I've seen a fair number of 2004 year-end wrap-ups, but none to match Michelle Malkin's must-see Listmania (2004).
Some of my favorites from her list are:
No comment necessary for this meltdown of the ages (though let me add to the mix this priceless video link)
I actually did vote for the $87 billion…
While Dean’s Scream is for the ages, Kerry’s Flipper’s “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it,” was the most influential quote of the year. It was undoubtedly worth $87 billion to the Bush campaign. Surely when that eeeeevil genius Rove first heard it, he sharpened his fangs on the catacomb walls beneath Washington D.C., in preparation to bite the still-beating hearts out of the chests of Kerry staffers and DNC operatives. Yes, it was that good.
For full appreciation, Mr. Unhingement’s Al Gore’s Brownshirt rant has to be taken in concert with his apoplectic "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!" This transcends political screed, my friends; this is sheer theatre, the likes of which takes a back seat only to Dean’s scream.
I was so intrigued by Bush's "hard work" references in the first debate that I blogged on it. Indeed, Bush was laboring in that first debate so much that it was painful to behold. Bush’s performance in the first debate was so bad I wanted to climb in the spiderhole Saddam had vacated. Hugh thought Bush did great, but I’m convinced to this day that Hugh and I were watching a different debate that night.
Hey wait a minute, the article in Michelle’s link was written on December 15, 2003! I thought this was a 2004 wrap-up. No matter, it gives me a chance to bask once more in the glow of perhaps my second favorite event in recent memory, maybe only eclipsed by the dual event of Bush’s ’04 reelection and John Effin’ Kerry’s defeat.
I can’t pass by this Saddam reference without mentioning Allah’s (formerly Allah’s) photoshop of a ratty, post-spiderhole Saddam saying to himself in his jail cell:
“President Bush sends his regards.” Har dee har, JERK. Five hundred more votes in Palm Beach County and I’d be on a gold-plated waterbed right now, eating Chunky Monkey and watching Kurds being fed into a smelter on closed circuit. But then, pushing a chad all the way through a slip of paper can be tricky, right? […]
One of the things we'll always remember Kerry for is his excruciatingly-lame 'Nam-reference-plus-salute to open his nomination speech.
Kerry’s salute is immortalized in this gotta-watch photoshop movie, set to the theme song of the TV cartoon Super Chicken.
PS—Don't miss Michelle's End-Of-The-Year ListMania II: The Teh Ray Zah Edition (because 'Her Heirness' deserves her own category) ;-)
The 2004 Person of the Year is the American Soldier; it will remain so as many years as we're actively fighting a War on Terror.
Time magazine recently proclaimed President Bush 2004's Person of the Year. I've got no problem with that. Bush's reelection was unquestionably the event of the year, and it goes without saying that above all else we need a Commander in Chief that will take the battle to the enemy rather than being beholden to the Anti-war Left, or a "global test."
Still in all, Person of the Year has to got to be the American soldier. Our soldiers are laying it all on the line; with gallantry and aplomb they’re exterminating Islamofascists even as I write these words, and as you read them.
We'll never be able to rightly thank or repay them for the great—and sometimes ultimate—sacrifice they make on our behalf every day.
(* Note—for the purposes of this post, the term "soldier" will be understood to encompass all activated members of the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and National Guard [as well as any other worthy individuals I may have missed] engaged in/subject to combat deployment [or hazardous duty in the support thereof] in the Great War on Terror.)
No matter how sucky my New Year's Eve’s shaping up to be, reading Michele's Worst New Year's Eve EVER is enough to put a spring in my step like George Bailey had once he found Zuzu's petals.
Nothing bouys the spirits quite like knowing someone's had it worse. ;-) Atta boy, Clarence! Thanks, Michele.
Weep, Kufr!
Click on allahpundit.com and you'll see why. That's right, infidel, it’s official; Allah—the moongod with mojoTM—has packed up his celestial tent.
The wonders of his photoshops easily rank as the greatest thing Islam has ever produced. Let Kufrs the world over glance toward Mecca, and hope that he continues exploding photoshop bandwidth for their wonder and amazement at his old blogspot site; the blogosphere wouldn't be the same without it.
In memorium— Praise be to Allah (PBUH):
Allah Alert
Kufrs for Allah
David Warren's description of the Left is spot on:
What we see on the streets of Ottawa, instead, is an almost pure fanaticism -- that radical spirit of alienation that ultimately motivates the Jihadis, too. This nihilism is the splinter in the heart of our modernity; it rejects everything; it proposes, finally, nothing in its place. It is the devil himself speaking out of his void, leading finally to the silence of Iago.
To understand it, we must look into the very faces contorted with rage, and the mouths uttering the vilest obscenities. The evil is not coming from outside them: it is instead welling from the void within.
And yet the tragedy of these people -- whose fanaticism puts them beyond the pale of give-and-take in party politics, and whose views, should they spread, would take the whole democratic order down with them -- is that they know even less about themselves than they know about the world they condemn. They are angry, but finally they don't know why.
They don't believe in evil, as a category; yet it haunts them externally on every side: "Bush" being only the straw man of the moment. And unlike the actual Mr. Bush, they do not believe in grace, either. They see evil everywhere. They rail, and they rail.
You could call them spiteful, but that would be psychologizing. (h/t LGF)
A certain fat, disgusting slob has said:
"The right wing is not where America is at. … It's just a small minority of people who hate. They hate. They exist in the politics of hate. They're not patriots, they're hate-triots, and they believe in the politics of hate-triotism. Hate-triotism is where they stand ... . They're not going to go without a fight, and believe me, they are better fighters than we are. I mean, they are up at six in the morning trying to figure out which minority group they're going to screw today. The hate they eat for breakfast. They are going to fight and they are going to smear, and they are going to lie, and they are going to hate."
This classic Michael Moore quote (2004) is the epitome of projection; the Left eats hate like Moore eats Krispy Kreme.
I am still stunned that this remains an issue that many in the legal community think reasonable people can actually disagree on.
Let's summarize the salient facts:
1. The musical group OutKast put a song on their 1998 album called "Rosa Parks" - a name that has well known and has national, if not universal cultural significance.
2. The album was sold in bookstores.
3. Rosa Parks sues OutKast the bookstores for $5-billion in damages for selling an item that uses her name without permission. (Yes - that's BILLION with a "B"...unless the USA Today article happens to have a typo in it.)
I can only assume that
the reason OutKast is even thinking of settlement talks is because they don't want to be seen as upsetting a civil rights icon and figure that their Federal Appeals Court is biased in her favor.
The Orwellian quote of the year comes from Detroit attorney Gregory Reed who asks, "What would it say if anyone were allowed to come along and put Rosa Parks' name on something she didn't consent to or even agree with? That would take away her own ability to say what she really stood for."
Let's substitute a name in that quote to make the obvious legal problems even starker....
"What would it say if anyone were allowed to come along and put George Bush's name on something he didn't consent to or even agree with? That would take away his own ability to say what he really stood for."
(Continue to insert the name of any other President or politically active figure into that quote in order to fully appreciate how the legal community has hijacked free speech in this country.)
Here is another link to the staggering unanimous (!!!???) 6th Circuit opinion that actually reinstated Park's lawsuit in part because:
"[W]e believe that the artistic relationship between the title and the content of the song is certainly not obvious..."
...
"While Defendants' lyrics contain profanity and a great deal of "explicit" language (together with a parental warning), they contain absolutely nothing that could conceivably, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered, explicitly or implicitly, a reference to courage, to sacrifice, to the civil rights movement or to any other quality with which Rosa Parks is identified. If the requirement of 'relevance' is to have any meaning at all, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the title Rosa Parks is not relevant to the content of the song in question."
...
"It appears that the district court's rendition of summary judgment for OutKast was based on the court's conclusion that Defendants' use of Plaintiff's name as the song's title was "metaphorical and symbolic." Id. at 780. The obvious question, however, is symbolic of what? There is no doubt that Rosa Parks is a symbol. As the parties agree, she is 'an international symbol of freedom, humanity, dignity and strength.' J.A. at 79. There is not even a hint, however, of any of these qualities in the song to which Defendants attached her name. In lyrics that are laced with profanity and in a 'hook' or chorus that is pure egomania, many reasonable people could find that this is a song that is clearly antithetical to the qualities identified with Rosa Parks."
...
"...[T]he fact that Defendants cry 'artist' and 'symbol' as reasons for appropriating Rosa Parks' name for a song title does not absolve them from potential liability for, in the words of Shakespeare, filching Rosa Parks' good name."
Read the whole decision. It provides a perfect example of what kind of legal decisions you end up with when you violate Levine's First Rule of Law.
So there you have it folks. It's supposedly still legal to write a song decrying old CEO's bedding barely legal teens. But don't entitle the song "Bill Clinton" for symbolic purposes, or you too could be liable for violating the ex-President's "rights".
I don't know what is more depressing - this appeals court decision, or the fact that many in the legal community will fail to see the facial irony in the above quotes and think that the Appeals Court was right not to grant summary judgement.
But then this egregious censorship by the political-celebrity elite isn't new, is it?
Let's hope Calblog isn't sued for using a famous name in the title of this post...
Echoing as a lonely dirge from some distant minaret, this sad announcement from Allah—his famed site is to close at the end of the year.
He'll still have his old blogspot site, but you'd better hurry on over to allahpundit to view once more his "Dean-o" photoshops (located toward the top of the right-hand column), the best photoshop bonanza ever conceived.
Fortunately for me—wily kufr that I am—I've already saved Allah's "Dean-o" extravaganza to hard drive (yep, all 169 objects!) for my future personal viewing enjoyment.
Let us not think of the babe in the manger as merely a static scene, as if a million miles and a zillion years away from our jaded, faith-challenged world. The swaddled One—and the heaven that heralded His birth—is much nearer to us today than we think.
Heaven and earth are no wider apart today than when shepherds listened to the angels' song. Humanity is still as much the object of heaven's solicitude as when common men of common occupations met angels at noonday, and talked with the heavenly messengers in the vineyards and the fields. To us in the common walks of life, heaven may be very near. ...
The story of Bethlehem is an exhaustless theme. In it is hidden "the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God." Rom. 11:33. We marvel at the Saviour's sacrifice in exchanging the throne of heaven for the manger, and the companionship of adoring angels for the beasts of the stall. Human pride and self-sufficiency stand rebuked in His presence. (—Ellen White)
Let us not shrink from the rebuke His presence brings to our human pride and self-sufficiency—it can only do us good.
Merry Christmas, all!
Yesterday Dennis Prager cited the following article on his radio show:
Susan Rosenbluth and fellow Orthodox Jews yesterday came to Maplewood, N.J., to join a crowd of more than 100 carolers in singing Christmas and Hanukkah songs in front of Columbia High School.
Holiday hymns were sung in response to school policies that Steve Lonegan -- the Republican mayor of nearby Bogota, N.J., who organized the event -- called "intolerance" toward traditional religious beliefs.
The carolers showed up outside the school, which held its annual holiday music program last night, to protest a South Orange/Maplewood School District ban on religious songs at schools in this community across the Hudson River from New York.
"The greatest works of art in Western civilization are inspired by religious -- predominantly Christian -- convictions," said Mrs. Rosenbluth, editor of Jewish Voice and Opinion, an Englewood-based monthly.
"We are religious Jews who believe Western civilization is the heritage of all of our children in the United States," Mrs. Rosenbluth said, explaining why she and other Orthodox Jews joined the protest.
[…]
He, Mrs. Rosenbluth and about 200 fellow carolers, all in high spirits, sang such traditional tunes as "Silent Night," "We Wish You a Merry Christmas" and "Joy to the World" -- as well as "Come Light the Menorah" and "I Have a Little Dreydl."
[…]
Mr. Lonegan called the school district's prohibition of traditional Christmas music "the ultimate demonstration of intolerance by a small minority of people who appear to be offended by the very core values that the vast majority of Americas live by -- Jews, Moslems, Christian, who all believe in one God."
What a wonderful protest. How it does good for my heart this Christmas season. How I wish I could have been there to add my voice to theirs.
Jews and Christians should have no greater friends than one another. When the ACLU tries to wield lawsuits as a wrecking ball against Christians, Christian organizations, or Christian ideals, devout adherents to Judaism should be arm and arm, defending their Christian brothers. When anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in its innumerable forms, Christians should be front and center, denouncing bigotry against their Jewish brothers.
I'm neither a Jew, nor an adherent of Judaism (except as it forms a foundation for my Protestant faith)—yet to me a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv is as a terrorist attack in Washington D.C. He who strikes Israel, strikes me.
I would put Eugene Volokh on Levine's Top 10 List of Academic Greats. But I think he misses the mark in his recent analysis of copyright law.
There is indeed a well founded reason to hold (as Volokh puts it) a "cynical view" of how judges apply copyright laws.
The "parody/satire" distinction that Volokh cites from Campbell v. Acuff-Rose suffers from this fatal flaw:
any use of an original composition in a new work will always constitute a "comment" on the original work to some degree. It then becomes a matter of subjective interpretation to determine how significant the degree is.
Sometimes the "comment" will be in the forefront of the new work. Other times, it will lie as an abstraction underneath the surface text of the new creation that utilizes the original work. But determining such distinctions will always be a subjective artistic interpretation that should be irrelevant as far as First Amendment protections are concerned.
Therefore, any judge who attempts to apply the "parody/satire" distinction will inevitably violate Levine's First Rule of Law: It is inherently illegitimate for courts to use subjective artistic interpretations in order to decide substantive issues of law.
In September, employees said that Moore was shoving a microphone at people at GlaxoSmithKline, Bloom notes, even though he was in town only for a radio appearance. (LAT, h/t Michelle)
One fine day someone's going to feed him his own camera and give him a thorough a$$-kicking. Tell you what, I’m counting on it. Personally, I can't wait for that glad day; his comeuppance will be an occasion for celebration, mirth, and good cheer.
Looks like Michele ain't getting her Big Unit for Christmas.
The Dodgers have single-handedly won a victory for the Rebellion, torpedoing Sith Lord Steinbrenner's evil designs on luring hurler Randy 'Big Unit' Johnson to the Dark Side.
As ESPN reports:
Yankees president Randy Levine had harsh words for the Dodgers after the deal's collapse.
"The Dodgers reneged on the deal that was agreed to last Friday, unequivocally and with no contingencies except for a window for contract extensions and physicals," Levine said. "For some reason, the Dodgers over the weekend started to backpedal. Why they would break their word is only something they can answer. It sure is disappointing, and we'll have to think long and hard before ever doing business with the Dodgers again."
Anything the Dodgers can do to piss off, frustrate, and subvert Steinbrenner's plans for world domination can only be a good thing.
Way to go, Blue Crew! :-)
Without even breaking a sweat, Michelle Malkin destroys Bush's embarrassingly lame pleas for "Immigration reform" backdoor amnesty. Read it here.
Here's hoping Hugh Hewitt doesn't now label her "Anti-Mexico," as he labeled 'John and Ken' on his show last Friday.
The title of this post is lifted from McGehee. I couldn't say it better myself.
Further, McGehee cites a Fox news article, including this quote:
Rumsfeld’s controversial response was: “You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have."
McGehee's response is dead on:
Only an idiot would find controversy in a simple statement of fact. If Bush is going to cave in to pressure to boot Rumsfeld over this—after standing by him through the trumped-up Abu Ghraib firestorm—then Bush might as well retract his victory speech and let Kerry have the job come January 20.
Precisely. The simple reality of Rumsfeld's statement should speak for itself.
It seems the dems, the media, and disgruntled Republicans are trying to give Rumsfeld the Lott treatment. (Even Lott's trying to give Rumsfeld the Lott treatment, which is pretty disgraceful [h/t WND]) Rumsfeld's better than all of his detractors put together, in my book. The Rumsfeld scowl is just the glare we need in this harsh, post-9/11 world.
If a brusque Rumsfeld offends the delicate sensibilities of those whose fondest wish is manufacturing any pretext to damage Bush by attacking his Cabinet, too bad.
The listing of sex offenders under Megan's Law is now online and So Cal Lawyer has the details.
KFI has been at the forefront in covering the Scott Peterson trial.
Many at the station got quite a chuckle from XLRQ's "report" regarding the Peterson verdict which also proves that a regular radio advertiser is apparently getting their message out.
The award winning work of blogospheric culture diva Michele has inspired me to post a culture (subculture?)-related nugget I submitted in the comments section at Matthew's Froggy Ruminations.
WARNING: If you were never into the cheesy kung fu genre, don't trouble yourself with viewing the abject cultural amateurism looming dead ahead in the extended entry ... Hiyaaaaaaaaaa! ...
(Matthew's excerpts indented:)
my favorites have always been the cheesy, poorly dubbed asian films.
Only in those grade-B kung fu movies could practitioners make such hellacious whooshing sounds by so much as moving their little finger (when I was younger I called it "swishuda"). I also like how they were able to leap in the air as if shot out of a cannon (sometimes even without crouching), and hang suspended in mid air so much as to make even ‘His Airness’ (aka MJ) jealous.
You mentioned the dubbing. That's right. Their mouths never moved when they were saying anything, and the striking sound never coincided with impact. Further, a single blow that registered such a cacophonous sound in real life would put an opponent down for keeps (if not make him splatter … EWWWWW!).
And of course there's all that totally bad-a$$, exotic weaponry (the kind that makes one wonder, 'could that even conform to the laws of physics?!'), which leads me to your statement ...
[I especially like] the dude with the hat that doubles as a saw.
You're talking about "The Master of the Flying Guillotine!" Oh, man, it’s all coming back to me now. That was an awesome one; sheer classic. It was what "The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly" was to spaghetti westerns. :-)
Remember the part where the blind flying guillotine master was trying to behead the hero, who had wisely ducked into a stand of bamboo? The villain used his super hearing (not so unlike the six million dollar woman … only without the bionic super-hearing noises) to track the hero's every move, but only succeeded in lopping off the tops of the bamboo, among which the hero scampered.
Yes, in a certain silly kinda way nothing touched those grade-B martial arts flicks, though the Tower of Death with Bruce Lee and Kareem was a stand-out. Also, do you remember the one where Bruce Lee’s opponent is an arch villain who is half Captain-hook, with various hand-attachments containing an arsenal of weaponry? I smile again just thinking about it.
And then there was Chuck Norris, whom one critic said his acting (ie; constant scowl) was so bad the only way you could tell if he was mad was if he kicked someone in the face. Yes, he was the face-kicker type—his trademark, you might even say. His movie “Lone Wolf McQuade” was a cult classic, and one of my favorite hokey movies. Remember where the mexican scoffs, “A Texas Ranger kicked my father’s teeth out! Are you going to kick my teeth out, Texas Raaaaanger?” Of course we KNEW what was gonna happen next. Or remember where he dusts 360-degrees worth of villains with the help of a magic Mac-10 with a bottomless clip? It even had David Carradine as the arch villain. Whether some of the action stunk or not was beside the point; it was very entertaining (at least IMHO). :-)
Sheer fun; who brought the pop corn?
One thing about Bruce Lee that I found particularly annoying was his massively overdone ‘cat in heat’ battle cries. Sheesh!; just fight more and meow less, alright?! It’s enough to make one want to see him vanquished if only for the sake of wiping the incessant rowwwwr out of his mouth.
No matter how many hundreds of opponents surrounded Bruce Lee, seems like they never simply dogpiled him. I would always want to scream at the TV, “Just rush him, fools!”
The quote of the day comes from female U.S. District Court Judge Anne C. Conway who declares, "The Hooters Girl is not entitled to trade dress protection because the evidence establishes to a legal certainty that the Hooters Girl is primarily functional." (hat-tip: How Appealing)
Judge Conway does away with yet another attempt to stifle free market competition by trying to wrap coercive monopolies in the smothering flag of intellectual property.
Another money quote:
"Hooters simply cannot prevent a competitor from using a server outfit as different as a black tank top and black running shorts. If Hooters could stop Winghouse from using that particular color and combination, then it could prevent any other competitor from using any color combination of tank top and running shorts. This would be an impermissible burden on competition. Moreover, a server uniform consisting of a tank top t-shirt and nylon running shorts is fairly common to sports bar and grills. Hooters cannot monopolize this generic theme any more than an upscale steak restaurant featuring tuxedo-clad servers could preclude competitors from using the same or similar uniform."
Obligatory pics here (pic hat-tip: Trademark Blog)
I continue to maintain that the modern-day practice of intellectual property law by the legal establishment
has devolved into a form of outsourced socialism if you will - a system that encourages the stifling of legitimate free market competition which has been created and nurtured by governmental institutions for the benefit of its private benefactors looking to secure monopolies on their given industries. Let this case be Exhibit 1 for that proposition.
Winghouse of Florida has prevailed - but how much money did they have to spend in the legal system fighting for the right to merely exist?
I say, "Long live free market hot wings and waitresses with extra tight outfits!"
UPDATE: I have been told that some of you still need to see more "evidence" before you decide the pressing issue of "trade dress" protections for Hooter's-style waitresses.
Who am I to deny readers such important evidence? You know my position, but feel free to judge for yourselves...
Results are in for the 2004 People's Blog Award.
And the winner is? ...
Little Green Footballs!
On whose authority is the winner declared? Well, on mine ... and on yours (by the time you finish this post); it is—after all—the people’s award for The People’s Blog.
What exactly are the criteria for winning the "People's Blog Award?"
Simple: The winner is based on…
1) the highest ranked nominee for Wizbang's Best Overall Blog category that
2) allows reader comments.
Under such criteria nobody can touch LGF for People's Blog of 2004.
Why are "reader comments" such a crucial component of The People's Blog? Quite simply, nothing binds a blog to its readers as the ability to directly respond to posts. This act magically transforms detached readers into active contributors; in a measure it invests them as shareholders in the blog’s publicly held ‘stock.’ The ‘give and take’ within its comments section ‘fleshes out’ the post itself—sharpens it, deepens it, betters it; it becomes more than static form, but is born of discussion in giving birth to the same. It adds so much to the total sum.
Soon after the blogosphere burst Rather’s bubble with ‘memogate,’ The Wisdom of Crowds was referred to here and there in the blogosphere; it described how the many minds of the blogospheric collective trumped the single-minded (bias-blinded) mainstream media. Think of a blog with comments as containing the blogosphere itself in microcosm—containing within itself the very seeds of the powerhouse of which it is a part.
Conversely, non-comment blogs reduce each post to a climate-controlled museum piece to be viewed as statuary behind the glass, observed but never touched by accompanying reader remarks. Such readership is reduced to the abject serfdom of perpetual lurker status; they are afforded no place on the blog to become anything more than voiceless lurkers.
Comments are, of course, a two-edged sword; moderating them is the Achilles' heel of allowing them in the first place. Large blogs almost universally swear them off as completely unmanageable. How busy is LGF on any given day? That varies, but 16 posts appeared on LGF last Friday, yielding roughly 2,750 comments. The thought of moderating such a site would seem nightmarish, if even humanly possible. It takes a web wizard Lizard like LGF's Charles Johnson to craft a registration system complex enough to service his vast host of devoted 'Lizardoid minions,' while keeping the 'Morlock' hordes (aka trolls) at bay with a modicum of moderator oversight.
LGF is virtually the marriage of bulletin board and blog—a ‘people-powered’ place of which Howard Dean could only dream scream. Every day at LGF hundreds of minds wrangle with a dozen or more of the day’s most compelling, explosive events; all of this with the wonderful results of a crowd’s wisdom. Small wonder Little Green Footballs has galvanized such a dedicated society of well-earned reader-respondents.
Congrats, Charles, you mensch! (and now People’s Blogger of the Year—2004!) Mazel tov and L'Chaim! :-)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. John McCain, the straight-talking Republican who often challenges the GOP establishment, has taken on a headline-grabbing issue - steroids in baseball - and generated talk of a presidential bid in 2008.
As Matt Margolis notes (h/t BTW),
Somehow, I doubt this is going to be the issue that elevates McCain as a potential frontrunner for the GOP in 2008. There are bigger issues that affect a lot more people than steroids in baseball.
I would agree, though McCain may think this is the 'sauce' that locks up the nomination and puts him in "The Clear" (and we're not talkin' flaxseed oil [right, Barry?]). ;-)
Heh.
Hugh has cited the ongoing Bear Flag League debate over at The Weekly Standard (also found at Real Clear Politics, Dec 9)
I was unaware that the article made its way over to CBS.NEWS.com, until Justene (esteemed Calblog proprietress) Emailed me the link, and wrote, "YOU made CBS news. Ain't blogging cool?" Yep, sure is ... um, unless you're Dan Rather. Heh. ;-)
(PS to this—Being linked at CBS News is ok, I guess; what I was really hoping for was some linkage at blogger nirvana. I even checked. I know, I know [sigh] ... dream on.)
The Hugh Hewitt quote reads:
I long ago revealed myself as a single-issue voter: I favor the most conservative Republican in the primary most likely to win the general election. The GOP has never had many of what I call this orientation: principled pragmatists. In fact, a debate is raging even now among bloggers such as Patterico, PrestoPundit, CalBlog, In the Agora, and Interocitor, over the arguments for principled pragmatism that I laid out in my last book. (Calblog emphasis supplied)
(I will here note that The Yell's excellent post at Tan Horizons somehow missed inclusion, which is unfortunate.)
Patterico is worthy of special recognition as having initiated the conversation; undertaken the 'Great Hugh Hewitt Book Giveaway (a bold stroke indeed);' and generally acted as moderator through the ongoing debate. Visit his Principled Pragmatism category for the best one-stop view of the ongoing discussion.
Good work everyone, and let's keep the discussion going.
PS—I'm still hoping that XRLQ, Spoons, Angry Clam, etc., will post their thoughts on 'principled pragmatism' as well.
PPS—Now go and read Hugh's article in its entirety, if you haven't already.
PPPS—I just noticed Patterico also got mentioned in another Hewitt article (this time World Net Daily, Dec 8), which makes it two Hugh Hewitt article references in two days! Gotta be some kinda record. Congrats, Patterico, you deserve it. :-)
Drawing a mouse can still be illegal in this country.
[Hat-tip: Trademark blog]
Like many others, I thought it was silly to try and attack Michael Moore with accusations of intellectual property violations for using the title "Fahrenheit 9/11".
Not only did I think it was silly, but was firmly convinced that it was wrong as a matter of law.
After all, if Moore was infringing on Ray Bradbury's rights in using the title "Fahrenheit 9/11",
then certainly Dick Morris was infringing on his rights too with "Fahrenhype 9/11". Right? If you follow this line of reasoning, then you could even say that Morris was infringing on both Bradbury's rights and Moore's rights to the extent that the "Fahrenheit 9/11" title was lawfully used (i.e., the use of the number "9/11").
From the beginning, I thought all of these arguments to be as silly as a Marx Brothers movie. Just another prime example of legal hacks abusing intellectual property law for partisan purposes.
Still, some insisted that Bradbury might still have a valid case.
Today's virtually unanimous (save for a few footnotes) Supreme Court decision should finally settle the matter - at least for those who are intellectually honest enough to admit that Moore should be battled via competing ideas, not legal schemes amounting to censorship.
I remain astounded that anyone would seriously argue that people would legitimately walk into Moore's film expecting to see a work by Ray Bradbury. But then I remain astounded by many things in life I suppose - especially in the legal world.
Meanwhile, this blogger extends a rare thank you to the Supreme Court for putting at least a modicum of rationality back into the concept of "fair use" in trademark law.
Now let's see some similar rulings for fair use in copyright....
Tuesday on KFI's John & Ken Show, the hosts took issue once again with recent 'Political Human Sacrifice' target California Representative David Dreier. …
J&K had been nice to Dreier recently, because Dreier had been duly chastened in the recent election, and seemed to make at least a pretense of taking a tougher (i.e.; principled) stand on immigration and national security.
Dreier had promised to vote against letting the bill out of committee, and to vote against the bill on the floor. When the moment of truth came, Dreier showed his true, lying, weaselly colors. He voted for the bill ... twice.
John Kobylt railed against Dreier for the sell-out he was, and promised renewed war against Dreier, and not only against Dreier, but against the kiss-up collection of Southern California conservative talk shows that give Dreier puff-piece interviews. A few seconds later, John shouted, "Stuff it, Hugh Hewitt!"
I must say that Hugh Hewitt is a chief offender. Hugh treats Dreier like royalty, and never questions Dreier’s record. The word that best describes it is, “deferential.” Conversely, Hugh commonly refers to John and Ken as "knuckleheads" for having targeted Dreier with "Political Human Sacrifice." I believe Hugh’s disparagement of J & K reflects poorly on Hugh, and to his own detriment. Hugh’s a better man than that.
Let it be noted Hugh's Show is my favorite talk show. I consider myself a Hugh Hewitt fan, and am maybe in about 90% agreement with his political philosophy. Most of the 10% disagreement I have with Hugh is in his refusal to challenge fellow Republicans.
While I agree with Hugh that as Republicans we must circle the wagons against a greater foe (i.e.; Democrats) come general elections, I believe the way one keeps such a vow to unity from becoming a farce is by lively challenge and debate within the party inbetween elections.
While I would not use verbiage as strong as John Kobylt's ("Stuff it, Hugh Hewitt!"), I definitely side more with J & K on the issue of challenging Republicans such as Dreier than with Hugh's kid-glove treatment.
Today the U.S. Congress bought a lemon of an intelligence bill (also referred to as—albeit unworthily—the anti-terror bill), one whose grave shortcoming could end up getting a whole lot of Americans killed.
I’ll hope in a later post to adequately vent my spleen over this atrocious sell-out of our national security. For now I’ll simply post the text of James Sensenbrenner’s speech on the House floor. He describes matters as well and succinctly as anyone …
__________________________________________
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) delivered the following statement during today's House floor debate on the 9/11 Commission implementation legislation conference report:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. The House bill not only reformed our intelligence community - it also secured our border. Unfortunately, the conference has left us with an incomplete product that does not secure the border.
The House bill followed the 9/11 Commission's common sense recommendation that we have federal standards for driver's licenses. The 9/11 Commission said: "For terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons." Despite many attempts to keep these weapons away from terrorists, this bill does not do the job.
In fact, the language in the conference report is worse than current law, and it practically invites terrorists to come into our country and apply for these crucial identification documents. There is no enforcement or certification at the national level. There is no expiration when the visa expires. There is no data sharing between the states. And any state can simply walk away from the requirements. That does not sound like drivers' license reform to me. Rather, it sounds like a recipe for disaster - the same kind of disaster that happened on 9/11. Remember that the 9/11 hijackers had multiple validly issued state licenses among them. That is how they got on to those airplanes. That is what we were trying to stop with these provisions. I regret that we have failed, but I can assure you that the issue is not going away.
We have also failed on asylum reform. Many terrorist aliens have applied for asylum and then been released from detention to plot or commit their crimes. That must stop and our provisions would have done that, but they too have been dropped.
Terrorists are getting asylum today for two main reasons. First, our government cannot ask foreign governments what evidence they have about the terrorist activities of asylum applicants. Thus, the U.S. government must usually oppose an asylum request by arguing that the applicant is lying. The 9th Circuit has effectively barred immigration judges from denying asylum claims on the basis of credibility determinations. That is crazy - every jury in the country judges the credibility of witnesses. Our bill would have stopped that.
In addition, the 9th Circuit has been granting asylum to applicants because their home government believes they are terrorists. It then says that therefore they are being persecuted because of the political beliefs of the relevant terrorist organization. Our bill would have stopped that nonsense as well. That issue is not going away either.
These provisions are not too controversial - they are vital. How could we face grieving families in the future and tell them that while we might have done more, the legislative hurdles were just too high? I, for one, cannot, and I, therefore, oppose this bill.
I have heard from many average citizens from my district and across the country who understand and want these provisions. I thank them for their support. I want to say to them and to everyone else that is listening: I will not rest until these provisions are enacted. I will bring them up relentlessly, and the job will be completed. This bill was a chance to complete the job. That chance was missed, but it will come again soon.
Just Emailed this to Allahpundit ...
Allah,
You posted today! You P-O-S-T-E-D ! ! ! :-D
I've got just one thing to say: Shaaane... Shaaaaane, Come Back Shane!
But—drat—you've shut your comments off. This kufr thinks he know why ... ‘cause Allah in his wisdom knows that thousands of sad little kufrs like me would be STUFFING his glorious comments section, begging him to come back.
O, Allah … please, please, PLEASE come back, you big, adorable photoshop moon-god, you! If Mohammed (peace [barf!] be upon him) was HALF as cool as you, we'd ALL be bowing to Mecca by now!
Well, this infidel intends to do something about it. I'm hereby putting out a reverse-fatwa, forbidding your retirement. The blogosphere just hasn't been the same without you, Allah.
One of your innumerable fans,
Clark
Patterico nails down another example of legal double-speak by noted law professor Ewrin Chemerinsky in furtherance of partisan gains.
Incidentally, Catherine Fisk, the Loyola Law Professor who co-authored the 1997 law review article on Senate filibusters along with Chemerinsky, also happens to be his wife.
Dean has some reflections on a woman changing her last name when she gets married. I never changed my name. It never occurred to me to do so. The thought of changing all those credit cards, my license to practice law, etc. seemed unecessary. Besides, changing my last name seemed as odd as changing my first name. Little did I realize that eventually, my name would be Mommy most of the time.
At first, the Calblog husband was unhappy. We discovered how unhappy at a particularly inconvenient time, when he couldn't retrieve a rental car because the reservation was under my last name. He had assumed I had used his.
Now, however, he is glad we have different last names. we have a law practice together and we have the choice of when to let people know we are married. Some people like it. Others are uncomfortable, generally assuming that I am only there because I am his wife and I can't really practice law. If we are comfortable with you, we won't have to tell you. You'll know pretty quickly by the way we talk. Still, different last names gives us some choice over keeping our business relationship independent from our marriage.
File this under Weird, Very weird!...
A public service ad paid for by the Los Angeles County public health agency to raise awareness about the dangers of syphilis has been rejected by local television stations that consider the content inappropriate.
[…]
The 30-second syphilis public service spot features "Phil the Sore," a lumpy, red cartoon character with an earring, who follows two men going home together. As the men later part, one of them, dressed in a bathrobe and underwear, says, "Let's do it again sometime." Phil then calls in his whole family, whose members carry boxes labeled "brain damage," "rash" and "blindness" — all potential results of syphilis.
Hat tip to Matthew Heidt, whose following quote speaks my mind...
Phil the Sore, are you kidding me? To actually have a cartoon that promotes homosexual one night stands is phreaking outrageous!
Strong words; but given the conduct inherently advocated in the commercial, who can blame him? I sure can't.
[Body of post later edited for content by author.]
Boi From Troy, the gay Republican sports fan blogger, celebrates the 20th anniversary of the incorporation of West Hollywood, the 1.9 square mile gay enclave in Los Angeles known affectionately as "Queerville." He describes his town as the first democracy to elect a majority-gay governing body and notes that the "sky did not fall." (from D. Weintraub)
There are few things that 'make the sky fall.' That does not mean, however, that those things which advance by slow increments are necessarily good things ... or that the sky—though it may not fall—never sags.
CALLAWAY, Fla. -- Help, police, someone stole my pot!
A Panhandle couple is under arrest after notifying police Thursday that their quarter-pound stash of marijuana was stolen and that they needed the weed back, because they were going to later sell it.
[…]
According to the police report, the couple returned to the home they share and found the home broken into and a quarter-pound of marijuana missing. They immediately called authorities to report the break-in and theft.
Police said the couple told them they were going to resell the marijuana and allowed the detectives to search the apartment. Investigators discovered several marijuana stems among other drug paraphernalia during the search, The News Herald in Panama City reported for Saturday editions. (hat tip McGehee)
Sheesh! Not even Cheech & Chong could have come up with a shtick like that.
That’s about as brainless as committing armed robbery after elbowing aside a bunch of uniformed cops in line at the local Krispy Kreme.
Well, at least now I’ve found something dumber than what Damon Stoudemire did in 2003:
Portland Trail Blazers point guard Damon Stoudamire was arrested for possession of marijuana in Tucson International Airport, marking his third arrest for the same criminal offense in 14 months. He has been fined $250,000 and suspended indefinitely by the organization.
That’s not the worst of it, though. He was caught ‘cause he wrapped his weed in tinfoil—yes, you heard that right … in tinfoil!—before heading to the airport. Then, when his bundle of dope set off the metal detector, he put it in the tray for inspection. D’Oh! It’s a wonder the guy has the gray matter to dribble a basketball.
Well, at least Damon’s sheer stupidity has been bested.
Time to make a difference in Iraq. Spirit of America has worked hard to win the peace there, not with troops but by helping its people rebuild their society.
There's now a blogger fundraising challenge and Bear Flag League has joined as a group. California Bloggers uniting for something more than exchanging words. we'd like your help. If you support the Bear Flag League, are a fan of one of its blogs, are a California conservative, want to help in Iraq or all of the above, go here and contribute.
The BFL is way behind the Northern Alliance, a much smaller group of blogs. Now is the time to show the world that conservatives in California really are a force to be reckoned with.
On Thursday, KFI's late-night radio talkshow host John Zeigler devoted almost an entire hour to a puffball, kissy-face interview with 'Kevorkian-lite' California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys).
Levine wants to bring Oregon's assisted suicide here to California, and is drafting a bill to be introduced next month to the California legislature. Zeigler's only complaint?: this Oregon-style death on demand is "gutless," because it "doesn't go far enough." Zeigler then gushed his personal druthers that anyone at least 70 years old should get a stipend from Social Security toward a going-away party if they'll agree to off themselves early. Sweet guy (NOT!) that Zeigler ... at least on this life and death issue. (I’m Emailing John Zeigler a link to this post as a way of registering with him my profound personal disgust with his Lloyd Levine interview.)
Zeigler's folly—along with the rest of the ‘let ‘em die’ lobby—is precisely defined in Zeigler’s own words: the boundaries are forever “gutless” and never “go far enough.” The envelope is inevitably pushed farther and farther—yesterday abortion; today assisted suicide; tomorrow euthanasia. The ‘Culture of Death’ is never satiated.
[more below…]
Zeigler would doubtless scoff at me as a fanatic, but then he’s probably unaware of the newly minted Groningen Protocol in the Netherlands, which recommends guidelines for euthanasia of the retarded and comatose by independent committee.
As the Netherlands is at present, so shall we be in the future if we follow the course that the Netherlands has set in the past. For the life of me I can't understand why 'right to death' proponents can't read in the past and present history of the Netherlands their own ghastly roadmap for the future.
California Assemblywoman Patty Berg (D-Santa Rosa) boasts:
"We're working closely with Oregon, and we've had a couple other states interested in working with us as well, because as California goes, so does the rest of the nation." [from top link above]
Oh goody, ‘(Assisted) Suicide Nation!’
The lawmakers expect to get the majority-vote bill through the Democrat- dominated Legislature and figure Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a social moderate, will seriously consider it, the Daily News reported. [ibid]
These people are as deadly serious as their agenda is seriously deadly. Advocates for the sanctity of life had better get the word out and get active, or Oregon’s death on demand will be coming to the Golden State in short order.
OTHER LINKS OF INTEREST
The most info-rich article I've seen on it (Sac Bee): New Effort for Law on Right to Die.
LifeNews.Com: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger [...] has not commented on whether he would sign such legislation if it lands on his desk."
Official Statement from the Catholic Church.
Michele laments another fallen sports star:
As for Jason Giambi, I'm not shocked, not even slightly surprised. Sad? Yes. Disappointed? Very. Of course I knew this was coming, it's just disheartening to actually see it all admitted. The Giambi jersey is retired from the wardrobe as of today. And my growing animosity towards professional sports deepens. [Michele's Giambi link updated]
I've already blogged (Barry ‘Roids a Walking Asterisk) on steroid use as a hallmark of a dirty player, and a grand act of invalidation that irreparably tarnishes any player’s quest for greatness and renown within their discipline.
When compared to his fellow user by the Bay—however—Giambi is a very personable, likeable individual, even though the latter has found recent employment by the Evil Empire. It is sad to see him now twice fallen.
And speaking of the Evil Empire, I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw that the Big Unit will not be in pinstripes next year. I respect him too much to abide the thought of him as the latest hired gun in Steinbrenner's relentless, sinister quest for world domination.
As longtime readers know, about a year and a half ago, I posted what I thought was a passing comment on Infotel Publications, which was demanding about $300 from my law firm. That resulted in a firestorm. I got not one, but two, legal threats and made significant news around the blogosphere. I invite those who contributed to the discussion to highlight their efforts in the comments.
There are some comments on the original Infotel thread that Infotel has been raided by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and federal agents (of the Canadian government's Competition Bureau). I have confirmed that information through a story in St. John's Telegram. If you want to read the story, you have to search the archives and pay $3.95. The Canadian federal agency has not given out details on the raid yet.
UPDATE: I corrected the name of the police and the name of the newspaper.
I had earlier complained of the unwarranted praise of John Effin' Kerry as "healer and statesman," following his unduly belated concession speech the day after he lost the '04 election to G.W. Bush.
Who now will venture calling this whining loser a "healer and statesman?" Kerry's still contesting the election in Ohio!:
Though Election Day was almost one month ago and Sen. John Kerry conceded the presidential race, his campaign is still not giving up in Ohio, the state which gave President Bush enough electoral votes for re-election.
Kerry's campaign is looking to join a legal battle over the state's impending recount, and has asked an Ohio judge for permission to join two third-party candidates in the process. […]
One of Kerry's gaggle of lawyers said of Kerry’s Ohio legal machinations, "It should be a full, fair and accurate recount."
Hmmm; where have we heard that language before? Sheesh! If they're going to use Gore's standard 2000 boilerplate, at least they could show an iota of creativity and not recite it verbatim.
At least Gore was fighting over hundreds of votes; Kerry lost by almost one hundred and fifty thousand, and yet he's fighting a month later with no end in sight. Hugh Hewitt’s mantra may be “If it’s not close, they can’t cheat,” but now the standard Democrat response is that they’re damn well gonna try, whether it’s close or not.
"Healer and statesman" my arse!, Kerry's worse—yes, far worse—than even the original Sore Loserman himself ... Al Gore.
UPDATE
One commenter asserts the following:
Recounts are not per se cheating
A key aspect of my post is the understanding that the wrongful and over-aggressive use of recounts can indeed take the form of cheating.
How so?:
1) When recounts are used as a way to troll for votes (especially when applied in a selective fashion).
2) When recounts are sought numerous times as a stratagem for playing the system 'til a favorable tally is achieved (as though recounts are some sort of roulette wheel to be spun until the desired 'number' pops up).
Gore—it will be remembered—played both of these strategies to near perfection in Florida 2000.
Both strategies are, by the way, being replicated in spades at this very moment in the still-ongoing contested governor’s race in Washington State.
(Welcome CBSNEWS.com and The Weekly Standard readers! Thanks for stopping by, and happy reading.)
Patterico’s recent post “A Review of Hugh Hewitt’s Latest Book” is must reading for Republicans with any interest in actual politics, and in the mechanics of successful political gamesmanship. Please read his whole post for proper context, as the excerpts I cite will give a lopsided view if considered devoid of context.
I want to thank Patterico right at the outset for opening up this discussion, and—notwithstanding the strong opinions he has on the matter—the even-handedness with which he has forwarded the discussion. It’s a discussion we’d be fools not to have.
The purpose of this post is to respond to a few of Patterico’s many salient points, and—I hope—add a few of my own.
A MONOPOLY ON “PRINCIPLE?”
Patterico states:
I come from the school of principled Republicans exemplified by Spoons, Kevin Murphy, the Angry Clam, and Kathryn Jean Lopez. We are the most upset when Republicans fail to fight for what we believe to be core Republican principles: limited government, free speech, conservative judges, gun rights, and other bedrock conservative ideals.
Before I respond to this, I want to say in preface that I hold myself a comrade in politics with Patterico, Spoons, Kevin Murphy, Angry Clam, KJL, etc. Really we’re all fighting against the same thing: liberal lunacy and its attendant threat to our society and nation. Differences among us pale in comparison to the agreements we share. Our chief differences are only in methods of achieving the goals we all share.
That having been said, I will first take a kindly exception to one school of Republican thought taking upon itself the mantle “the school of principled Republicans.” (emphasis supplied) I hope that no Republican school of thought ever comes to feel it has a corner on principle within the Party. We all have much to share, that is one thing that makes the Republican Party so rich and vibrant.
HOW BEST TO “FIGHT FOR … CORE REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES.”
I think Hugh makes some good points. His advocacy of pragmatism is a concept purists should take seriously. Hugh wants the same things most of us want; that comes across loud and clear. He just has a different idea about how to achieve them.
Precisely—which brings me back to my previous excerpt from Patterico’s post, namely his lamentation that ‘less principled’ Republicans fail to “fight for what we believe to be core Republican principles.” I beg to differ with this. Just because others choose to fight in a different way does not mean they have chosen not to fight.
I apologize in advance (and submit myself to resultant fisking) if I here misrepresent the principle of Patterico and company, but as far as I can tell, their idea of fighting for what they believe in is the principle of accepting defeat wherever substantial compromise is the price of victory.
Now begging the pardon of my ‘more principled’ fellow Republicans, but Democrats will eat us for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and midnight snacks if that is our method of doing politics. Democrats play for keeps; they know this is a game of survival, of eat or be eaten. If there’s anything they get, it’s the idea that in politics winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing. Not only are they willing to commit any fraud; dirty trick; any violation of courtesy, fairness, ethics, or legality that they think they can get away with; they also have the mainstream media on their side as a perpetual Dem-friendly PR machine.
As principled Republicans we need to realize just what we face in our opponent—namely, a determined, no-holds-barred, smash-mouth Democrat Party that mercilessly savages opponents even as they play the victim card, accusing wascally Wepbuwicans of ‘being mean.’ While principle must forbid us from violating ethics or legality to win, I beg all my fellow Republicans that we must at least be as committed to victory as our opponents are if we want to stand a chance against them.
It would be folly to employ Marquis of Queensbury Rules against a ‘full contact’ black belt; why do we think we’d have any greater success in opposing Democrats who will win at any price when we will only accept victory on certain conditions … such as on the condition we don’t have to compromise anywhere along the way?
Those who Patterico refers to as Pragmatists—and I myself am one—believe the American political system requires victory (in legislatures referred to as a majority) in order to wage anything approaching an effective fight in the political arena.
To recap: If you want to fight, win! Win, and the relatively minor compromises you made to get there will prove infinitesimally small by comparison. And don’t anyone tell me you can hold your head up high ‘cause though you lost you preserved your honor. After the Dems went ballistic in the aftermath of the 2000 elections—yes, especially after that—they will in political terms beat five shades of brown out of those they defeat; believe me, there’s no honor in that.
I’m spouting all this pragmatist blasphemy as a former fellow Kool-Aid drinker who—I say to my shame—withheld his vote from G.W. Bush in 2000 because Bush was not as firmly pro-life and pro-family as I would have liked. Bush wasn’t pure enough for my tastes. So, really, I’m not so unlike my ‘more principled’ fellow Republicans. Been there, done that.
Only thing is … since then I wised up.
Politics 101 is simply this:
1) Any Republican is better (in other words more generally aligned with what Patterico defines as “core Republican principles”) than the Democratic challenger.
2) Finishing second means stifling political marginalization, and all the bragging rights or smugness with one’s political purity will not make up for having not finished first.
This ain’t rocket science, and in political terms it really is all that matters insofar as forwarding one’s agenda, so you “principled Republicans” just put away that Kool-Aid and listen up. :-)
And here’s a nugget of Beltway wisdom to chew on: You can accomplish more as a majority in any one election cycle—whatever it takes to get there—than you can in ten election cycles as a minority of ankle-biters as the opposition rolls over you like a Juggernaut, setting, pushing, and enacting their agenda as the majority over your ineffectual protestations.
SPIRIT OF UNITY MUST BE EARNED
My most serious disagreement with [Hugh] is in his advice that we should almost never criticize our own. I think we have to be willing to criticize our own where appropriate.
Patterico finds me in basic agreement on the point that Republican self-criticism is necessary. Unlike the Democratic Party—which operates kind of like the Borg, a pack mentality with little to say but the party line—part of forming a majority within the Republican Party is allowing open discussion within the party. To ask elements within the Republican Party to submit to the majority influences and to do so without so much as an airing out their opinions and complaints, is to not allow them due respect, or even allowing these elements the basic right of self-respect. We all must compromise if we want to match up favorably against a generally united Democratic Party, but for any to be asked to compromise without a real ‘place at the table’ is a compromise that has not been duly earned.
The recent outcry against Arlen Specter’s ascension to Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee is—in my view—an example of inter-party criticism at its best. It showed the Party that it’s base meant business, and wouldn’t stand for kid-glove treatment of Specter; it won from Specter promises that he won’t stab the Party’s back at the soonest possible opportunity, making the Republican Senators more likely to take decisive action if Specter goes ‘off the reservation’ again.
That having been said, there’s a time for argument, and a time for agreement around a majority best-suited to defeat the opposition in any particular election cycle (unless of course Republicans like having their heads handed to them by Democrats). The election primaries are the time for jockeying within the Republican Party; the general elections are the time for pulling together for the purpose of—as Hugh aptly puts it—Crushing the Democrats in Every Election.
So count me as supporting freedom of dissent within the party. Hey, and trust me on this one, I’m about as far to the right on social issues as a Republican is likely to get; so believe me I’ve got no trouble with dissenting with a Republican majority that’s almost invariably to my left. Dissent at
the right time, place, and manner, is helpful and strengthening to the Party. Dissent at the wrong time, place, and manner can of course be deleterious to the Party, as in when dissention is allowed to hamper a Republican after the election primaries have concluded.
CALIFORNIA RECALL: A LESSON
An instructive example of how Republicans can work well—or not work well—together is seen in the 2003 California Gubernatorial Recall Election.
Then-governor Gray Davis was literally destroying California fiscally. It was imperative to get Davis recalled, before he finished bankrupting the state during his second term.
That California had recourse to the Recall apparatus—and that it managed to make it to a ballot—was indeed reckoned the smile of heaven to all of us in the Golden State who believe in a Higher Power.
The Recall—and its place upon the ballot—were worthless, however, if we didn’t oust Davis. Principled Republican contenders such as Simon, Ueberroth, and Issa bowed out when it became clear they were doing nothing but muddying the Republican challenge to Davis. Derrell Issa basically financed the Recall effort; without his $1.6M funding, the Recall would have never made it to ballot. If anyone had a right to campaign ‘til the bitter end, it was Issa. Issa, however, had the good conscience and principle to bow out when he saw he couldn’t win.
Which brings us to Tom McClintock. I know about how the Republican Party had messed him over some years back, but McClintock’s campaign in the Recall race was a petty, petty way of asserting self and/or attempting to exact revenge on a Party he felt had shafted him in times past. It was also unprincipled on McClintock’s part, which is ironic in the fact that he touted himself as the lone man of principle in the race. I can tell you it turned my stomach.
In Schwarzenegger we had a man who could unseat Davis, yes even in this liberal state of California. But there was McClintock, doing his darndest to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by diluting Schwarzenegger’s numbers, thus hampering Arnold’s head-to-head match-up against Davis on which the Recall itself would inevitably stand or fall. There was no way McClintock could win. I have to call it straight on this one; insofar as his supporters though he could win, they indulged in delusion. It was all Kool-Aid; and for McClintock it was all about himself, let true principle be damned.
Let’s be clear here—First, the Recall election was not a Primary Election, it
