loathe their hypocrisy, their narrow-mindedness, their arrogant, forceful ways. I believe they look extremely silly trying to pick the specks out of our eyes when they have phone poles in their own.

Daily Dumbth Quote:

For almost five years, the mantra of the hard-left, too often parroted by shameless liberal Democrats, has been "Bush lied!" Shouted incessantly, it's from the Joseph Goebbels playbook, an outrageous Big Lie that insults everyone's intelligence. --
Ronald Wieck (American Thinker columnist)

My State Of The Union Post

Honestly, I didn't watch our President's speech. I am an early riser (usually around 3 a.m.) because I have to get to my job early. Of course then, I am always off to bed early. (Can only say this practice hasn't yet made me wealthy ... and the other two alleged benefits are very debatable.)

Reporters had leaked beforehand that Bush didn't plan on dwelling on the past seven years. Wise move if he didn't. From what I was hearing, I figured it would be more about the state of Bush's mind than the state of the union. I'm afraid I've had quite enough of that already. He and I inhabit separate realities.

I sat down when I got home from work yesterday and started to read the text of his address. Then my eyelids became insufferably heavy about midway through the first paragraph. After refreshing myself with an ice-cold bottle of fancy labeled tap water, I settled for reading some short summaries of his talk. I can't seem to muster the enthusiasm to comment on the summaries I read.

But one thing about the speech did excite me. Night before last marked the last State Of The Union speech of George W. Bush! Wait. I meant to say: NIGHT BEFORE LAST MARKED THE LAST STATE OF THE UNION SPEACH OF GEORGE W. BUSH!!!

Mercifully, the end is near. Take heart.

Daily Dumbth Quote:

You ever ... if you're trying just to get through something ... you ever just pictured Ted Kennedy naked? -- Glenn Beck (conservative radio and TV host)

Superiority Complex?

There are risks involved in being outspoken with one's viewpoints and convictions: risk of being misunderstood; risk of alienating people; risk of exposing yourself to personal ridicule.

For me, having the personality I do, I most fear appearing to be an arrogant, overbearing, know-it-all. Or simply put, an ass.

I named my blog "Right-wing Dumbth" for the simple reason that I believe the basic principles of modern conservatism are based on faulty thinking. Dumbth is faulty thinking, not rank stupidity (though if left unchecked it threatens to become the latter!). For that reason, I chose to attack this type of thinking by analyzing it in a logical way. IN MY OPINION the modern conservatives are trapped in a destructive mindset that relies more on emotionalism and stubborn bias than it does on reason. When President Reagan mangled a John Adams quote and said "Facts are stupid things," it struck me as an appropriate slogan for his movement.

Having briefly explained myself, I want to go on and add that any of us who feel strongly about our convictions are subject to being or sounding "preachy" at times. But the matters I have written and will write about in my blog are matters to which I have given long and hard thought. If I come across as shrill or overemotional at times when attacking the conservative viewpoint, rest assured that this happened in the following order: I studied the matter, formed my opinion, then got emotional about it. My passion should not be mistaken for my argument.

I have no fear whatsoever of honest differences of opinion. I can honestly say that I have learned more from those who disagree with me than from those who agree with me. When dissent is presented in an honest, intelligent manner, it will be received and considered by me in like manner. All I ask is that the same courtesy be extended to me.

I dearly love the people with whom I share this planet, else I would probably say nothing at all.



Especially for Doug Robertson, here is my Daily Dumbth Quote:

The coming 2008 election is the most important one we will ever face as we will be making the decision as to what kind of country we intend to leave for our children or grandchildren to inherit. Will it be a Godless, Socialist democracy with high taxes causing fewer jobs while those who do work will have to not only support their own families but also take care of those who refuse to work or are not legal citizens? -- Lee Ellis (retired journalist and freelance conservative columnist)

Economic Dumbth 101

Ah, last week Glenn Beck, that authority on everything there is to be known, on his CNN Headline News television program, made this observation:

Hillary Clinton is a liberal fascist. She is somebody who wants to redistribute the wealth in this country the way she believes is good for everybody.

He went on to explain for us that:

Executives earn big money because it's their skills that help their companies earn even bigger money, you know, so they can hire more employees, et cetera, et cetera.

I would love to hear Beck expand on a theory which holds that Ford Motors' CEO Alan R. Mulally, for example, has skills and knowledge that are worth $28.18 million for four months of work, while we pay our Chief Executive -- the leader of the free world! -- a pittance, comparatively speaking, of $400,000 per annum.

I'm almost certain he would distract us with supposed differences between the two jobs. But this is about the value of skills necessary to put more people to work and "et cetera, et cetera." Americans look to their president not only for job creation, but for "et cetera, et cetera" as well.

The difference is that the legislative branch of our government sets a limit on what the president earns in salary and perks, but under Republican leadership Big Business CEOs have almost unlimited potential to pull wealth away from the workers and toward themselves.

Don't believe me? Back in 2006 the Economic Policy Institute reported that:

The 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s have been prosperous times for top U.S. executives, especially relative to other wage earners. This can be seen by examining the increased divergence between CEO pay and an average worker’s pay over time...CEO pay has exploded and by 2005 the average CEO was paid $10,982,000 a year, or 262 times that of an average worker ($41,861).

Do you grasp the thrust of Beck's argument? CEOs are 262 times more skillful and intelligent than you and I? Incredible to even suggest such a thing. But to such depths of dumbth conservatives will dig in order to defend their own system of wealth redistribution!

Hillary is no liberal fascist, but Ronald Reagan and his supply-side Republican clones were indeed voodoo economists. They, after all, were the ones who started us on this downward course with all their business deregulations, tax breaks and corporate welfare programs.

Back to Beck's blathering:

I like to call this Economics 101. You know, and it's fine if you want to prance around like Robin Hood, promising to steal from the rich and give to the poor, but that doesn't mean it works. The only reason it worked for Stalin is because he killed 50 million people to force them to live that way.

Well, what should we say when Republicans prance around and rob the poor in order to give to the rich? And what about the nearly 50 million Americans who face financial ruin and sometimes premature death because they have no health insurance as a result of Republican economics?

John W. Dean ( I referenced his book Conservatives Without Conscience day before yesterday) has an excellent column on economics Republican-style. This is a real must read. After pointing out that only one of the last eight recessions occurred while a Democrat was president (but Republicans controlled Congress in that one, the first, in 1948), he said:

Mid-sized and small businesses - which are the overwhelming majority of businesses in the United States - have, until lately, thought that they were better off under Republicans, but they are wrong. They are just now remembering that when recessions come, they are easily wiped out, while big businesses merely make less money and often take advantage of the downturn. These people are the upper middle class and middle class of America - the people that the Republicans are slowly bleeding into non-existence, until there will be no middle class, only rich and poor.

Is this not an outrage? Is Beck not an obscene joke?

Note: MY thanks to Media Matters For America, where I read about Beck's tirade.

Daily Dumbth Quote:

Blaming the wealthy for the world’s ills is like accusing your teacher of being an evil witch for teaching you how to read

Jeff O'Bryant ("ultraconservative" columnist and blogger)

Stupid Conservative Tricks

I read many conservative blogs, websites, publications, and books in an effort to keep abreast of conservative thought. Here, in no particular order, are some conservative tactics I keep encountering that severely grate on my nerves.

1) They use the word "mantra" to describe ideas that are different from theirs.

Dictionary.com defines "mantra" as "[a] sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical potentialities."

Anything conservatives wish to dismiss out of hand suddenly becomes a religion, full of flawed doctrines and vain mantras. This is for the simple reason that they believe every religion other than theirs is false. Therefore: liberalism is a religion; environmentalism is a religion; secularism is a religion; Darwinism is a religion.

Being dismissive is a more successful ploy than actually trying to debate the concepts in question on logical grounds, where their Neanderthal minds are ill-suited to perform.

2) They use the word "agenda" to describe things that aren't part of their own haughty mindset.

Again, using Dictionary.com, I note that an "agenda" is "a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done." Had conservatives edited Dictionary.com it might have read, "a diabolical list, plan, outline or the like of things to be done to destroy America." (Their absurd notion of a "gay agenda," for example: 1. destroy heterosexual marriage; 2. convert public schools to homosexual recruitment centers; 3. make verbal opposition to homosexuality by religious ministers and leaders a crime punishable by death or at least long-term prison incarceration; etc....)

Hey, how about "freedom and equality for everyone" for an agenda?

3) They conflate the ideologies of totalitarianism, fascism, communism, and socialism with political liberalism.

It doesn't matter to them because all are suitable bugaboos to mislead the uninformed, which is their true goal.

4) They constantly use hideous "oops photographs" of liberal politicians -- usually pictures of bulging eyes and neck veins, wide open mouths, overly animated gesticulations, unflattering facial expressions, and so forth -- in order to illustrate their ludicrous talking points.

These pictures are usually captioned with insanely fake quotes such as "Weaken America, raise taxes, kill more babies, save more fish?" I actually saw that one the other day on a conservative blog, beneath a picture of Sen. Barbara Boxer. You guessed it: the "liberal agenda" in a nutshell!!!

By the way, I find this not only stupid, but juvenile as well. Time to grow up, children!

5) They attempt to characterize liberalism as a distinct religious movement (see number 1 above). Ann Coulter's asinine diatribe Godless: The Church of Liberalism is a great example.

I ordered that book from Amazon.com, and it took many, many times longer to read it through than it took to receive it. So stupid it couldn't hold my attention for even ten minutes at a time, even though I love parody. The Church of Elvis makes more sense to me than this.

Anyway, liberalism is about freedom and diversity. Most religions are about conformity and adherence to creeds.

6) They attempt to make the ACLU synonymous with liberalism.

This of course is part of their "war against Christians" and "culture of moral relativism" scams. I call them scams for the simple reason that they essentially are fundraising schemes (just check your junk mail sometime) for conservative groups, and have no basis in fact.

Some liberals are card-carrying members of the ACLU, most are not. So what? Why are civil rights such a stumbling block for conservatives anyway?

That's enough ... at least for now. I need to clean my keyboard, wash my hands and clear my mind. Now you know why I call my blog Right-wing dumbth. I couldn't come up with a better descriptive name without resorting to profanity.

Dumbth Quote Of The Day:

You would think that all the mass graves communism/socialism/fascism/totalitarianism whatever you wish to call it would have clued in most folks. But it doesn’t. Re-label it liberalism or progressivism and you still have the same bad ideas. -- Jeff O'Bryant ("ultraconservative" columnist and blogger)

Why I am a liberal and proud to be one

I absolutely love progress and consider myself a progressive. But I don't seek refuge under that banner in order to insulate myself from the misguided opprobrium of the dreaded "L" word.

I am a liberal and proudly use that word to describe myself. For my money, our late President Kennedy gave as good a definition of "liberal" as any dictionary I have read:

But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

I want that to stand in clear contrast to one of the best definitions of modern conservatism, as given by John W. Dean in his thoughtful book Conservatives Without Conscience (a book I am constantly urging my conservative friends to get and digest):

Contemporary conservatives have become extremely contentious, confrontational, and aggressive in nearly every area of politics and governing. Today they have a tough-guy (and, in a few instances, a tough-gal) attitude, an arrogant and antagonistic style, along with a narrow outlook intolerant of those who challenge their extreme thinking. Incivility is now their norm.

Well, maybe that is a better description than definition. Let me try again. Here is a definition provided by conservative writer Jonah Goldberg:

Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on.

Combining and paraphrasing the two you wind up with something like this:

Conservatives are backward-looking conformists, too arrogant to learn from the past and too inept to adapt to the future, bullies who are intolerant of those who differ from them in act, thought, and appearance. (I didn't use italics because this isn't a quote -- it is a construct of my own. I, Douglas Burkhart, made it up just now; but feel free to quote me if you like!)

For liberals it all boils down to the concept of freedom. Though conservatives talk loud and long about freedom, modern conservativism is a mostly rigid platform of distinct planks. Anyone deviating too far from the party line gets the moniker "maverick" attached to them. A liberal could never justly be called a maverick (I emphasize "justly" because we are often falsely accused of being lots of things), because liberalism is not a rigid ideology, but rather an attitude which encourages freedom of thought with lots of friendly diversity. And don't be misled: we "respect" authority: we just don't mindlessly bow to it.

Liberals love humanity and consider ourselves citizens of the cosmos. Liberals are often accused of being naive concerning human nature. But we tend to think that conservatives, with all their tough-talk wars against nouns and copious culture-war hobbyhorses, are too heavy on the stick and too (hehe, dare I say it?) "conservative" with the carrots.

This is because we liberals believe that people everywhere are more alike than they are different. The true enemy, therefore, is ignorance, not one another. In the midst of the horrors often brought on by slavish devotion to aberrant ideology, we still remain optimistic in the spirit of little Anne Frank, who in her diary recorded these words:

I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death.

Final note: No Daily Dumbth Quote today because I think it would be a distraction.

Stimulating Compromise?

Okay, get this. After seven years of destroying the U. S. economy, evaporating in short order the Clinton surplus with those irresponsible tax cuts plus his back-breaking "War On Terror" (read: invasion of Iraq), President Bush and his economically irresponsible cronies have now decided to try to do something positive for the economy. Oh, and House Democrats have been cooperating.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "I can't say that I'm totally pleased with the package, but I do know that it will help stimulate the economy. But if it does not, then there will be more to come." Just to show I'm a fair man, I've included that little bit of left-wing dumbth. She KNOWS it will help, but if it doesn't.... Sheesh!

But John Boehner seems to think that since "many Americans believe that Washington is broken," well then "this agreement will show the American people that we can fix it and will serve to move along other bipartisan agreements that we can have in the future."

It doesn't show me any such thing. When the new Congress went to work on what the American people elected them to do, namely, end the Iraq mess and bring home the troops, the Republican obstructionists circled the wagons around their extremely unpopular president. Without being long winded, on issue after issue the Republicans have obstructed and hindered progress in this 110th Congress. Now that the Bush recession is threatening what little -- and I do mean little! -- hope there is for a Republican victory in November, suddenly we have bipartisanship. Give me a break!

Next we have a beleaguered President Bush stepping forward to praise the House leaders and to do his best impersonation of Goldilocks by stating the package "has the right set of policies and is the right size." We'll see what the Senate says about that!

There is fine print to read, and Fox News has a good summary of this compromise package right here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325327,00.html

Bottom line so far as I'm concerned: this is a piss-poor way for Bush to make amends for his crummy stewardship. An ounce of prevention would have been worth several pounds of cure in not getting us into this fix to begin with.

I know, the basic Republican spin is that the economy is fundamentally sound and just needs a little shot in the arm to recover from a wee hiccup ... and then the wealth will begin to trickle back down again to the rabble. Look: trickle down economics just doesn't work -- never has, never will. Should that have been in all caps, as if I'm shouting?

Final note: It is said that it will probably be May at the earliest before the rebate checks this deal promises will get into the mail. The IRS will be very, very busy at that time processing income tax refunds. That's a long time to wait for stimulation.

Daily Dumbth Quote:

"It's disgraceful that liberals and their media disparage our military daily, and get away with it." -- Robert Maginnis (conservative columnist)

No Real Choice For Repubs?

As a Democrat, one of my chief complaints is how we always seem to nominate presidential candidates who -- while ideologically sound -- cannot play well in a national election. I'm thinking here of northern liberals such as Kerry and Dukakis. Down south (where I live), this type of thing doesn't go over well with all the "Reagan Democrats." The last two Democratic presidents have been southerners. Hence, I think Edwards would have been a better choice than Kerry and is the best choice this time around (with Hillary a strong second), solely from the standpoint of electability.

Okay, but my concern here is right-wing goofola. Let's just say I'm getting quite a bit of pleasure watching the GOP stumbling around trying to pick a winner. Archbishop in the Church of Conservatism (with apologies to Ann Coulter) Rush Limbaugh has, I think, stated the matter succinctly:

“You don’t have a genuine down-the-list conservative...Wherever you go here in this roster of candidates, you're going to be able to point out ‘not conservative, what he did there is not conservative...I'm telling ya, it's gonna come down to which guy do we dislike the least. And that's not necessarily good."

Not good -- unless you are a liberal like me. So go ahead conservatives...just hold your noses and pull a lever. Now that Fred Thompson was discarded by the voters after running a lazy, uninspired campaign -- I think out Reaganing Reagan (Hear the Gipper's own words: "It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?") -- it now seems to be a battle between a military industrialist (hey, did you see that McCain picked up the endorsement of Norman Schwarzkopf?) and a Religious Rightist (Huckabee is running out of money; not a problem for Romney, but he is having trouble convincing the evangelicals). The "moderate" Republican, Rudy Giuliani, never had a snowball's chance in Hell, in my opinion.

Guess I'll just stay tuned, because this is fun.

Daily Dumbth Quote:

"I don't want a female president either. She'd be whiny and annoying and the embodiment of identity politics (as I said, whiny and annoying) — if some of the pop culture examples are any indication." -- Kathryn Lopez (editor of National Review Online)

Another Reagan Drops Out Of Race

He was supposed to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Instead he seems to be the GOP's John Edwards: lots of ideological credentials, lots of debating skills, lots of personal charm, lots of name recognition ... but general inability to catch on with the voters. To no one's surprise, Fred Thompson has dropped out of the presidential race.

Some will blame his having waited so long to get into the fray, some his lackluster campaigning ... but as for me, I think it was the January 11th endorsement by the conservative magazine Human Events that was the kiss of death. Just kidding. I just find it outrageously funny that they endorsed him with much fanfare and then less than two weeks later his campaign goes belly up. Probably just a coincidence. But then again, it could be an indicator of how out of touch with reality the conservative king-makers are.

Oh, well. I think it is for the best anyway. And as a big Law and Order fan, I'm hoping this means the reruns with Fred as District Attorney Arthur Branch will soon be back on. This is one of the few TV shows I really enjoy watching.

Under the heading "unfinished business": Erik of Redstate blog -- who evidently has an inside line to the campaign ("I spoke with one of Fred's advisors a little while ago....") -- reports that Thompson does not plan to endorse one of the remaining contenders. Very well ... maybe Human Events will do that. You know, plan B ... a second choice endorsement. Who wouldn't die to get that? Also, it remains to be seen who will most benefit from his having bowed out. Might make Florida even more interesting ... as if already it isn't interesting enough with all the leaders bunched up in a cluster.

Time for another Dumb Conservative Quote Of The Day:

"Barack Obama says that he wants to 'heal America and repair the world.' One wonders what he will do for an encore and whether he will rest on the seventh day." -- Thomas Sowell (conservative libertarian economist and columnist)

I Saw This Coming

After the Huckabee camp decided to make John McCain's age a campaign issue, McCain responded this way:

"I'm afraid I may have to send my 95-year-old mother over and wash Chuck's mouth out with soap."

I'll have to score that round for Mr. McCain. Not a bad one-liner, either. As I suggested yesterday, this definitely was a job for Supermom, and she is always near, ready to parry the age issue for her son.

Dumb attempt on the Huckabee camp's part. About as dumb as when Reagan went against the advice of his advisors and attempted to recycle his "there you go again" quip, that was so wildly effective when used on the lame Jimmy Carter, against Walter Mondale in one of their debates. Mondale was prepared with a devastating counterpunch. Guys, if you are going to drop your guard and stick out your chin, expect a power punch in return.

But there is something else that raised this thing to the level of dumbth ... something I wasn't aware of until I read an article about it today. Chuck Norris, who did the actual attacking for Huck, is -- get this! -- 67 years old himself. I suppose that is why he went on about how the presidency ages a man three years for each one served. (I suspect President Bush has hardly aged at all between his record-breaking vacations and time spent hiding in the bunker.) Still, it just isn't reasonable to suggest someone only four years older than you is too old.

Come to think about it, how dumb is it for Huckabee to head into Florida -- the retirement capital of the nation -- having just brought up age as a campaign issue?


Dumb Conservative Quote Of The Day:

"Senator McCain is against waterboarding. He says it is torture and thus a war crime. And thanks to him, 'there will be no such thing as waterboarding' any more. It doesn't kill. It doesn't injure. It doesn't leave a mark. It's all over in a minute in most cases. It has been shown to provide information that has saved lives. And Congress, where Senator McCain serves, has never outlawed it, despite at least some members receiving classified briefings on it." (American Thinker columnist Randall Hoven)

What A Difference A Day Makes

I was watching CNN Saturday night when Mike Huckabee proffered his concession speech in the South Carolina primary. In good spirits and with apparent dignity, he spoke concerning his second place finish behind John McCain:

"The two of us who finished at the top ran a campaign of civility without attacking each other. I'd rather be where I am and to have gotten here with honor than to have won with the dishonor of attacking other candidates."

How nice.

Comes Sunday and Mike Huckabee supporter Chuck Norris offered this morsel (read: attack) for potential McCain supporters to chew on:

"If John takes over the presidency at 72 and he ages 3-to-1, [his theory of how the presidency ages a person] how old will he be in four years? Eighty-four years old — and can he handle that kind of pressure in that job? That's why I didn't pick John to support, because I'm just afraid the vice president will wind up taking over his job within that four-year presidency."

Funny, but I don't recall Republicans making such an argument when Reagan was mulling over running for a second term. Not only did Reagan survive his second term (physically, if not mentally), we wound up with George H. W. Bush as president anyway!

But I guess it's time for McCain to bring out his elderly but still spry mother -- as he always seems to do at a time like this -- to slap down this bit of Huckabee civility.

What did the Huckster have to say about this?

"Only John McCain and his hair dresser know for sure."

Ah, master of the one-liner. If it was a joke it wasn't an attack, right?

Sidebar: The Fred Thompson campaign was given yet another reality check Saturday with a poor showing in a state in which it was conceded they must do well, renewing speculation that Thompson's bowing out was imminent. Senior adviser to the Thompson campaign Rich Galen gave us this newsflash: "The campaign is still a campaign until it's not the campaign." Thanks for the scoop, Rich.

Interesting South Carolina Republican Primary

The results are in in the inclement weather hampered SC primary election. Current GOP frontrunner John McCain managed a narrow victory over Mike Huckabee, approximately 33% to 30%.

I chalk that up largely to the Fred factor. Thompson ended up taking the third spot by a whisker, with about 16% to Mitt Romney's 15%. Most of that support, more than likely, would have gone to Huckabee rather than McCain had he not been in the race. Thompson had placed great importance on a good showing in SC. I don't believe a distant third qualifies. There seems no point in him continuing, unless he wishes to help select McCain.

Mitt Romney's fourth place finish had to have been a bitter disappointment for him, hardly eased by an easy victory in the Nevada caucuses. It is hard for me to envision how he can win the GOP nomination. I guess we will see.

The big loser, in my humble opinion, was Rudy Giuliani, who finished an embarrassing sixth place behind Ron Paul. He managed to pull in only 2% of the vote. I think the R.I.P. wreath should already be hanging on his campaign's door. I would have thought name recognition alone should have been good for 10%. How in the heck could he have finished behind the more or less media boycotted Paul?!

Speaking of Ron Paul, I have to say he didn't have a bad Saturday at all. Not only did he edge out Giuliani for fifth place in SC, he edged out McCain for second place in Nevada. Pretty amazing for a candidate no one discusses. I've always loved underdogs.

Oh, and Duncan Hunter has withdrawn from the process. Gee, I wasn't aware he was even in it.

Just a sidebar here, but over and over the media have pointed out that since 1980 no Republican has won the party's nomination without having taken the South Carolina primary. I put about as much stock in this as I did the so-called "Curse of Tecumseh," that every president elected in a year ending in zero would die before leaving office. Reagan broke that one (after a near-miss assassination attempt). Why do people marvel at such quirky trivia?

More Huckerstering From Huckabee

On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes program Friday night Alan Colmes asked Mike Huckabee the question, “Do you personally find it offensive to fly the Confederate Flag?” Now that is a simple enough question, requiring a simple yes or no answer. Having obtained a clear yes or no, it would have then been appropriate to allow Huckabee a moment or two to explain his reasoning. But with the upcoming South Carolina primary on Saturday, it was necessary for the Huckster to play a little politics. Rather than simply answering the question, he said this:

"You know, the whole point I’ve tried to make is, this is absolutely a non-issue for presidential candidates, whether it’s the South Carolina flag, the Arkansas flag, the Texas flag. We’ve got a country that has really serious unemployment problems … for a president to jump into that just doesn’t make any sense and that’s what’s wrong with Washington right now. They get involved in things they shouldn’t be involved in and they’re not fixing the problems that people want to be fixed."

Well, we couldn't very well expect him to alienate his very conservative and fundamentalist Christian base in South Carolina by answering "yes," could we? Surely that must be it. Conservative politicians can turn a blind eye to almost anything by using the "states rights" mantra.

The very helpful website On The Issues contains the following answer that Huckabee gave during a Fox News Sunday interview in November of last year to a question about why he didn't feel the state's rights approach to Roe v Wade embraced by his rivals John McCain and Fred Thompson was good enough. He said:

"Well, it's the logic of the Civil War. If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong. Again, that's what the whole Civil War was about. Can you have states saying slavery is OK, other states saying it's not? If abortion is a moral issue--and for many of us it is, and I know for others it's not. So if you decide that it's just a political issue, then that's a perfectly acceptable, logical conclusion. But for those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right."

What then, is abortion a moral issue for him but racism is not?

Or as I posted about the other day, Huckabee can lead the charge to change the US Constitution in order to bring it in line with fundamentalist religion (God's law), but he cannot "preach" to those same folks that slavery was wrong, Jim Crow was wrong, racism is wrong, and rallying around the Confederate flag -- which is a symbol of all those things -- is morally wrong?

Well, yeah, he could and should. But he is locked in a tight race with front-runner McCain -- who has (this time around) staked out a position against the Stars and Bars wavers. But McCain isn't the darling of the Relgious Right, and Huckabee can still a pull off a squeaker by not offending, but energizing instead, the fundies of South Carolina.

It is interesting that when Huckabee was one of only six Republican presidential candidates -- the other major candidates (Giuilani, Thompson, Romney and McCain) ducked it -- to appear at the Morgan State University debate, which specifically discussed the widespread perception that the Republican party is racist, Huckabee made this comment:

"Well, I want to be president of the United States, not just president of the Republican Party. Frankly, I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed for our party and I'm embarrassed for those who did not come, because there's long been a divide in this country, and it doesn't get better when we don't show up. Quite frankly, for a lot of people, there's a perception that Black Americans don't vote for Republicans. I proved that wrong in Arkansas, with 48% of African Americans voting for me. But I want to make sure that the people of this country recognize that we've come a long way, but we have a long way to go. And we don't get there if we don't sit down and work through issues that are still very deep in this country, when it comes to racial divide. I'm honored to be here. I wish all of the candidates had come."

To me it is clear that Mike Huckabee -- like the majority of conservative politicians -- will say almost anything to gain and maintain power. And conservatism's much vaunted character and values seem quite flexible when expediency requires them to be. That is known as hypocrisy.

Our Freedom Is Under Attack

Look at what Mike Huckabee has said now:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

It would be helpful if everyone understood that our nation was founded upon the basic principle that the authority of government comes from the consent of the governed. And it would be helpful also if they further understood that this basic principle is completely at odds with Theocracy, or government according to some supposed set of "God's laws."

In their wisdom the Founding Fathers did install procedures for amending the Constitution, and these are found in Article V thereof. I need not point out that, unlike our Constitution, there is no way to amend "the word of the living God" or to redress grievances as our Constitution allows.

What Theocrats like Huckabee should really go on and propose is just chucking the Constitution altogether and using the Bible (literally interpreted, of course) instead. After all, it is, as he put it, "the word of the living God." That hardly would be more radical than what he is proposing, and simpler too.

Make no mistake, the Religious Right and the modern conservative movement are all about authoritarianism. They play God as the ultimate trump card -- to stamp out your rights and mine.

Plan Talk About John McCain

I just read a story from CBS News that reports a nationwide surge (I'm really getting sick of that word) for John McCain. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll now finds him the choice of 33% of Republicans, up from a paltry 7% in December.

I can't say I'm surprised by this after all the positive press he received after he staged an astounding win in the Iowa caucuses by tying for third place with part-time candidate Fred Thompson. That set up his decisive victory in the New Hampshire primary, where he bested the fast fading Mitt Romney 37% to 31%.

Clearly the MSM has worked hard to reinflate his sagging campaign. All they want to harp on is his "plain talk."

In fact, that is my biggest problem John McCain. Yeah, buddy, does he ever speak plainly. Although presented with a veil of humor, his words betray an unfitness for command.

Wasn't it a real thigh-slapper when he appeared last April on The Daily Show and joked about having placed an improvised explosive device under Jon Stewart's desk? I bet everyone with a loved one in Iraq -- especially those killed or maimed by IEDs -- are still laughing. My God ... what a thing to joke about!

And who can forget his stirring rendition of Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran (sung to the tune of the Beach Boy's Barbara Ann)? Even the inept President Bush had the good sense not to joke about his Iraq invasion. Former POW McCain of all people should know war just isn't a joking matter.

What message was he sending in is his response at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire saying it would be fine with him if we remain in Iraq for a million years ... that he is a lunatic?

So Republicans want a comedian to be Commander-In-Chief? Why would anyone with this flippant attitude even be considered by voters for the job? When President Reagan was caught joking (he thought) off mike about having initiated bombing the Soviet Union, it caused quite a stink as the inappropriate remark it was. McCain, for some reason, has for the most part has been allowed to slide by with his inappropriateness. Why?

McCain will turn 72 years of age before the November election. But we probably can't chalk up statements like these to senility. Every time the question of his age is broached he trots out his nearly hundred year-old mother in order to reassure everyone. That is the another thing I have against him. He uses his mom as a campaign prop.

Here is some plain talk for McCain: Enjoy your surge ... it ain't gonna last. You're just a diversion until the primaries head to the Bible Belt and God takes back his rightful place in Republican politics. Then you may consider campaigning for the VP spot on Huckabee's ticket.

War With Iran: The Republican's Last, Best Hope To Retain White House

We've all known it for some time now: Iran is Imperator Bush's next target in his quest for American global domination.

Iran hasn't been cooperating fully. It has thus far resisted attempts to goad them into starting something with America -- the recent incident in the Straight of Hormuz being only the latest effort. (Pardon me for not being persuaded that tiny patrol boats pose much of a threat to mighty US Navy warships.)

I read now where President Bush has declared Iran to be "the world's leading state sponsor of terror." And he added: "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. So the United States is strengthening our long-standing security commitments with our friends in the Gulf, and rallying friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late."

As Ronald Reagan would have said, "There you go again." Bush is attempting to rally support for another war of aggression under the guise of acting before it's too late.

If you were naive enough to believe the NIE's recent conclusion that Iran has stopped its nuclear weapons program would put a damper on the Bush/Cheney war machine's Iran project, you might be interested in the following. Newsweek is reporting that Bush, in private discussions with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, has said that "he can’t control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE’s] conclusions don’t reflect his own views.”

Now are we really supposed to believe that President Bush is currently trying to broker peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, rather than exploiting the well-known animosity between Israel and Iran to further his own military agenda?

We are faced with the situation that as the presidential election process is picking up steam, the top two issues with the voters are the faltering economy and the war in Iraq. Bush's job approval rating is in the toilet, polls say Americans think we are headed in the wrong direction -- the mantra now being "change." So the chance of a Republican victory in November seems remote. A Bush successor is just not in the cards.

Because of the quagmire Iraq has become, two terms just haven't been enough time for Bush to fully reshape America's image into the one sought by the neo-conservative brain trust (go to the Project For The New American Century website for more on this agenda: http://www.newamericancentury.org/.) Due largely to the fiasco the Iraq invasion became, there hasn't been time and momentum to properly set up a successor to George W. Bush in order to carry on that agenda.

That leaves the nightmare prospect of a Hail-Mary pass from Bush in the form of an attack against Iran. Another war crisis in order to distract us. Another chance for Bush to revel in being a "war president." Another chance to show his well-known disdain for the Constitution by suspending the 22nd Amendment (limitimg presidential terms) and postponing the November election. Another chance to prove he is no lame duck and quite relevant.

The October surprise could come early this time.

The Great Karnac I Ain't, But...

For no reason other than to have a little fun, I am going to polish up my crystal ball and make a prediction about who the major contestants for the upcoming presidential election are going to be once all is said and done.

Drum roll please. And the answer is: Hillary Clinton versus Mike Huckabee.

Seriously, it didn't take a crystal ball for me to arrive at this -- just my recognition of how Corporate America controls the news media and radical right-wing bullies control the talk radio airwaves.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton is the best friend the Corporations have among the Democratic challengers. (John Edwards is their worst enemy, and that is the reason he can't gain traction.) Now the MSM for some time has portrayed Clinton as the obvious choice. And the right-wing talk radio pundits would be absolutely elated to have her to run against. Clinton-bashing has been their major sport for some time now. That being so, conservatism's misogyny can be somewhat obscured by a Clinton hate-fest.

What about Obama? How will he fare with the dynamic duo of the Corporate Media and Talk-Right Radio? Not enough Corporate credentials to make it in the MSM. Talk Radio? Well, let me just say that I think they would rather defend themselves against accusations of misogyny than racism. Let's face it: the attempts to link him to radical Islam and disqualify him for lack of experience simply have not caught on. What is left but to pump up Hillary? I suspect we will see Newt Gingrich making the rounds with his latest assessment that Hillary's comeback victory in New Hampshire was due to, as he put it, her "courage, integrity and openness." I suspect the conservatives will throw their "support" to her, and thereby drown out their paranoia about having a black president. (Of course, once she wins the nomination the gloves will come right back off.)

Edwards is once again dead and buried. The devout members of the Church of Mammon in both the MSM and Talk Radio will not allow him to capture the nomination, no matter what. In fact, I believe the negative press will continue and eliminate him as a VP prospect as well.

Now to the Republicans.

If the Corporations controlled talk radio the way they do the MSM I would have picked McCain. Unfortunately for him he is the darling of the MSM and the anti-darling of talk radio (where social conservatism seems to edge out fiscal conservatism). I believe talk radio is more influential than the MSM.

Rudy "9/11" Giuliani and Mitt Romney will never have the support of hard-core social conservatives. It looked like Giuliani was making gains with the evangelicals at first, but that was before Huckabee exploded onto the scene. Romney, of course, is a cult member in their eyes.

Fred Thompson was too lackadaisical to get in the race early enough to properly woo the conservatives, allowing them time to embrace others. He instead should have saved that laziness for the presidency, the way Coolidge and Reagan did.

Mike Huckabee is, I believe, the almost perfect conservative candidate. Hmmmm, a preacher/president. Couldn't get much better than that! Well, Bush has a done a good bit of preaching himself, but he is so hypocritically dishonest that even his supporters don't take him that seriously. Admittedly, the MSM is slow getting around to embracing the Huckster, but talk radio has a bigger influence on John Q. Conservative, and that is why I believe Huckabee will eventually come out on top. Modern Republican conservatism has embraced the Religious Right to the extent that the two are virtually indistinguishable.

Huckabee has certain strengths that I believe will carry him to the Republican nomination. Thus far the theme of American politics has been that the people are in the mood for change. While the other Repubs have been busy sucking up to Bush, Huckabee actually had the audacity to accuse him of having an "arrogant, bunker mentality." Now he has smoothed over that criticism since them, but he made enough wiggle room for him to be able to suggest he is a change agent. The other Repub candidates are attempting to paint him as a bit of a liberal. Probably a bad move with the economy (according to recent polls) moving to the forefront of voter interest. With the coming recession, I believe it will take more than talk of tax cuts (while threatening to start future wars) to assure the people. A little talk of federal assistance would probably play well for a change. Plus, as a solid social conservative, Huckabee doesn't have a rival in this race. One thing conservatives do not want to change is the march towards theocracy.

Disclaimer: This is a cynical assessment of what I suspect is going to happen. It certainly doesn't represent my fondest wishes. I personally would like to see Edwards capture the nomination and pick Obama as his running mate. And I personally believe Mike Huckabee represents the toughest Republican challenger and that Romney would be the easiest to defeat.

Let's see what happens.

Now here is the way to campaign

Our president, in an interview with NBC's Today, made the following interesting comment:

"If you're running for office you can't run for office and not say, 'I am an agent of change.' That's just American politics. If I were running for office at this point I'd be saying, 'Vote for me I'm going to be an agent of change.'"

I'm quite certain he would. In fact, if you recall the way Governor Bush stumped in 2000 -- with his promises to not stretch thin our military, to not have us involved in the nation-building business, to be a uniter and not a divider -- it is as if he was running against the president he later became.

However, not one of the major Republican candidates is doing that. None is repudiating Bush's failed policies. Oh, Huckabee dared to criticize the Bush foreign policy as arrogant bunker mentality. But he caught so much flak for that statement that he ever since has been explaining it away and telling us what he really meant. Alas, that is what conservatives do ... remain rutted in the past. Why else is the ghost of Ronald Reagan a part of nearly every Republican debate nearly two decades after he left office?

Yeah, change!

What's in a name?

Evidently much if you are mired in the conservative mindset. Who has failed to notice how often Barack Obama's name has sarcastically dripped off the tongues of conservatives as Barack Hussein Obama? But now conservative radio host Bill Cunningham (on the January 6th edition of his radio show) has declared Obama to be Barack Mohammed Hussein Obama. Just like that.

I'm tired of all the attempts to link in some way Obama to radical Islam and terrorism. Why doesn't the head Republican, President George Walker bin Laden Bush, speak out against that type of Republican tactic?

Warning: Do not read the following if sexist idiocy offends you

Here is how conservative pundit (and arch-idiot) Bill Kristol, last night on Fox News, explained Hillary Clinton's upset victory in the New Hampshire primary:

“It’s the tears. She pretended to cry. The women felt sorry for her. And she won.”

I feel sorry for anyone as asinine as Kristol.

Are Republicans Deaf?

Remember when President Bush tried to tell Americans what they really wanted concerning the Iraq "war" right after the clear message of the Congressional elections of '06? Well, this time Mitt Romney is at it, telling us again what we really want, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary (for example, the plethora of polls showing overwhelming disapproval of Bush's job performance):

"Well, you know, I think the race in Iowa was really a very clear call that people want change in Washington, not in the White House, in Washington."

There you go. The best reason for not voting Republican: They don't care what we the people want, and they aren't listening to what we are saying.