Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
He's got an entry today on Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and local KTLA-TV news reporter Lu Parker. Says Jammie: The mayor "is schtupping yet another local newscaster." But I'd be remiss if I did without some of these hot Latvian blondes!
A new Pew survey shows Americans rejecting affirmative action programs when defined as "giving preferential treatment" to women and minorities:
With the Supreme Court expected to soon rule on a case involving job discrimination claims by white firefighters, and Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision in a lower court ruling on the case drawing scrutiny, there is renewed focus on public opinion about affirmative action programs and overall efforts to improve the position of minorities in this country. The public has generally been supportive of such efforts, but is decidedly opposed to the idea of providing preferential treatment to minorities.
In the most recent Pew Research Center values survey, released May 21, just 31% agreed that "we should make every effort to improve the position of blacks and minorities, even if it means giving them preferential treatment." More than twice as many (65%) disagreed with this statement. That balance of opinion has fluctuated only modestly through the 22-year history of the values survey.
The values survey revealed continuing racial differences in attitudes about this issue. Majorities of both African Americans (58%) and Hispanics (53%) favor preferential treatment to improve the position of blacks and other minorities; just 22% of whites agree.
Check the rest of the article. White Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents oppose race preferences by a margin of 66 percent! Yo, GOP cross-party outreach opportunity!
Just 54 percent of Americans support the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The findings show less support for her nomination than was true for John Roberts, although she's favored slightly more than was Samuel Alito. Interestingly, less than a majority, 49 percent, agrees that Sotomayor's views are "in the mainstream."
But I just got some "hate mail" in the comments right now. I had this asshole blocked with Haloscan on my previous blog, but Blogger's comments come right through unless moderation is enabled.
All neocons are gay. They follow a gay ideology. They are the vanguards of gayness.
"Duh troops" are fighting for the very "freedom" of homo "rights" and other degenerate "rights". It is a homosexual war to turn the musilman sheep herder into a capitalist metrosexual. Such a war is gay.
Donald Douglas is the gayest blogger ever. Anyone who uses the words "John Galt" is a homo.
This is the empirical, objective truth. No bias.
Your wife and child are in your head. Never any mention of them on "Burkean reflections". They suddenly appeared when Sullivan-the-Gay negged your "Chosen" Israel, and the hawt jewish males who inhabit it, the neocon's world's most precious resource. Your "fambly": they're fake. They don't exist. Neocons are homosexual.
You are a dark skinned tanning bed queen Donald. You are a cuban cabana boy, a bathhouse turk. Anything but a white-racist anglo-saxon man, the heart of any true conservatism.
This undated booking photo released Tuesday, June 2, 2009 by the Sedgwick County Jail shows Scott Roeder, 51, who made his first court appearance Tuesday in Sedgwick County District Court in Wichita, Kan. Roeder was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in the death of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, asking the judge by video when he would see his court-appointed lawyer. (AP Photo/Sedgwick County Jail)
Scott Roeder was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in the shooting death of late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in church.
The 51-year-old Roeder appeared at a brief 4 p.m. EDT hearing in a Wichita, Kan., court via video from jail in the doctor's killing.
Roeder is accused of gunning down Tiller on Sunday as the doctor served as an usher at his Lutheran church in Wichita.
Roeder also is charged with aggravated assault for allegedly threatening two people who tried to stop him.
The Kansas City Star reported that Roeder's mental health and anti-government activities were factors in a custody battle in 2003 involving a girl in Pennsylvania.
Earlier Tuesday, Roeder's former wife said his family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became "very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way."
"The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs." He moved out in 1994, and the couple divorced in 1996. They have one son, now 22.
"He started falling apart," Lindsey Roeder told The Associated Press on Monday. "I had to protect myself and my son."
Classical Values posts some of the best commentary I've yet read on all of this:
While this sort of viciousness would not be surprising at a far-left site or at the sort of angry radical gay blogs that heaped abuse on Carrie Prejean, what's remarkable is that it occurred at Playboy. (Misogyny goes mainstream!)
I have to say, for a variety of reasons I'm surprised.
I'm also surprised that they'd include Peggy Noonan (who's seen by many conservatives as a sellout) with people far to her right. (I can't think of a better reminder of the hang-together-or-hang-separately principle.)
Moreover, the timing is a bit off. The left has power, both in the White House and Congress, while conservatives have been dispirited, disunited, and largely disillusioned. Such tactics right now are completely unnecessary. I guess the angry left just can't stop being angry.
However, there's a lot more to this than anger. Many conservatives are angry too, but there is simply no right wing counterpart to the misogynistic hatred routinely displayed towards conservative women.
Nor are conservative men subjected to anywhere near the same type of personal attacks on their hairstyles, clothing, or personal anatomy that conservative women have to endure. Over the years I have seen such abuse directed against Margaret Thatcher, Kathleen Harris (during the Florida vote count), and of course we all remember what happened to Condoleezza Rice (whose additional crime was being a black conservative). While rape advocacy is a new escalation, in many ways, this misogyny springs from identity politics. Conservative women are seen as traitors to their sex, and thus no holds are barred. Not even hate speech of the sort the left would call "eliminationist rhetoric." So, while it's certainly sick and twisted, the rape advocacy piece in Playboy is in many ways a very logical culmination.
If the left keeps stuff like this up, the right won't have to do anything to win.
Who knew Janeane Garfalo could look, well, sexy? And how about John on Maureen Dowd: "Great hair, elegant, spicy. You got to give Modo her due: she's a fine looking woman." Now, if she'd just write her own copy!
A new CNN pollingreport finds that just one in five Americans holds a favorable view of the Muslim world.
Meanwhile, the Muslim world hearts them some Barack "Tutankhamen" Obama! According to the Los Angeles Times:
A souvenir shop in Cairo, where Obama will speak Thursday, hawks a T-shirt with the slogan “Obama: New Tutankhamen of the World.” Aides says he will deploy a diplomacy of personality that rests on the hunch that the best way to make friends for his country is by winning them over himself.
When President Obama takes the podium in Cairo this week for his much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world, he'll stand before them as an American leader born of an African Muslim father and raised partly in Indonesia, as well as a politician who cut his political teeth in an Illinois political culture that has a sizable Muslim population.
And he will talk, aides say, about those roots he shares with the Muslim world.
It is a politics of biography rapidly becoming synonymous with the Obama presidency. The message he hopes to deliver to Muslims, outlined by advisors ahead of the president's departure Wednesday for the Middle East, will draw on the same storytelling instincts Obama has employed with great success at home.
Now, as Obama attempts to forge new relations with a Muslim community that is at best suspicious of American motives, he relies on a diplomacy of personality that rests on the hunch that the best way to make friends for his country is by winning them over himself.
"The fact is that the president himself experienced Islam on three continents before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world," said Denis McDonough, Obama's deputy national security advisor for strategic communications. The president sees a fundamental need, McDonough said, to change "how we engage our allies."
So when Obama arrives in the region Wednesday, advisors say, he won't be carrying detailed policy proposals, but rather an appeal focusing on common experience and mutual respect.
Here's a couple videos of Dick Cheney. In the first video, the former vice president said "freedom means freedom for all." But he qualifies that by arguing that regulating marriage is properly handled a the state level.
The second video shows Cheney's interview, with his daughter, on Greta Van Susteren "On the Record." Here's the transcript:
VAN SUSTEREN: You bring up sort of the social issues, and of course, today, I couldn't help but notice you were asked the question about -- of gay marriage, and you said that it wasn't -- that you weren't in favor, at least -- as I understand your answer, in favor of federal statute, but it should be state by state by state. Did that mean you're in favor of gay marriage within state by state?
D. CHENEY: Well, if that's what the people of the state want to do, that's fine by me. I mean, I don't, I ...
VAN SUSTEREN: How would you vote on it?
D. CHENEY: I made the announcement at the outset that I believe equal rights means equal rights for everybody and that people ought to be able to enter into any kind of relationship they want, but that the states ought to retain the ability to regulate and determine what's marriage and what the legal status of those unions are. It should not be a federal issue.
VAN SUSTEREN: President Obama is in favor of civil unions, not in favor of gay marriage. Are you saying you're in favor -- if you were, you know, hitting the button in the voting booth, that you would be for your state having gay marriage, or would be you be ...
D. CHENEY: Well, I look at it, obviously, in personal terms. And my daughter, Mary, is in a -- you know, I think a very commendable relationship with somebody she's known for a long time, and I'm strongly supportive of that.
Either way, the leftist media and the radical netroots are pushing hard to get massive mileage from the George Tiller tragedy. Contrary to the Washington Post, the abortion debate was hot all of last year, when President Obama said he didn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby; when his deathwish record on Born Alive Infanct Protection legislation was circulated widely; and when Pastor Rick Warren asked him "when does life begin?" (and he responded that it's "above my pay grade").
In truth, leftists have turned Tiller's death into a one-way superhighway to baby-killing. Debate? What debate? The memes are all about the "evil" O'Reilly, "forced-childbirth" extremists, and the "vindication" of the DHS report. Indeed, it's apparent now that leftists are using Tiller's killing to argue for RELAXING EXISTING LAWS TO ACHIEVE MORE LATE-TERM ABORTIONS!
Well, where's the outrage on the left today? In what looks like an ideologically-driven attack on U.S. military personnel, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a convert to Islam who was "upset with the military," is alleged to have killed one and injured another at a U.S. Army Navy Career Center in Little Rock.
Check USA Today and KATV-TV forthe story. Interestingly, the KATV story notes, "the gunman targeted the military but was not believed to be part of a broader scheme."
Well, don't bet Abdul Hakim wasn't part of a "broader scheme." The fact is that the antiwar left has been targeting military recruiting stations for years. Unlike the unhinged leftists in response to the George Tiller murder, conservative bloggers were very measured in their response to the Little Rock shootings. As Say Anything noted this morning:
... we could jump to the conclusion that this man was motivated by a hatred for the military (or something along those lines) and then blame groups like Code Pink and Media Matters and MoveOn.org for fanning anti-military, anti-Iraq war passions for years. We could, much as the left has with people like Bill O’Reilly in the George Tiller murder claim that those groups have blood on their hands.
But we won’t. Because that’s stupid. This murder, whatever the motivation (it’s not clear at this point), was committed by a murderous thug who acted of his own volition. Not because he was compelled to by liberal dissent.
Murder is murder. Let’s mourn the dead, condemn the guilty and move on.
Where's the outrage from the Leftinistra? Where are the condemnations that we on the Right expressed for the murder of Tiller the Baby Killer?
For years this kind of activity from the Leftinistra has been going on and absolutely no condemnation from them has ever been expressed that I know of. Why is that?
So far, I have only read mentions of this incident from the Right.
Well, conservatives were waiting for more information. This Ain't Hell even began with a disclaimer:
Notice how, unlike some bloggers on the Left jumped to conclusions over yesterday’s shooting, I’m not speculating on the motivations of this shooter or his relationship to any other group of recruiter-haters until the facts are in - I caution commenters here to do the same.
I wonder if the Justice Department will send marshals to beef up protection at recruiting centers — especially given the past targeting of military centers on campuses and elsewhere across the country.
If you were to walk up to a typical New York executive in the 1960s -- think Don Draper in AMC's "Mad Men" -- and tell him that General Motors Corp. would be in bankruptcy by 2009, he would have thought you were delusional, or perhaps a Communist. GM was more than just the world's largest and most admired corporation; it was the final vindication of the American Way, the perfected and even divinely inspired example of democratic capitalism that stood opposed to the airless atheism and nullity of the Soviet system.
Or imagine that you were somehow able to drag Nikita Khrushchev from the United Nations podium into the street to confront -- no, behold -- a 1959 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz. Nearly 19 feet long from its Jayne Mansfield-like bumpers to its rocket-like tail lamps, a lyric in steel and mirrored chrome, as bright and beautiful as a ripe plum is sweet, and yet just ever so slightly obscene. Khrushchev would have dropped his shoe.
Surely a company, a country, that could produce such an object would last forever.
Read the full article, here. See the Times' photo gallery, here.
The sign about re-opening Auschwitz was held by a perpetually smiling, bearded man. He seemed as smug and happy with himself as did the well-fed, well-groomed members of Neturi Karta who take money from Amadinejad to protest the state of Israel.
My friend and colleague, Fern Sidman, covered the march for me. The photos, below, were taken by her. She reminds me that the March was also a tribute to the 100th anniversary of the city of Tel Aviv ....
Although the protestors were very few in number, (and the police plentiful), some of the protest signs were exceptionally vicious. I suggest that we take such signs seriously. They signify a coarsening of the atmosphere, a more brazen posture that not only means to intimidate but which actually intends to carry out the acts their signs depict.
Yes, racism exists, both among white folk and among peoples of color but Islamist martyrs of all colors do not plan to stop coming our way anytime soon. And, “color” has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism and other death cults. As I’ve written many times: Appeasement will not work. We don’t have enough money to keep bribing the villains. The Pakistani government has finally understood that the Taliban cannot be appeased, that they must be fought house to house, in tunnels, in hand to hand combat, and only by sacrificing many Pakistani soliders’ lives.
Thousands of supporters of Israel, both young and old gathered today in Manhattan to celebrate Israel's 61st birthday. A sea of blue and white filled fashionable 5th Avenue, as scores of synagogues, Jewish community centers and schools representing New York, New Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, etc proudly carried thousands of Israeli flags while paying tribute to the eternal Jewish state. Shouts of "Am Yisroel Chai" (the people of Israel live) echoed through the East Side of Manhattan as marchers paid tribute to the 100th anniversary of the city of Tel Aviv ....
Also on hand were a small contingent of anti-Israel protesters whose signs and chants reflected their thinly veiled attempt to promulgate their essential message of rabid Jew hatred. Labeling Israel as an "apartheid state" and calling on the US to end all economic and military aid to the Jewish state, they also called for the total "liberation of Palestine" while excoriating Israelis as "Judeo Nazis". Other anti-Semitic signs conjured up images of the libelous propaganda once espoused by Adolf Hitler during the Nazi era. "Close Guantanamo Bay and Re-Open Auschwitz" read one sign, while another read, "Lock Up Your Kids: Pedophile Rabbis Are Everywhere." Members of the Revolution Muslim web site were on hand as well, carrying a banner that read, "Every Supporter of Israel is an Enemy Combatant".
Related: In case you missed it, check out some of the articles from Commentary's recent symposium, "Israel at Risk: A Commentary Special Report":
Here's Mitt Romney looking good for 2012, on Fox News Sunday: "The American people realize that this administration is taking us far too far to the left; and America is, fundamentally, a center-right nation":
Swooping in as Alter Ego No. 3, aka Bruno, in a pair of faux, oversized Angel wings, Cohen tumbles into the audience when the wire work goes wonky. The not so amused people who got a lap full of Bruno? Eminem and his entourage, who promptly got up and left the auditorium. Another fake feud?
The controversy over Tiller's late-term abortion activities drew heavy fire from conservatives. His Wikipedia entry notes that Bill O'Reilly alleged that "George Tiller performs late-term abortions to alleviate 'temporary depression' in the pregnant woman."
No one has been apprehended in the killing. KMBC 9 News - Kansas City reports "that police were looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants."
But this information didn't stop Andrew Sullivan from convicting Bill O'Reilly and the "Christiantists" for the killing, "O'Reilly's Target Shot Dead In Church":
My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tiller family.
But let me state unequivocally here: The death of George Tiller is a tragedy. His killers should be brought to justice and the death penalty should be on the table. But Andrew Sullivan is sick man to use this murder for political purposes. The blood of the killing's not even dry, and Sullivan's already smeared the entire conservative movement as a coalition of murderers. There will be more on the left to join him. David Neiwert's probably writing a post at this moment. But have no doubts: The attacks here on O'Reilly as "Christianist" are tantamount to the attacks on Sarah Palin during the election last year. Andrew Sullivan slurred Palin as the "Christianist culture warrior in Wasilla, Alaska." But obviously Sullivan's allegations this morning are totally off the charts. Tiller's killing was a political assassination. The Christian Defense Coalition has already condemned the murder, and the group will hold a press conference tomorrow morning.
Sullivan's screed is a classic case study in how leftists operate. As demonstrated over and over since the election last year, the Democratic victory is fragile. Lefists will use any and all of the most unhinged tactics to defend a political program of postmodern nihilism. On a day when Americans should be pulling together, we instead have leftists driving the wedge in deeper. Contemptible.
**********
UPDATE: Right on cue, here's Joan Walsh: "George Tiller is the latest victim of right-wing American terrorism against abortion providers and supporters."
Ta-Nehisi Coates jumps on Sullivan's bandwagon: "We don't have the luxury of thinking about these bilious hate-mongers as loonies running off the lip. People are dying. And these shameless goons are cashing checks. Disgusting. I'm sick over this.
Digby also highlights how "vital" are therapeutic abortions: Tiller "was one of only a handful of doctors who will perform this vital service for women under the new law. If you think that women should have to endanger their lives in order to give birth to a fetus with no brain, then you probably think this man was a murderer. For the women who went to him, and for whom he put up with a horrifying amount of harrassment and violence before they finally managed to kill him, he was a Godsend."
Be sure to read Robert George's post at The Corner, "Gravely Wicked":
Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him.
I do not and did not blame O'Reilly for the murder. I think his rhetoric and demonization of an individual subject to violence and threats are excessive and dangerous. He has every First Amendment right to speak the words he has spoken and I am sure he never wanted this to happen. But you can debate these matters with a little less personal demonization and get your point across.
What a sanctimonious gasbag!
"A little less personal demonization"? That's precious coming from the Queen of Trig Trutherism himself!
How can conservatives get their message across to the public?
We've e got some big megaphones on our side, too, and obviously conservative talk radio is the biggest. I don’t think there’s a major conservative talk show host who doesn’t have himself or herself or their staff read the blogs. If you listen to Rush on a daily basis, you realize he’s not just picking up on the obvious conservative outlets. … A lot of times, I’ll hear him citing the work of smaller blogs. ...
In the wake of the 2008 campaign, the GOP establishment has gotten their internet operations. … There’s a difference there between the more cool aid drinking GOP blogs and the less partisan blogs that are committed to covering things based on interests and principles. There are some GOP strategists who think the entire right side of the aisle should be focused on raising money for the Party, and I think it’s very healthy that there are a lot of us who do not think like that, who are not beholden to the Party.
What is the future of conservatism?
In many ways David Frum’s thesis is wrong. His last book argued essentially that the Republican Party needed to move to the left and stop talking about these old, tired fiscal matters, that the Reagan nostalgia was not going to work for the Party anymore. And yet what was it that galvanized hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets on April 15?
His way is to elect more Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger who is now in deep doo-doo. I think it’s interesting that these same people will argue that people like me are dividing the Republican Party when it’s things like open borders and amnesty that have really weakened the Republican Party base.
I also think it is a mistake to talk about the future of the Republican Party without acknowledging the radical changes to electoral and demographic landscapes. One of the reasons I’ve emphasized immigration so much, not just because of national security reasons, which I think still have primacy. Secondarily, the effect that demographically this has had on Congressional districts around the country.
I think that by rolling over and capitulating to the open borders lobby, the Republican Party has written itself out of existence, certainly in California. The national security implications and the electoral implications—and of course in California the budgetary implications—this is what happens when you allow open border welfare expansionism to eat up your state.
In a high-stakes battle that could affect California's share of federal funding and political representation, immigrant activists are vowing to combat efforts by a national Latino clergy group to persuade 1 million illegal immigrants to boycott the 2010 U.S. census.
The Washington, D.C.-based National Coalition of Latino Clergy & Christian Leaders, which says it represents 20,000 Latino churches in 34 states, recently announced that a quarter of its 4 million members were prepared to join the boycott as a way to intensify pressure for legalization and to protect themselves from government scrutiny.
"Before being counted, we need to be legalized," said the Rev. Miguel Rivera, the coalition's chairman and founder.
But the boycott call has infuriated many Latino organizations. La Opinión, in a recent editorial, denounced it as a "dangerous mistake" that "verges on political suicide" while an official with the National Assn. of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials called it "wildly irresponsible."
"This is a phenomenal step backward in the strides we have made to make sure we are equal," said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Latino officials group.
The decennial census, which counts all people regardless of immigration status, is used to allocate federal funds for education, housing, healthcare, transportation and other local needs. By some estimates, every person counted results in $1,000 in federal funds.
The census is also used to apportion the 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which are based on a state's population.
According to a study in 2003, California's sizable illegal immigrant population allowed it to gain three House seats it might otherwise not have received. The state's illegal immigrant population also caused Indiana, Michigan and Mississippi to each lose one of their seats and prevented Montana from gaining a seat.
The study by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based research group that promotes immigration restrictions, also argued that the illegal immigrant population skewed the "one man, one vote" principle in elections.
In 2002, the study found, it took almost 100,000 votes to win the typical congressional race in the four states that lost or failed to gain a seat, compared with 35,000 votes to win in immigrant-rich districts in California.
Back in 1988, the effect on apportionment, which also affects the Electoral College, prompted a lawsuit by 40 members of Congress, Pennsylvania and the Federation for American Immigration Reform to prevent the Census Bureau from counting illegal immigrants. The complaint was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court for lack of standing.
"People who have no right to be in this country should not be counted," said federation President Dan Stein. "It's awfully hard to explain to U.S. citizens why they keep losing political representation to states like California because of people who broke immigration laws."
Vargas and others questioned the boycott organizers' political motivations, noting that most of them were conservative.
Might be another sign that border reform is long overdue ...
What’s interesting to me about this huge panic attack over Sotomayor, like Limbaugh claiming she’s a “racist” for daring to believe that she can be good at her job despite the lack of the pale-skinned penis in her pants, is how it’s blatantly predicated on the idea that there is no such thing as an intelligent Latina. There’s no way around this. If you honestly believe that being a non-white woman is a twofer advantage that poor, beleaguered white men don’t get, then you have to look around and see that most prestigious positions of power are occupied by white men, and you have to assume that white men must be superhumanly intelligent and awesome to be able to do so much with so many obstacles against them. By god, what white men could do if someone just let them have some access to power without them scraping and fighting “reverse racism” every step of the way!
The sort of thing demonstrates that we’re far from done with the effects of the Bush administration, even though we kicked them out of office. We still have the war and the fucked up economy, and we’re still swimming in a sea of people who have contempt for reality, because it doesn’t fit what they need to believe. Like these fucks with their “reverse racism” nonsense---there isn’t really such a thing in the real world, and even if you can find someone out there who really buys into it, they’re a marginal person that certainly has no bearing on what Sonia Sotomayor believes. It’s actually 15 kinds of ridiculous to suggest that someone who doesn’t accept that white people could be intelligent would get anywhere in our society, since white people are by and large the gatekeepers. A fucking unicorn would have a better shot at the Supreme Court. That our media is taking this “reverse racism” thing seriously enough that Sotomayor had to apologize for saying something that could be deliberately misconstrued is evidence in and of itself that she’s the real victim of discrimination here. Being pushed into a situation where paranoia about her race is so bad that Sotomayor has to play along with an obvious lie to smooth falsely ruffled feathers is what racism actually looks like.
Recently during an interview, a leader within the Republican Party was quoted as saying, about me, “We support him, the problem is that we can’t waste finite resources. At the end of the day, he is not going to win.” At first, one might think that this statement would be something that would offend me, as the candidate. It does not. What I really feel is sadness for a Party ... my Party ... our Party. This is the type of defeatist attitude that seems to be prevalent when there is a lack of true leadership. This attitude of “if you don’t know how to fix it, say it can’t be fixed” is an attitude that fosters losing. It is an attitude where one tries to look smart by being correct about a self fulfilling prophesy.
Let me say that any fight worth winning is worth fighting for with all of your might. It may not be an easy fight and it may not be a popular fight but, if it is necessary, you don’t give up. You see, true leaders do not see obstacles as things that make righteous outcomes impossible. True leaders see obstacles as things that will be overcome on the way to victory. I have never listened to people when they said that things could not be done. I felt sorry for them as I found ways to overcome the “impossible”. I am living proof that if you want something bad enough and you work hard enough, there is nothing that you can not do. I believe this with all that I am and it is what I teach my children and what I tell anyone who will listen.
Over 200 years ago, it was thought of as pure folly for a rag tag group of colonists to attempt to fight one of the strongest and most regimented armies in the entire world ... the British Redcoats. The naysayers said that “at the end of the day, the citizens of colonies would not be able to win.” We are all free because true leaders did not listen and rose up to fight the good fight and secure their freedom ... our freedom. To their credit, they did not heed the negative words of insecurity and fear and secured our freedom by “wasting their finite resources.”
Only a few years ago, other “leaders” of the Republican Party thought that it would be impossible for a black, inexperienced, ultra-liberal, junior senator from Illinois with a Muslim first name to be elected President of the United States of America. Now, as a nation, we will all pay (quite literally) for the lack of leadership allowing that to happen.
Defeating Robert Wexler is a fight that must be fought and must be won for the citizens of District 19 and for the citizens of the United States. I did not choose to run for congress in a district where I did not live, where the demographics would be more in my favor. I chose to fight for my district, my children’s district, your district if that is where you live. I chose to fight the good fight and to undertake the “impossible” task of removing one of the most left wing, corrupt congressmen in our government. A congressman who thumbs his nose at our constitution and who takes for granted his constituents by not even living in the state that he is supposed to represent. A congressman, who is being investigated by the FBI, thanks in no small part to our own investigations. A congressman who has laundered money through his campaign accounts and has been involved in falsifying his FEC reports to hide ill-gotten gains. A congressman who is more concerned with his own political career than he is with the future of his constituents or the future of the State of Israel. A congressman who fights for his constituents’ votes to only count for ½ of the vote. A congressman who has close ties to Rod Blagojevich, to the mafia, to pump and dump companies, to criminal elements and to fraudulent bundlers who raise money illegally offshore.
Keep in mind that when our campaign inspires voters to come out to vote for me, they will also be in that booth voting for other likeminded candidates. Instead of worrying about how to spread around our “finite resources” I would suggest finding a way to get more resources. One way ... get behind good candidates who will fight for you when you are not able or willing to fight for yourself and you will have more resources than you know what to do with. Stop advertising the Republican brand with a lack of leadership by giving up on fights that need to be won. I don’t want to hear why something can’t be done; I want to hear how we are going do it. If you are not part of the solution; you ARE the problem!
But today's most brutally revealing article on the Democratic double-standard is Byron York's, "When Democrats Derailed a GOP Latino Nominee." Here's some background on the left's response to George W. Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit:
Born in Honduras, Estrada came to the United States at 17, not knowing a word of English. He learned the language almost instantly, and within a few years was graduating with honors from Columbia University and heading off to Harvard Law School. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, was a prosecutor in New York, and worked at the Justice Department in Washington before entering private practice.
Estrada's nomination for a federal judgeship set off alarm bells among Democrats. There is a group of left-leaning organizations -- People for the American Way, NARAL, the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the NAACP, and others -- that work closely with Senate Democrats to promote Democratic judicial nominations and kill Republican ones. They were particularly concerned about Estrada.
In November, 2001, representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff. One of those staffers then wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, informing Durbin that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, particularly three they had identified as good targets. "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer added, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination. They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.
Durbin and his colleagues did as they were instructed. But they had nothing with which to kill the nomination -- no outrageous statement by Estrada, no ethical lapse, no nothing. What to do?
They brainstormed. Estrada had once worked in the Justice Department's Office of Solicitor General, right? (Appointed under the first President Bush, Estrada stayed to serve several years under Clinton.) That office decides which cases the government will pursue in the Supreme Court, right? And that process involves confidential legal memoranda, right? Well, why don't we suggest that there might be something damaging in those memos -- we have no idea whether there is or not -- and demand that they be made public?
Durbin and his colleagues knew the Bush Justice Department would insist the internal legal memos remain confidential, as they always had been. It wasn’t just the Bush Administration that thought releasing the documents was a terrible idea; all seven living former Solicitors General, Republican and Democrat, wrote a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy begging him to back off.
But the Democrats didn't back off. They had a new, very serious question to ask: What is Miguel Estrada hiding?
The answer was nothing, of course. But the strategy worked. Democrats stonewalled Estrada's nomination, and, after losing control of the Senate in 2002, they began an unprecedented round of filibusters to block an entire slate of Bush appeals-courts nominees, Estrada among them. The confirmation process ground to a halt. More than two years after his nomination was announced, Estrada, tired of what appeared to be an endless runaround, withdrew his name from consideration. Instead of being on the federal bench, he is now in private practice in Washington.
And that was how Democrats treated the last high-level Hispanic court nominee. Think about that when you watch their lovefest with Sonia Sotomayor.
A few of Sotomayor's decisions may ring a bell. It was she who ruled in 1999 that a law-school graduate with a learning disability was entitled to extra time to take a bar exam. More recently, she forbade the Environmental Protection Agency to use a cost-benefit analysis in antipollution enforcement (her ruling was later overturned). But the real fight over her confirmation will focus on her role in a case about tests for promotion within the New Haven, Conn., fire department. Although the tests were designed to be race-neutral, the pass rate for blacks was half that for whites. So New Haven threw out the test results. Several white firefighters who scored high enough for promotion sued the city. One of the plaintiffs was dyslexic and had hired tutors to help him. Sotomayor was on the three-judge panel that okayed New Haven's decision to nullify the tests. The panel did so in a one-paragraph blow-off that ignored a host of pressing constitutional issues and was striking for its lack of empathy, compassion and all those noble qualities that are supposed to come with growing up in the South Bronx. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which could well overturn the decision in the next few weeks.
Whether or not you like racial preferences, they involve a way of looking at the law that is sophisticated rather than commonsensical. If the New Haven opinion is fair, it is the kind of fairness you learn at Yale Law School, not the kind you learn in the South Bronx. Sotomayor may be a child of the barrio, culturally speaking, but the judicial philosophy she represents comes from the mandarin, not the proletarian, wing of the Democratic Party.
Affirmative action has been a revolution in American rights and in our ideas of citizenship. To judge from almost all polls and referendums over the past few decades, it is reliably unpopular. Judges prop it up. Since the election of the first black President, it has been a shoe waiting to drop. The rationale it rests on — that minorities are cut off from fair access to positions of influence in society — has been undermined, to put it mildly. Elevating a hard-line defender of affirmative action is thus a provocation in a way that it would not have been in years past.
This woman boasts some nasty race politics. But will that be enough to force her withdrawal?
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
