An Ill Wind

Tim Chapman's latest article argues that times may be changing for the Republican party for the better. He has a nifty original idea; why not use the war on terror to scare voters into voting Republican?

Ok that's not very original.

But he argues that world events have conspired to remind Americans that if they don't want to get blown up they'd better vote for President Bush. And in order to underline that point he advises Congress to take up giving President Bush more power after the recess.

The administration's firm conviction that the American people do in fact expect the President to use programs like TSP will only add to Bush's, and his fellow congressional Republican's, desire to pass a law ensuring that such programs are constitutional. Expect lawmakers to take that up as soon as Congress returns from its August recess. Indeed, even before this recent ruling congressional plans had been in place to act on legislation that would give the Terrorist Surveillance Program a congressional seal of approval, but now, conservatives in Congress have another incentive to act quickly, and they should.

James Carafano of The Heritage Foundation, an expert on Homeland Security and terrorism, recently argued that congress should do all in its power to give the President the tools he needs to successfully fight the war on terror.

One thing I would like explained is why the Presidents TSP (Terrorist Surveillance Program) can't operate under the FISA constraints.

At any rate we'll have to see how Democrats in Congress react to this; if they roll over and play dead, I would think it would bode poorly for them in November. But they may decide that Chapman's right and the best way to look like they are serious on terror is to be President Bush's lapdog. We'll find out in a little while.

The Legend of old Joe Lieberman

As related by Tim Chapman (because who better understand the Democrats than a conservative columnist).

In a salute to the Connecticut senator's character, moral fiber and steadfast moderation, Al Gore chose him to be the party's vice presidential candidate.

In actuality, Lieberman was chosen to distance Gore from President Clinton, a mistake and possibly a fatal one for his campaign.

Lieberman's 2000 nomination proved that the Democratic party still understood that most Americans value moderation over far-left liberalism.

Not entirely true either, but the problem is more in what the Right considers moderation. In Lieberman's case it means agreeing with Republicans on pretty much everything except a few economic matters.

On Tuesday, the Democratic Party discarded that tired old notion by ousting the pro-war, strong-on-national-security Connecticut centrist in favor of an extreme liberal anti-war Democratic challenger: millionaire Connecticut businessman Ned Lamont.

Case in point - Lamont is actually fairly moderate or mainstream on most issues, and his position on the war is the same as the Majority of Americans. Being an extreme liberal is a matter of style, not substance. Lamont's style is that he is willing to stand up to President Bush and the Republicans. Lieberman's style is that he is willing to bend over backwards for them.

Lamont's candidacy was fueled by the most extreme elements of the Democratic party.

The most extreme elements of the Democratic party do things like raise money and participate in the political process. The most extreme elements of the Republican party do things like . . . well I'll stop there, but you can fill in the blanks yourself, I'm sure.

I'm letting the Bastards Grind Me Down

I was very energetic earlier this week. But today's list of articles has just worn me out.

Besides Ann Coulter calling for Treason Trials for the New York Times, we also have Hugh Hewitt and Jeff Jacoby condemning the Times for reporting on a program this administration has boasted about for years. I particularly liked this response to Hugh Hewitts article.

Stand 'em against a wall and shoot them. It wouldn't take but a couple 'til the rest of these petulent swine started catching on. Perhaps Mssr. Keller should be deported to Iraq and set out on a street corner in the Sunni triangle. Then he could BECOME news as we watched some of his good buddies saw his head off while screaming "Allah AKBAHR!"

I do wonder how long it is going to take for Conservatives to start acting out their murderous fantasies.

Tim Chapman is happy that the blogs have pushed Congress to consider passing a bill to censure the New York Times. Blog-O-Fascism is the future!!!

Michael S. Adams is upset that, as one of the three conservative professors in all of academia, his fellow professors don't seem to like him very much. I think the fact that he's a whiny jerk might have something to do with it.

"Humorist" Burt Prelutsky condemns Liberals for not being happier at the death of Zarqawi. I guess he's right; I mean now that Zarqawi is dead we see that there are smooth times ahead in Iraq.

See if I were Aquaman I could dive deep in the ocean and not be bothered by all these conservative jerks. Of course the fact that these articles make me yearn to be Aquaman might be another sign of how depressing they are.

Saving the most out of date for last, filthy liar Emmett Tyrell is still supporting the Swift Boat Liars with a bunch of lying. Part of me wants to go on a rampage showing what BS this article is, and another part of me realizes there's no point. If you believe the Swift Boat Liars, nothing I saw is going to sway you.

I think I'll go see how long I can hold my breath.

Separation of Powers

As you know Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat, had his office was raided over the weekend by the FBI. They found that he was guilty of freezing his bribe money, and he has been asked to resign from Ways and Means committee. As it turns out, however, this is being seen as a question of the separation of powers, by such Republicans as Newt Gingrich and Sen. Bill Frist.

Tim Chapman's latest article praises Republicans for taking a stand on principle (for once).

It is worth examining the position that GOP leadership has taken. In 219 years the Executive branch has never infringed on the Legislative branch in this manner. This week's raid was a first. Now consider if the situation were reversed. Can you imagine what would have happened if House impeachment investigators had sent a team to President Clinton's White House to search for subpoenaed documents?

The FBI claims that it raided Jefferson's office with extraordinary safeguards in place. But did it? The historical practice of allowing a representative of the House such as the general counsel to observe the search was not honored. Quite to the contrary, in fact. The general counsel was not allowed in the room at the time of the search and was instead given assurances that the FBI would police itself in regards to privileged and unprivileged documents. Police itself?

Critics of congressional leadership certainly have a point regarding the politics of the situation: This is messy, and it appears silly. But critics should concede that a principled argument is being made here. Those critics are free to critique that argument, but they should recognize that those legislators who are making it are not in any way motivated by politics . . . for once.

This conservative would like to see Republicans stand for principle on a much broader range of issues. But hey, beggars can't be choosers.

I don't know if we should tire ourselves out patting Republicans on the back for this. Most people want to protect their turf. It's human nature.

My Contract with America

I pledge to you this day to fix the problems caused by me. I will vigorously stamp out any foolish posts or boneheaded grammatical errors that I have the tendency to make. I'm not going to let myself get away with this kind of foolishness any longer. Rather I'm going to knuckle down and see that I turn out better, more productive posts. This is my pledge to you, my readers, that I will really ride herd over myself until this website lives up to it's potential.

This was inspired by an article by Tim Chapman about a new Contract with America, proposed by some members of congress. Apparently the budget deficit is enormous, presumably the fault of those liberals. Except wait, the last time we had a Democratic President, weren't we doing a lot better in regards to fiscal prudence? And haven't Republicans been in charge for most of the last 6 years? If they were so concerned about this problem, why haven't they done something about it?

Perhaps what Chapman and these congress people are trying to do is draw a distinction between Conservatism and the policies of the last few years. If so, I don't wish them any luck.

Conservative Commentary on The Port Deal

Ann Coulter is against it, for about the reasons you would expect.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

. . . Isn't it enough that we're already patronizing the savages over the cartoons? Do we have to let them operate our ports, too?

Kathleen Parker also finds this deal baffling, but is just as interested in what the deal reveals about President Bush's psychological make-up.

The final throes of Bush's journey toward self-destruction may have found expression with the apparent sale of operational rights to six of our nation's largest ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Approved by the Bush administration against all reason, the $6.8 billion sale includes the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Despite bipartisan condemnation, the Bush administration has defended the sale to Dubai Ports World as not only safe, but prudent. The UAE, which incidentally served as a financial and operational base for the Sept. 11 hijackers, is an important ally in the fight against terror, we're told.

Cal Thomas, given his strong anti-Muslim feelings, takes the tack you would expect.

There have been some dumb decisions since the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, including the "welcoming" of radical Muslim groups, mosques and schools that seek by their preaching and teaching to influence U.S. foreign policy and undermine the nation. But the decision to sell port operations in New York, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and New Orleans to a company owned by the UAE may be the dumbest of all.

Tim Chapman seems mostly interested in the politics of the situation.

Of course, the irony of this situation is that the bipartisan opposition to the president comes on an issue that he polls strongest on. The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows President Bush receiving strong approval ratings for his handling of the war on terror. Clearly, Democrats have sensed an opportunity with this news story to move to the right of the President on an issue that has traditionally been his ace in the pocket. Republicans in Congress must agree, because they are ceding no ground on the issue to the Democrats.

Finally Stuart Rothenberg, who is not a name I'm very familiar with, trots out to defend the administration's position.

While Democrats and Republicans vent their anger over the Bush Administratios decision to allow a United Arab Emirates-based company from taking "control" of America's east coast ports (from a British company), I have a question: Exactly what responsibility and authority does this UAE company have? Specifically, how is U.S. security weakened?

I don't know, and I bet 99.5% of the people discussing the "threat" don't know. As a matter of fact, I'll bet most of us have no idea what managing a port entails.

But that hasn't stopped people from ranting about the Administration's decision to approve the British-UAE deal.

Actually when I say that is the administration's position, I get the impression it won't be for much longer. Anyway it's interesting to me how many big conservative columnists haven't seen fit to write on this. Presumably they have their fingers in the air for the moment, and will speak when the time is right.

Townhall Report

I just read every article over at Townhall for Thursday, June 23 (as of 9:10 in the morning, more articles may be added later).

There were articles by Brent Bozell and Ann Coulter about Dick Durbin's comments from last week. Apparently he said something along the lines of "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners." Republicans do not like this being said, apparently. They are pushing the idea that we are, in fact, too nice to our prisoners (Ann Coulters article is entitled "Guantanamo loses 5-star rating."

Emmet Tyrell and Robert Novak both wrote on Senator Biden. Novak reveals that apparently Biden uses political means to achieve his ends. Shocking. Emmet Tyrell's article is devoted to calling Biden (and any other Democrat he can think of) a liar.

Ak'Bar A. Shabazz also writes on congressional matters. In this case he covers an official Senate apology for failing to pass anti-lynching laws back in the day. He did make a minor misstatement in his article though. "Many have blamed 'southern conservatives' for filibustering anti-lynching legislation. They would be more accurate if they attributed the opposition to 'southern Democrats'. For, it was the Democratic Party that was most active in opposing civil rights legislation during that movement." While technically accurate, this formulation gives the impression that there were separaterate groups - Southern Conservatives and Southern Democrats. In fact, at that time, they were one and the same. It would be most accurate to say "Southern Conservatdemocratsrats." But perhaps accuracy isn't Mr. Shabazz's point.

Suzanne Fields rights on the sanctity of Marriage. Debra Saunders writes on PETA (wembarrassinglyngly enough, recently had some of their charges die). Larry Elder writes on how Senator Kerry's grades show him to be a dummy (compared to President Bush). Alan Reynolds writes a somewhat confusing article on why Oil Prices aren't controlled by demand for car gasoline.

This is tiring.

Terrence Jeffry comments on a subcontractor at Oak Ridge Nuclear facility who hired undocumented aliens. As you might imagine, he's opposed to that.

Cal Thomas comments that PBS and NPR are too liberal. And by too liberal, he apparently means liberal at all.

Both Ross Mackenzie and Tim Chapman do columns that collect a lot of different short themes in them. Kind of like this post really.

Finally, Michael Furtado writes a column filled with links on how Scientists will defeat Germs. Because Scientists are smart and Germs are not. And Marvin Olasky writes an article recommending his five favorite Civil War Battle Grounds for you to visit.

None of those articles is really jumping out at me to comment on so I present them all. Enjoy.