03.07.09
Posted in Politics, Rants at 7:55 pm by Sulla
Mr. President,
I rooted for you in the Democratic primaries. By November, not so much. And I’ll confess that there is an extent to which I’ve enjoyed watching and mocking your rookie mistakes.
But it’s not fun anymore; it’s embarrassing. Bordering on frightening.
Your actions, even in this Honeymoon Period with the Kneepad Media, have had disturbing consequences.
Wall Street is haemorrhaging.
Main Street is panicking.
Our military is disgusted.
Our enemies are licking their lips.
Our friends are fuming. (Really? A 25-DVD set? What the FRACK were you thinking? If you don’t like Pomp and Circumstance, you’re in the wrong damn job. Diplomacy goes with the territory, whether or not you like it.)
Even Chris Matthews and Whoopi Goldberg are starting to go wobbly on you.
We know you’re smart; you hardly let us forget it. Start showing us you’re competent, before our patience runs out.
Keep screwing up at this historic rate and your own party will be chomping at the bit to impeach you, if only to save their own sorry skins in 2010. Joe Biden – JOE BIDEN!!! – is starting to look Presidential by comparison, and I NEVER thought I’d see that day.
Enough with the Johnny Bravo crap; lose the suit and the Milli Vanilli teleprompter, warm up your singing voice, roll up your sleeves, and earn your stinking paycheck.
And keep your tax-loving hands off of mine. I don’t make anywhere near $250,000. You promised you wouldn’t raise taxes on people like me. I don’t believe you.
Get your shit together…please?
Permalink
11.05.08
Posted in Navel Gazing, Politics, Rants at 2:44 am by Sulla
I started following the 2008 race sometime in early 2007, when only the most pathological politics junkies were paying much attention. As a result, I peaked a bit too early, and by September I just wanted the darn thing to be over.
And now, finally, it is. There are still votes to count, and a few open races and ballot measures to resolve, but the Big One is in the can. For the first time in 12 years, we’ve gone to bed knowing who won, and the Atlantic Seaboard folks didn’t even have to stay up that late. For the first time since LBJ (I think), a Democrat won more than 50% of the popular vote. Though I had a preferred candidate, this was my greatest prayer – an unambiguous result. No “one-state” shenanigans and cries of stolen elections. (Voter fraud is another story, but that’s a Donkey Party tradition, and I doubt he needed it to win.)
In one sense, it’s good that the Democrat won. We’d already been warned months in advance that anything other than an Obama victory would mark America as a “racist” nation, and such philosophical luminaries as Erica Jong were warning of a “second civil war” in the event of a McCain “third stolen Bush term” victory. Well, no chance of that now. And, for the first time since Bill Clinton absconded with the White House furniture, the Daily Kos/MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party can consider themselves Americans again. Republicans are infinitely more gracious losers. (We made much of Clinton’s “never topped 50% of the popular vote” in the 1990s, but we never, EVER claimed he wasn’t the President. That juvenile insanity needs to die. Stake its heart, cut off its head, boil it in garlic, nuke it from orbit; leave no doubt. We may be two parties, but we are not Two Americas. We’re all in this together.)
Like 2006, it wasn’t the GOP’s year. Sen. McCain prevailed in the primaries largely on the backs of independents and Democrats, and because Mike Huckabee preferred to shred the party rather than let Mitt Romney anywhere near the GOP ticket. (Yes, I’m still bitter about that idiot’s personal vendetta.) Gov. Sarah Palin energized the base and helped make it much closer (popular vote) than I expected, but McCain is an honorable man who ran as a “my turn” candidate rather than with any platform of ideas the GOP was likely to rally around. My main reason for supporting McCain was his support for victory in Iraq and elsewhere, which America owes to our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much to make it possible. McCain’s real goal, it seemed, was to win the nomination he felt had been stolen from him in 2000. Had he fought with the same vehemence in the generals that he did in the primaries, he might have done better tonight.
By contrast, Barack Obama worked his bad-dancing butt off to win the presidency from…well, pretty much the day he was sworn into the Senate. He took on the “inevitable” Clinton machine and won the nomination. Although his post-racial, post-partisan facade slipped badly toward the end, his acceptance speech tonight was worthy of the historic moment of our first President-elect who happens to be black. He didn’t win BECAUSE he’s black; had that occurred it would have cheapened the accomplishment. Obama won because he ran a better race, and better motivated his base. He was opposed by over his policies, his past, and his personal associations…not for his pigmentation. (I really need to stop alliterating.) Considering how much money he raised, Barack’s true colors in 2008 are gold and green.
I don’t see Obama as “our first black President.” He’s not “African-American” in the traditional sense; his paternal ancestors don’t have that legacy of slavery; his Kenyan father spent little time in the U.S. His mother’s side of the family was fairly well off, and his education was more elite and privileged than most people’s, certainly more than mine.
Obama’s rise to prominence reminds me far more of John F. Kennedy than Jesse Jackson. JFK’s big hurdle was his religion. So, I would argue, was Obama’s. JFK had the Pope and Catholicism. Obama had Rev. Wright and Liberation Theology. For JFK’s presidency, religion turned out to not be much of an issue (especially that whole “thou shalt not commit adultery” thing). Only time will tell how much President Obama will bring from Wright’s pews to the Oval Office.
As a conservative, little of the Obama platform appeals to me. But as with any presidency, Obama’s will not be treated by the House or Senate as tablets inscribed by a burning bush on Mount Sinai. He may have solid Democratic majorities in both houses, but as Clinton and Carter learned, congressional Democrats have a legislative ego that transcends party. If he fails to treat them with proper respect, the unholy Pelosi/Reid duumvirate will school him in a hurry. And if Obama doesn’t treat the congressional GOP with at least minimal respect, they survive in sufficient numbers to throw their sabots into the machinery. It’s lopsided, but DC is still a two-party town. Bill Clinton made the grave mistake of calling the congressional GOP “irrelevant” in one of his first addresses to Congress. Less than two years later, he was bellowing that he was still relevant to the first GOP House majority in 40 years. Hubris is still the #1 killer of political ambition, and “The Messiah” had better chain someone to his side to whisper “remember thou art mortal” into his ear at every opportunity, or he’ll very likely be facing a GOP congress in 2010.
Vice President-elect Biden, the one-man growth market for American comedy, said that Obama will be tested. Does anyone believe he isn’t correct? Al Qaeda surely cannot resist the opportunity. Ahmadinajad’s Iran is drooling with anticipation. Likewise China, eager to assume dominance in the 21st century. (Yes, I’m learning Mandarin.) Venezuela. North Korea. Canada (*grumble* Zamboni-drivin’ freaks…) And our allies like Columbia, India, infant Iraq, Sarkozy’s France, nuclear Pakistan, etc. have to wonder what Obama’s America will mean to our relationship with them. Like JFK, I’m not that hopeful that President Obama will be ready from day one to handle a crisis. What will Obama’s Bay of Pigs (with lipstick) be? Or his Cuban Missile Crisis? How will he fare? Does it give ANYONE comfort that Joe Biden will be there every step of the way? Or that John friggin Kerry might be America’s Ambassador of Hopenchange as Secretary of State or Defense?
I don’t mean to be utterly negative. Obama claims to be a pragmatist, and if he turns out to be one then he’ll likely make some decent cabinet picks. He will push policies more left-leaning than I would prefer, but I believe in the sausage-grinder of American lawmaking; lips and buttholes become tasty, tasty frankfurters with the right preparation. And it takes just one catastrophe to change presidential priorities in a hurry. Witness 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, the Fannie May debacle. Under the right circumstances, even the biggest isolationist can become the most committed nation-builder. Even a Clinton can decide to pass comprehensive welfare reform. Even a “conservative” can pass a bailout bill that makes Sweden look capitalist. It’s all about adaptability. It’s less about getting your agenda passed than about dealing with the zillion things that you never guessed would come your way.
So…I head to bed knowing that our next President will be “that guy” rather than “my guy.” There are a lot of happy people in this country tonight, and many who are genuinely scared of what the next four years will bring. All of us will be Obama’s responsibility come January. He’ll be opposed – every president from George Washington to George Dubya has been, vehemently, and it would be unAmerican to expect otherwise – but how he deals with it will determine his legacy. The best Presidents exert influence far beyond their enumerated powers, by virtue of their skills and their character, and the nature of the challenges they face.
Frankly, I’d be happy if Pres. Obama is merely adequate, and presides over another “holiday from history” for the next four years. His “fundamental transformation” talk scares my side of the aisle. He may think of it in terms of unicorns and orgasms, but some of us have starker visions of gulags, reeducation camps, great depressions, and stuff going Boom. I’d be ecstatic with four boring, adequate, uneventful, not-unemployed years.
As much as I like and respect George W. Bush – and I do – the last eight years have been more eventful than anyone in 2000 imagined or hoped or feared they would be, George W. Bush included.
Oh well. Ready or not, here comes 44: Captain Messiah, and his sidekick Gaffey. I will pray for them, and for the country. Because I still believe with Ben Franklin that in these perilous times, we must all hang together, “or surely we must all hang separately.” United we stand, divided we fall. The American family will certainly bicker over who gets the good seat in the living room and control of the remote during prime-time…but we must work together to put our house in order and to get the damn neighbor kids off our lawn when they try to T.P. us.
So, congratulations, President-elect Obama. Whatever happens next, you made history tonight.
Don’t screw it up.
Permalink
10.01.08
Posted in Distractions, Poetry, Politics, Rants at 11:22 am by Sulla
Wow.
The now-notorious video of the Obama Youth Choir singing paeons to their new hopeychangey overlord has caused quite a stir. The scene hadn’t even shifted to the Kool-aid drinking parents waving their hands in epiphaniste euphoria before the name “Dear Leader” sprang to mind. My days in Korea were filled with propaganda like this, shown by the South Koreans to underscore the brainwashing their northern brethren were condemned to endure.
Others pulled out the Hitler Youth clip from Carousel, a truly creepy scene. Indeed, “creepy” was the word of the day as the video went viral. “Children of the Corn,” “Village of the Damned,” “Pod People,” you name it. Even the non-insane Left was creeped out by the vapid acolytes worshiping in song and cypto-Hula.
The Messianic iconography already applied to His Celestial Barackness has been disturbing enough – halos, the Guevara-esque CHANGE posters, the white-clad Venus de Chicago emerging from the waters accompanied by doves – but bringing children into the mix may be the moment the Obama Movement officially nuked the fridge.
Naturally, I want to encourage this disgusting behavior, so even the most dedicated anti-McCain/Palin type (of every party) will get the point that this is not just an election for some people, but an actual MOVEMENT designed to heal the planet and cast the evildoers (e.g. people not drinking the Obama-ade) into outer darkness, where there will be no more gnashing of teeth thanks to the resurrected (get it?) Fairness Doctrine.
Whether or not Barack believes his own PR, he does little to dissuade it. He’s happy to exploit the gullible rubes, the lost and adrift looking for something to believe in, and give them B.O. as the Way, the Truth, and the Light.
Just in case sanity and self-preservation does NOT prevail next month, I guess it’s never too early to capitalize on the coming revamp of the hymnals, starting (naturally) with the kids’ sunday school songbooks.
I have a modest example here.
He’s got the whole Party … in his hands
He’s got the Democratic Party … in his hands
He’s got the only sanctioned Party … in his hands
He’s got the whole world in his hands
He’s got the TV networks … in his hands
He’s got the cable news networks … in his hands
He’s got the history networks … in his hands
He’s got the whole world in his hands
He’s got the little bitty babies … in his hands
He’s got the terminated cell clumps … in his hands
He’s got the eugenics program … in his hands
He’s got the whole world in his hands
He’s got the Euroweenies … in his hands
He’s got the Asian commies … in his hands
He’s got the African tyrants … in his hands
He’s got the whole world in his hands
he’s got the hearts of many … in his hands
He’s got the minds of many … in his hands
He’s got the balls of everyone … in his hands
He’s got our jewels in his hands
Submissions welcome. I for one welcome our new Obama overlords…
Permalink
09.18.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 12:48 am by Sulla
No, I’m not going to do the full Crocker. But sweet steaming Sterculius, I cannot believe the depths to which some of Palin’s detractors are spelunking in their efforts to destroy her.
Yesterday’s hacking into Palin’s Yahoo account and publication of its contents (nothing incriminating, as the intruder admits, but a massive violation of all boundaries, and at least a few laws). A “comedian” offering Bristol Palin $25,000 to have an abortion. The earlier litany of lies about Trig Palin’s “real” mother. People disputing Sarah’s right to be numbered among Women – excuse me, Womyn. Such philosophical luminaries as Matt Damon, Lindsay Lohan, Pamela Anderson, Roseanne Barr (whatever she calls herself these days) discoursing on Palin’s credentials, character, hubris, audacity, etc. Photoshops of Palin in various states of provocative (un)dress and in many cases degradation litter the Internet.
I could go on, but I choose not to.
Look, I know there are those who are pushing for Obama to win in November. Most of them are not certifiably insane. But a disturbing number of them are. Perhaps some of it is mob mentality – the echo chambers they frequent get everyone in a lather. The temptation to outdo one another in ferocity increases as the polls give any cause for concern that their candidate might not win. For some, Palin’s deeply held beliefs stand in stark contrast to their own, and her successes represent a clear and present danger to their world view.
Political campaigns are almost ugly; when someone stands between you (or your candidate) and your cherished goal, you need to stop them at any cost. The only question is where you draw the line. This year, the line is so far out it’s beyond the horizon. It’s one thing to suggest that the other side is out to Destroy Sarah; it’s another when there are those on the other side who don’t even bother to deny it.
Look, hit her all you like on her knowledge (or lack thereof) of world affairs; of the economy; of whatever else. You want to belittle her experience as mayor or governor, go for it. You want to mock her public appearances for style or content, have a ball. Those are all fair game.
But if you’re writing in a public forum that your blood boils and you contemplate murder because a political rival is on television…seek professional help. Seriously.
Yes, elections are important. Yes, I understand what it feels like to be the party out of power, and feeling like the country is seriously on the wrong track. I know all too well the sense that the guy in the white house is unworthy of it and should have the decency to resign or the karmic deficit to be tossed out by Senate vote. I’ve been there.
But wanting a candidate DEAD? Dude. Seriously: DUDE. That kind of anger is not only not healthy for you, it’s toxic to the people around you.
Stop hurting America. Get therapy. that much pent-up rage will be be let loose one way or another. I saw it happen in 1992 after 12 years of Reagan/Bush; it was scary. Two years later, Newt Gingrich led the “Republican Revolution” that ended the 40 year stranglehold on the House by the Democrats, and the party polarization escalated further. Impeachment in 1998, the electoral standoff and accusations of “stolen election” in 2000, John Kerry’s ridiculous attempt to claim the same…
America is in the grip of a nationwide OCD cycle. Round and round, more and more intense, no escape in sight. We either break the cycle and let the intensity dissipate, or emotions will blow up…broadly, and badly. We saw acts of violence in 2004, and even more of it this year so far.
I earnestly pray that no harm comes to any candidate, before or after the election. I’m sure there are those whose feelings against Obama are so out there that they’d do him harm if they could…but I have yet to see any public mention of it. The threats against Palin, on the other hand, are all too public, and if I were one of her Secret Service people I’d be armed for bear…and wolves…and elephants…and submarines….
I know Gov. Palin can, for the most part, fend for herself. She will rise or fall based on her performance this fall. She doesn’t scare easily, and she’s already acquired a substantial roster of enemies. But to my knowledge, none of her Alaska foes want her dead.
I wish I could say the same of the nation, but I’ve seen too many comments online to doubt it.
At the moment, I’d almost prefer to be living in Iraq, where the citizens are trying to get along.
Permalink
03.20.08
Posted in Rants at 11:44 pm by Sulla
Soren Dayton, linked to a YouTube video casting Sen. Obama’s ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright in an unfavorable light, has been suspended by the McCain campaign.
McCain, you see, doesn’t want his campaign associated with tactics such as Dayton employed.
Funny…it’s those very tactics, against Mitt Romney, that got Dayton the job in the first place.
I have to keep reminding myself that McCain is the least objectionable of the three remaining major candidates. His trip to Iraq and Israel, for example, was a good move, sending a strong message to our allies. But on days like this, the Dem-lovin’ side of Maverick reminds me of the sleazy crap he’s pulled against my man Mitt, and his above-the-fray “statesmanship” rings awfully hollow.
He may be jettisoning dirtbags this week, but there was a time when that was how you got offered a job on Team McCain.
Permalink
02.26.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 9:23 pm by Sulla
I’ve noticed that some folks take to referring to Sen. Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama,” most notably Ann Coulter. Yeah, that’s his name, but aside from pointing up the otherness of Obama’s half-Kenyan heritage – what, “Barack” and “Obama” aren’t sufficient to point that up? – what’s the point? Is it an attempt to connect him to … King Hussein of Jordan, our close ally in the Middle East (and a former guest star on Star Trek: Voyager)? Or…the OTHER one?
In any case, I don’t care. A rose by any other name, and we sell cars and beds on President’s day by mocking such illustrious but obscure names as Millard, Zachary, and Abraham (hmmm, that last one sounds kinda…Semitic, don’t it? Could be an Islamist.) There are plenty of easy approaches to the person and platforms of Sen. Obama; Saddam-izing his name is a bit lame.
However, when Sen. McCain was preceded by warm-up act (radio guy) Bill Cunningham at a rally in Ohio, Cunningham – who is wont to run with the “Barack Hussein Obama” shtick – ran with it, warmed up the crowd, and then went back to the studio for his radio show. McCain leaped on the opportunity to stomp on Cunningham and on anyone else who would not treat his Senate colleagues as the “honorable Americans” he considers them to be.
This is almost certain to be the first presidential contest in which a Senator is guaranteed to win, because no non-Senators are left. (yeah, Gov. Huckabee is still hanging around, but mainly for late night TV laughs. Even working for scale, he’s making a good living that way.) I’m well aware that Senators are part of the USA’s most exclusive federal club, and their rules are detailed and explicit about decorum.
However. Sen. McCain is notorious for treating his Senate Republican colleagues like something he stepped in, and allying himself with folks like Ted Kennedy whom most on the Right cannot stand. He rarely uses words like “respect” and “honor” when talking about his GOP rivals, so his going after a right-wing radio host to defend the honor of two hyper-liberal Democrats is hardly the shocking event that Bill Clinton’s criticism of Sistah Soljah’s racial-anger comments in the 1992 race. In fact, judging from Rush Limbaugh’s collected decade-plus of criticisms of Sen. McCain, it’s rather par for the course.
Bill Clinton more or less owned his left wing in 1992, and he reached out to the center and right by such events as Sistah Soljah, and executing mentally-impaired death row inmate Ricky Rector (cuz we on the right, we loves us a good killin’). McCain, though, is really a man of the middle who has NOT sewn up his party’s base, and events like this – even though I technically agree with him – simply reinforce my opinion of the man as no friend of his own party, who seems unconcerned about trying to win my vote. Yes, he’ll most likely get it, but if he wants to win he really needs the enthusiasm of people like me. Mere dislike of the Dem candidate isn’t sufficient in this climate; Dems have been out of the White House for eight years, and they are as determined to retake it as we were in 2000. Support for Gore was relatively tepid on the Left that year, and though he squeaked by in the popular vote and came within a hair’s breadth of winning Florida and the electoral college vote, the total of votes cast in 2000 was anemic compared to 2004, when Kerry got almost 10 million more votes than Gore did…and Bush got an additional 13 million.
When it’s likely to be close, every vote counts. Bush won in 2000 because the GOP wanted it more, and after eight years of Clinton was determined to fight in Florida to prevent Gore from stealing the election. If Florida was a statistical tie on election day, the next 30 days became a clear and convincing win for George W. Bush, who won both the recounts and the battle for the hearts and minds of the non-deranged electorate (which by December had become the majority he didn’t quite get in November). After four years of “selected, not elected” and “Resident [sic] of the US”, Bush’s re-election campaign was decisive – in spite of Kerry’s record turnout for a Democrat, Bush is currently the only candidate in US history to have topped 60 million votes, and he did it with room to spare. Kerry had negatives through the roof – flip flopper, antiwar euroweenie, effete snob who blamed his secret service protection when he crashed his bike and who threw footballs like a girl. in the first wartime election since Vietnam, Kerry was everything the Right, and many slighted Vietnam veterans who remembered Kerry all too well, was determined to defeat.
This year, who has that fire in the belly? The Democrats, sopping drunk on eight years of Bush Derangement Syndrome. They see in Obama a new Kennedy, and even the Reagan mantle has been whispered about. Obama doesn’t have Reagan’s substance, but I grant he fits the JFK mold more closely than you’d expect. JFK, aside from being a WWII veteran, hadn’t had that much Senate experience before he ran in 1960, and his early years were filled with more hope and optimism and fancy words than they were with things like competence and experience. On the other side, we have the (fading) Hillary Clinton, who begs us to remember the happy, Millennial decade of the nineties when all was well with the world becase he other “beloved Democratic dear leader” Bill Clinton was in charge…and so was she. (how else to explain her “35 years” of experience when she’s only held an office she was elected to for seven?)
And on the Right…we have Sen. John “Screw you, Dittoheads, leave my good friends Hillary and Barack alone” McCain.
Like I said – if Mac wants to win, he needs enthusiastic followers. Right now the only enthusiasm I have is for kicking him (virtually) in the nuts for being such a jerk to his own side, the side he NEEDS if he wants to win this thing.
Word to the wise, Senator: start treating Republicans with “respect” and “honor.” Then maybe you’ll get more than my vote.
Permalink
02.21.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 6:25 pm by Sulla
Michelle Malkin makes a good point, though I quibble a bit with her definition. She says that “Swift-boating” should be defined as “to tell the truth about a Democrat,” but that only goes part way.
The Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth came together in 2004 with one goal: to uncover the truth of John “Reporting for Duty” Kerry’s true record. These were people who had served with him in Vietnam, and who were happy to see him leave Vietnam and wash their hands of him…until he decided to run for Commander in Chief. They could handle him being a backbench loudmouth Junior Senator from Massachusetts. But to have “Winter Soldier John” presiding over the lives of our men and women in uniform, whom he’d already betrayed repeatedly? They couldn’t live with it, so they gathered for One More Mission.
One of their early ads called into question whether Kerry deserved some of his medals. I’d read John O’Neill’s book about Kerry, and know that – at minimum – Kerry has been less than 100% forthcoming on his military service record, and has not signed the forms that would free up his records to public scrutiny. Pres. Bush went to great pains to honor Kerry’s military service, preferring to hammer Kerry on his decades of mediocre Senate service and endless foot-in-mouth moments. Kerry, it should be noted, had won many elections, and came close to winning in 2004, by propping up his own I-was-a-war-hero status and denigrating his opponents’. (Cheney didn’t serve; Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service was scrutinized, ridiculed, and even disputed in 2000 AND 2004 by Dan Rather’s crack team of Mary Mapes and … um … the guy who gave Kerry his hat.)
Kerry’s war record was truly irrelevant, but Kerry himself made it an overriding issue, the one that could and should sweep him to victory – because commanding a swift boat is just like commanding the entire US military, economy, diplomatic corps, etc. Only problem is, those who actually served with him came to a very different conclusion. They remembered a preening JFK wannabe who turned every scratch into a purple heart, videotaped his own heroics for later inclusion in his presidential library, and who they couldn’t wait to be rid of. Some criticized him for parleying three piddling excuses for purple hearts into a shortened tour; others have suggested that the “three Hearts and you’re flushed” concept was used to compel Kerry to exit the theater of war early. “Here’s some medals, ferret-face. Go home and get on with that political career you’re so keen on.”
This attack on Kerry’s war record didn’t go over well with everyone. John McCain, who was tortured for years as a POW in Vietnam, assailed as “dishonorable” the ad putting Kerry’s heroism into question. Bush refused to even stoop to “hey, folks have a right to ask…,” which given Kerry’s attack on Bush’s record was almost heroically restrained.
However…the commercials that dealt with Kerry’s record AFTER he returned from Vietnam, not even McCain argued with. The ones that quoted Kerry’s “winter soldier” testimony at length. The ones showing a fatigue-wearing ferret-faced Kerry within spitting distance of Jane Fonda at anti-war rallys. The ones quoting POWs whose torture was intensified because of Kerry’s aid-and-comfort-to-the-enemy comments. Kerry’s effort to be an anti-war hero as well as a war hero showed his fundamental unfitness for the presidency – he thought he represented the BEST of both worlds, and would get the military as well as the antiwar vote. Instead, he showed a tin ear and a narcissistic streak that nobody could entirely trust.
The end result in 2004 was close. A hundred thousand votes in Ohio would have changed the outcome. Arguably, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth cost Kerry the election – and won a battle for the honor of all who served in Vietnam against the man who maligned them worldwide.
Kerry has been trying to fight back – not with facts, but by turning the term Swift Boat (which he once commanded) into an epithet – “to smear with lies.” The media has certainly been helping, and more than a few politicians have picked up the phrase – in the process, once again smearing American servicemen doing their duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Even my dad, no friend of Kerry, uses the term that way, though I correct him every time.
No, to “Swift Boat” doesn’t mean to smear unfairly. It shouldn’t, anyway. The Swifties exposed the hypocrisy, lies, slanders, and self-promotion of John Kerry against the American soldier, which has continued unabated for 35 years. That’s what “swift-boating” accomplished – they told the truth, and their unflinching, under-oath testimonies sunk a gold-digging pretender to a position he was unfit to fill.
So, perhaps “to swift boat” should mean: saved the day by telling (ahem) an inconvenient truth. and “to be swift-boated” is really “I woulda gotten away with it to, if not for you rotten kids, and your stupid dog too! (Rooby Roo!)”
My definition might not catch on. But there is a fight over the meaning of the word. The Swifties did us a service. We should honor their sacrifice in 2004 by rescuing their name from yet another John Kerry smear job.
[Update]: Michelle’s objection gets results (emphasis mine):
Greg Mueller responds to my post yesterday about the misuse of the term “Swift-Boating:”
Hi Michelle — I just saw the post you had on me about SBVT and I deserved the ding. Bad use of term on my part — I was trying to make the point that they still had it out for Republicans given how sour they still are over their view that the Swift Boat Vets prevented the Presidency from them and John Kerry. I was trying to say that they were doing their version — i.e. “trying” to do what they consider to be “Swift Boating.” After I said it, I realized it was not communicating that way and dropped it in subsequent interviews.
Obviously, the difference is stark — SBVT were heroes once again coming forward to tell the truth and blow the whistle on Kerry. The New York Times used anonymous sources to have yet another “Jason Blair moment,” no evidence, no truth, just, as Rush would say, a drive by hit job.
We were so proud and honored to have played a role in the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, working side by side so many true American heroes. John O’Neill, Bill Franke and I have grown to be terrific friends as I have with the other true heroes that were involved in the effort.
Very poor communication on my part. I made the comment to my friend Jonathan Martin at The Politico early in the AM and realized it was not reading as I meant it. He did not misquote me. He is a very good reporter and always quotes me accurately. In subsequent interviews throughout the day the following statement was distributed and used in a number of stories.
Stay diligent. The battle over meanings is not yet lost.
Permalink
Posted in Politics, Rants at 2:51 pm by Sulla
There are discussions – at times, arguments – over what to do with John McCain as presumptive nominee of the GOP. He hasn’t been a great friend to conservatives, and his personal sense of honor seems far more easily crossed by Republicans than by Democrats.
Some argue that McCain is preferable to either Billary Clinton or the (presumed) Democratic Party nominee, Barack Obama. Others, such as Ann Coulter, suggest that McCain has been so hostile to his own party in recent years that at least we’d have a president we can oppose full-throatedly if the victor is a Democrat; a McCain would give the Democrats the agenda they want, and the Republicans all the blame the Democrats deserve. It’s hard enough when the media aims for that end. When a McCain would be as likely to blame and scapegoat his own party, and use his Absolute Moral Authority to paint even his most loyal adversaries as dishonorable….well, let’s say history, even very recent history, does give Coulter a point. McCain blows smoke up Democrat dresses while sliming his own side.
On the other hand…
If a Democrat wins, McCain won’t be happy. He might even become a Republican again to avenge his loss of “honor” at the despicable hands of an Obama or – can’t quite count out the Razorback Rasputins yet – Hillary. And if he wins in spite of their worst efforts to defeat him, perhaps President Mac will still remember the slights uses against him in the general election, and return to the fold.
Or at least pretend to.
Either way, something’s likely to happen this election cycle to piss off McCain, and since Romney has thrown in behind McCain (more vocally than Thompson, though less cordially than Rudy) and Huckabee is irrelevant (and becoming less likeable by the day), that will most likely come from a Democrat. One whom McCain has previously hailed for “honesty and integrity.”
We’ll see how long he sings THAT tune.
Mac will get my vote in November. He won’t be the first Republican I voted for with a nose plug in place, and likely won’t be the last. I did what I could for my primary candidates…now it’s time to close ranks, get our guy elected, and then remind him of (1) his promises, and (2) that sense of honor he keeps going on about, and (3) how hard he’ll have to work at (1) for (2) to have any meaning again.
Permalink
02.18.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 12:46 pm by Sulla
I’ve faced the near-inevitable conclusion that John McCain will be the GOP nominee. But his tendency to ridicule people I respect and praise people whom I and many on the Right loathe makes it almost a dare to see how many nosepulugs we can apply before we can pull the lever for Yuckmouth McCrankypants.
Case in point: praising Hillary Clinton this way:
I would say that they would be good in the respect they’re people of good character, honesty, integrity, when you look at that.
It’s the exact inverse of the 11th Commandment – McCain speaks ill ONLY of his fellow Republicans, while finding praise even for the GOP’s boogeymen in chief. Seriously, Mac? Hillary has good character, honesty and integrity, but Mitt does not?
Screw you, sir.
Forget Maverick’s lifetime ACU rating in the 80s; in the 21st century, he’s been closer to 50 than 90.
I can’t help but think that if McCain is Maverick, the GOP is Goose. And we all know how THAT turned out.
Permalink
02.06.08
Posted in Politics, Rants at 9:53 am by Sulla
Now that I’ve had a chance to sleep on it, and see some more of the returns from California…
McCain has LUCK this year. I don’t mean this as a criticism. Among the Romans, to be one of Fortune’s Favorites was to be blessed above one’s fellows. In warfare, it’s often far better to be lucky than to be good. Since one modern definition of luck reads “where preparation meets opportunity,” you have to be able to capitalize on your good fortune, and McCain’s decades of experience in the Senate trenches have served him well against the competition. His tenacity in the face of near-irrelevance last summer, his exploitation of the early open primary formats, the lack of an effective conservative opponent, the belated response from the right-wing blogosphere, the success of the surge in Iraq and the strength of the military vote: all have worked to McCain’s benefit. If his luck continues to hold, McCain will be the GOP nominee.
If McCain is one of Fortune’s Favorites, Romney has been Fortune’s redheaded stepchild. I happen to adore redheads, so it’s been hard for me to watch Romney snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again. He’s won plenty of states, though more caucuses than primaries, and each of his primary victories has been a “home state” win – Massachusetts, Utah, Michigan. Every state he wins has been spun as a second-rate victory: not hotly contested, just a caucus, too many Mormons voted too uniformly for Mitt. Every state he loses, it’s pointed out just how many millions he spent only to get his butt kicked by a shoestring campaign. His third-place finishes in the Southern contests make John Kerry look downright popular. His opponents can’t stand him, his natural strengths are dismissed or twisted into negatives – since when has the GOP been suspicious of business success? – and his attempts to adopt conservative positions are seen as artificial and cynical. YouTube has not been his friend, with his 1994 and 2002 races providing plenty of grist for the anti-Mitt mill. Though Mitt could continue to campaign, and will likely win more states, his delegate gap with McCain is unlikely to narrow. Mitt’s victories have come from states in the North and West, where people are largely outnumbered by tumbleweeds.
With the exception of Florida, Huckabee has come in first or second in every Southern contest. That’s a lot of votes, and a regional bloc the GOP has had to win to take the Presidency. Anecdotes from Mark Steyn and John O’Sullivan to the contrary, there’s not widespread evidence of religious bias against Romney, who as a “plastic” “flip-flopping” Massachusetts “RINO” has enough downsides to overcome. Huck’s appeal beyond the faith base is limited, but he did better in his home state than either McCain or Romney did in theirs.
I still see Huckabee’s attacks on Romney to be fundamentally anti-Republican and anti-Conservative – based on envy at his wealth and business success, “the guy who laid you off” class warfare, and poor-squirrel-popping-me populism. What I found endearing about Huck’s humor early in the primaries, has put me off my lunch since December. As much as the other candidates dislike Mitt, Huck’s crusade against Romney is unique. He’s even managed to turn Chuck Norris into a whiner, for which Huck should burn in Hell for at least the length of a Walker Texas Ranger marathon. It’s downright Clintonian; not surprising, since he was steeped in Clinton’s Arkansas for over a decade before he took Bill’s place in the Arkansas statehouse. The Clinton Virus infects everything in the vicinity.
In case I haven’t been clear: I like Romney, but I don’t expect this to be his year. If he wants to try again in 2012 or 2016, he’ll have his work cut out for him…but if Nixon could do it, anyone can. I could vote for McCain. I disagree, even strongly, with McCain on a number of issues and his recent Senate record, but on the whole I see him as a representative Senate Republican, with the weaknesses – and strengths – that implies. But only if he doesn’t put Huckabee anywhere near his ticket. A Romney VP slot is also highly unlikely. Someone suggested putting Romney in as head of the RNC, which would be Mitt’s best chance to stomp out his personal negatives prior to another run. An interesting thought.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »