Reflections on Election Day, and a Look to the Future

(This post was written on November 5.)
Last night was a disaster for America. Barack Obama—a man whose lack of character and cultural, economic, and foreign-policy liberalism have been so extreme as to force disgruntled conservatives (myself included) into the arms of longtime foe John McCain—is the president-elect of the United States, and he will enjoy expanded majorities in both houses of Congress to pursue his agenda. Michigan voted to legalize medical marijuana and affirm embryonic stem-cell research, and pro-life referendums failed in South Dakota & Colorado (conservatives did win several marriage battles, though). Heck, Jack Murtha was sent back to the House by the same people he called racists just weeks before!

With conservatives’ worst fears realized, I should be upset, depressed, or scared out of my mind. But honestly, I don’t feel any of those things today.

Don’t get me wrong—I still fear what’ll happen to our liberties, our economy, and the continued deaths of unborn babies, and though I pray I’m wrong, I don’t doubt for a second that we’ll see the first terrorist attack on US soil since September 11, 2001, within Obama’s first term. We’re in for some mighty interesting times.

And yet I’m not panicky or bitter. Maybe it’s because the outcome could have been seen coming miles away (really, is anyone surprised?). I remember watching McCain win the GOP primary back in February with an unshakable conviction that I was witnessing Obama’s victory right then & there. Out of the Republican contenders, McCain may not have been the worst choice (that would be Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, in my opinion), but I’m certain any of them (well, ‘cept the Paulestinian) would have run a better campaign. A few exceptions—like Obama’s scandals with Jeremiah Wright, his unpatriotic wife, and infanticide; McCain’s eye-catching performance at Rick Warren’s Saddleback forum, or the rise of Sarah Palin—gave me hope for a while, but ultimately they couldn’t compensate for the inherent failings of the candidate.

Evidently McCain got a whopping 20% of the Hispanic vote (Bush got 40%). Obviously, the gamble to lure moderates & independents to the ticket at the expense of the base worked reeeaaaaaal well, didn’t it?

What I’m trying to say is this: last night may have been a victory for liberalism, but (counterintuitive though it may sound) that doesn’t mean it was a failure for conservatism. It wasn’t a principled conservative candidate that Obama defeated, after all. Consider the fact that the same California that voted for Obama 61% to 37% also (narrowly) voted to defend traditional marriage. California, of all places! Seems to me a pretty clear indication that it could only have helped McCain to embrace social issues (I think I can count on one hand the number of times I heard McCain address social issues during the entire race—including when Obama’s support for the most evil extreme of abortion yet came to light).

It wasn’t conservatism that soured the American people to the Republican Party over the past 8 years. It was corruption, amnesty, and a White House that refused to reevaluate its Iraq strategy until the electoral winds of 2006 gave it no choice.

The Democrats will have tremendous power come January 21, but it’s not a blank check: Congress’ abysmal approval ratings won’t magically rebound overnight, and according to a new Rasmussen poll, voters’ confidence in the outcome of the Iraq War is increasing. If the Dems get too ambitious, they just might find they’re playing with fire.

Blaming the American people for not trusting the GOP won’t do any good. Throwing in the towel and proclaiming the twilight of the republic won’t, either. Now’s the time for all of us to be more vigilant than ever—towards both Obama and his pals on Capitol Hill, and our Republican representatives, who (in case they didn’t get the message) need to hear loud and clear that we demand integrity and conservatism.
Old Glory’s been in tough spots before, and it’s always darkest just before the dawn. But hang in there; now’s the time to get up, dust ourselves off, and prepare for the next battle.

The State & Marriage

Boots & Sabers regular commenter Mr. Pelican Pants has a great explication of the case for traditional marriage on this post about Obama and Proposition 8 in California:

1. No one has the “right” to marry anyone – straight, gay, whatever. Marriage is not a right afforded to anyone.

2. The institution of marriage is a social tenet and institution to serve one, fundamental purpose: the perpetuation of the human race.

3. Marriage, as a legal contract, is sanctioned by the states. Thus, the states should have the ability to decide who may and may not be allowed to be legally recognized as a married couple. Anyone is certainly free to “marry” anyone they want. Just don’t expect the state to officially recognize that marriage.

4. Back to point #2 on pro-creation, while gay couples may certainly adopt a child, or use artificial insemination to create a child, the fact remains that, at a minimum, three people are needed to achieve this act of pro-creation. As a society, we believe that no more than two people should be needed.

5. Marriage is not about hospital visits, health care benefits, or income tax breaks. Those are not rights, but rather legal side effects that have been created over time to maintain the traditional two-parent, man and woman, marriage. Thus, any gay couple claiming to be denied those rights is on very weak ground, as those are not rights, and as stated previous, marriage is not a right either.

Finally, the problem with Obama’s argument is that a. he wants it both ways; and b. he is not properly describing the problem. The reason for the constitutional amendment, as it was here in Wisconsin, was not to “deny people from being with someone they care about”, but rather reaffirming the statutory guidelines for marriage, so a judge can not arbitrarily and unilaterally make a decision of what he/she believes was the intent of the Legislature when the Legislature crafted the statutory marriage language.

The people of the state have their interests vested and represented in the appropriate state Legislature. Whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage, the majority of state residents, over a very lengthy period of time, believe that a marriage between one man and one woman is the most appropriate functioning unit to promote the family. Representatives in the Legislature have responded by crafting language that meets that long held belief.

But where gray areas may exist in statute, is where many pro-gay marriage individuals make their challenges. Which then leaves a justice of the court in the position of trying to decide what the Legislature meant when those words were crafted.

The constitutional amendment is appropriate, as there is generally no dispute or controversy as to what the Legislature intended. In addition, because it requires adoption by the people of the state in a referendum vote, the intent of the people is reaffirmed.

The very process of constitutional ratification upholds the sanctity of a democratic society, one which may not be tinkered with by a single, activist justice who believe he/she is in a better position to decide the will of the people.

Major Bush Mistake Endorses Obama

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for president. Michelle Malkin’s got a great post on just how much Powell’s “thoughtful, independent-minded” decision is worth, to which I would just add one thing: Mr. Powell, Obama claims the White House you worked for “misled” the nation into the Iraq War. Presumably this includes the case you personally presented before the United Nations. How can you, in good conscience, support a man for the presidency who demeans you, your colleagues, and the president you served, especially when you were there, and know better?

Around the Web

Yes, thanks to the ol’ college grindstone, blogging has been, and will probably continue to be, a little on the light side. But I’ll still try to update every now and then.
It would appear Barack Obama has executive experience after all—an 8-year stint as director of the Joyce Foundation. David Hardy dissects the organization’s attacks on the Second Amendment during Obama’s tenure.

The vile Alan Colmes (who received
a well-deserved berating at the hands of Dick Morris the other night) has stumbled across the story of Greg Howard, a Florida middle-school teacher who told his students that Obama’s “Change” tagline was an acronym for “Can you Help a N***** Get Elected.” Howard has betrayed the public trust, is unfit to educate the community’s children, and should be fired. Period. Not that the Left will recognize intellectual consistency, or abandon their double-standards on public-school propagandists.

More evidence that Michelle Obama is going to be just a terrific First Lady.

Peggy Noonan
isn’t sure who she’s voting for. Sorry, Peggy. We’ll have to ask you to turn in your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy ™ membership card and decoder ring.

The UW Madison Marching Band “
has been suspended while allegations of hazing, alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct are investigated.” I did competitive marching band in high school, and almost went to Madison. While I miss marching, I’m gladder than ever that I chose Hillsdale instead.

Guess the Obamas
knew Bill Ayers a little better than they claimed (just don’t tell anyone about it. What are you, a racist?).

Panic Over Palin

The Atheist “Ethicist” tries to smear Sarah Palin as a religious nutjob. Hot Air explains why that charge is bunk.

Andrew Sullivan’s
at it again, this time imagining an affair in the Barracuda’s past.

“If she loves special needs kids so much, why’d she slash their funding?”
Um, she didn’t.

And no, she’s
not a fascist, either.

And this is just the tip of
the iceberg

The Right’s Leading Ladies

Not since Ann Coulter has the Left hated a conservative woman as much as they hate Sarah Palin. So it’s only fitting that Ann throw in her two cents on the GOP’s newest rising star:
John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, as his running mate finally gave Republicans a reason to vote for him — a reason, that is, other than B. Hussein Obama.
The media are hopping mad about McCain’s vice presidential selection, but they’re really furious over at MSNBC. After drawing “Keith + Obama” hearts on their denim notebooks, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews stayed up all night last Thursday, writing jokes about Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, the presumed vice presidential pick. Now they can’t use any of them.
So the media are taking it out on our brave Sarah and her 17-year-old daughter.
They claimed Palin was chosen only because she’s a woman. In fact, Palin was chosen because she’s pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She’s fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she’s a “Republican.”
As a right-winger, Palin will appeal to the narrow 59 percent of Americans who voted for another former small-market sportscaster: Ronald Reagan. Our motto: Sarah Palin is only a heartbeat away!
If you’re going to say Palin was chosen because she’s a woman, you’re going to have to demonstrate that the runners-up were more qualified. Gov. Tim Pawlenty seems like a terrific fellow and fine governor, but he is not obviously more qualified than Palin.
As for former governor of Pennsylvania Tom Ridge and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, the other also-rans, I can think of at least 40 million unborn reasons she’s better than either of them.
Within the first few hours after Palin’s name was announced, McCain raised $4 million in campaign donations online, reaching $10 million within the next two days. Which shortlist vice presidential pick could have beaten that?
The media hysterically denounced Palin as “inexperienced.” But then people started to notice that she has more executive experience than B. Hussein Obama — the guy at the top of the Democrats’ ticket.
They tried to create a “Troopergate” for Palin, indignantly demanding to know why she wanted to get her ex-brother-in-law removed as a state trooper. Again, public corruption is not a good issue for someone like Obama, Chicago pol and noted friend of Syrian National/convicted felon Antonin Rezko.
For the cherry on top, then we found out Palin’s ex-brother-in-law had Tasered his own 10-year-old stepson. Defend that, Democrats.
The bien-pensant criticized Palin, saying it’s irresponsible for a woman with five children to run for vice president. Liberals’ new talking point: Sarah Palin: Only five abortions away from the presidency.
They claimed her newborn wasn’t her child, but the child of her 17-year-old daughter. That turned out to be a lie.
Then they attacked her daughter, who actually is pregnant now, for being unmarried. When liberals start acting like they’re opposed to pre-marital sex and mothers having careers, you know McCain’s vice presidential choice has knocked them back on their heels.
But at least liberal reporters had finally found someone their own size to pick on: a 17-year-old girl.
Speaking of Democrats with newborn children, the media weren’t particularly concerned about John Edwards running for president despite his having a mistress with a newborn child.
While the difficult circumstances of Palin’s pregnant daughter are being covered like a terrorist attack on the nation, with leering accounts of the 18-year-old father, the media remain resolutely uninterested in the parentage of Edwards’ mistress’s love child. Except, that is, the hardworking reporters at the National Enquirer, who say Edwards is the father.
As this goes to press, the latest media-invented scandal about Palin is that McCain didn’t know her well before choosing her as his running mate. He knew her well enough, though admittedly, not as well as Obama knows William Ayers.
John F. Kennedy, who was — from what the media tell me — America’s most beloved president, detested his vice president, Lyndon Johnson.
Until Clinton interviewed Al Gore one time before choosing him as his vice presidential candidate, he had met Gore only one other time: when Gore was running for president in 1988 and flew to Little Rock seeking Clinton’s endorsement. Clinton turned him down.
To this day, there’s no proof that Bill Clinton ever met one-on-one with his CIA director, James Woolsey, other than a brief chat after midnight the night before Woolsey’s nomination was announced.
Barring some all-new, trivial and probably false story about Palin — her former hairdresser got a parking ticket in 1978! — the media apparently intend to keep being hysterical about McCain’s alleged failure to “vet” Palin properly. The problem with this argument is that it presupposes that everyone is asking: “HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?”
No one’s saying that.
Attacks on McCain’s “vetting” process require the media to keep claiming that Palin has a lot of problems. But she doesn’t have any problems. Remember? Those were all blind alleys.
Unfortunately, for the ordinary TV viewer hearing nonstop hysteria about nonspecific “problems,” it takes a lot of effort to figure out that every attack liberals have launched against Palin turned out to be a lie.
It’s as if a basketball player made the winning shot in the last three seconds of the game and liberals demand that we have a week-long discussion about whether the player should have taken that shot. WHAT IF HE MISSED?
With Palin, McCain didn’t miss.

Just Once

Just once in life, I’d like to see a liberal admit he’s wrong when he loses an argument—especially on an issue on which the truth and the humane position are not ambiguous.

Although, I suppose it’s not as atrocious as
ignoring the issue altogether.
UPDATE: Yup, if you’re looking for integrity from Scott, you’ve come to the wrong place. He’ll preen all day long demanding others distance themselves from their candidate’s lies. His guy? Not so much. Just another day in the life of a cheap shill, I guess.


Seriously? He chose Biden?!

Joe Biden is recognized as having a fair amount of foreign policy experience, which was very probably the main reason Barack Obama picked him, but Bill Richardson has a more-than comparable resume (UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, Governor), plus is Hispanic and, most importantly, doesn’t have a reputation for being a walking embarrassment dispenser.

I mean, good grief! Mere days after the announcement, and even the most casual scan of the blogosphere (most of these stories were found on
Hot Air alone) have provided a treasure trove of ready-made opposition research. Apparent conflicts of interest, lobbyist issues, a casual acquaintance with the truth, arrogance issues all his own (those should nicely complement Obama’s preexisting problems on that front, eh?), contempt for the concerns of gun owners, some, uh, interesting praise for his own running mate…oh, and did I mention his foreign policy credentials are vastly overrated? How ‘bout issues with speech worthy of the Left’s number-one boogeyman, George W. Bush? Or maybe apparent confusion about who he actually thinks would be the better president? And then, of course, we can’t forget the plagiarism thing

Just imagine what goodies we’ll discover once they start trying. Not to mention the brand-new blunders in store on the campaign trail.

Sure, Richardson is a fairly-unremarkable lefty, and I’m sure he’s got a skeleton or two in his closet, but I can’t imagine this much crap would have come out this soon. As a minority candidate, Obama probably doesn’t have to worry too much about the Hispanic vote, but Richardson’s race would have to have been worth at least a few points, and again, he’s arguably got a more impressive resume than Biden.

Tim Kaine and Evan Bayh probably wouldn’t have brought much to the ticket, but (assuming Team Obama doesn’t have the exclusive scoop on some juicy info) nor would they be constant sources of stress for the campaign. Kathleen Sebelius, as a female Democrat who isn’t Hillary Clinton, would have been asking for trouble. And Hillary? It’s a pretty safe bet she and Barack hate each other’s guts.

Obama’s been fumbling big-time lately, with a crappy performance at Saddleback, his
disgraceful support of infanticide returning to haunt him, and now this, coupled with John McCain’s surprisingly-excellent (even conservative!) Saddleback showing and a willingness to hit The One where it hurts, and I’m optimistic about this election for the first time since Mitt Romney dropped out.

Now it’s especially important that McCain not squander his momentum with a bad VP pick of his own (that means you, Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman—now is not the year of the pro-choicer). I find Tim Pawlenty unremarkable, but he’d be a fairly safe choice. Bobby Jindal can fire up the stump, but I still think he needs time to build experience (and atone for
this profile in courage).
My choice would either be Mitt Romney (surprise!) or Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Romney has framed himself firmly to McCain’s right, has abundant economic expertise, and has proven himself an aggressive campaigner and an excellent debater. It can be said that Palin should have more experience, sure, but she’s been a successful and conservative governor, and, of course, is a woman, which could make for a mighty interesting election, what with all these disgruntled Hillary supporters running around (granted, this may smack of identity politics, but there’s no reason not to see race or sex as a selling point, provided—and this is the key—that you’re not doing so at the expense of qualification or principles).

Come on, John. As much as I hate to say it, I’ve seen and accepted the need to support you. Don’t let us down.

Obama: The Pro-Infanticide Candidate

Covered in my latest letter to the Fond du Lac Reporter:

After an Illinois hospital left a newborn who survived an abortion to starve to death in a closet, the state senate considered legislation protecting the rights of babies born alive during attempted abortions (SB1082) in 2001. Barack Obama opposed it. Now he says he would have voted yes if the bill included language guaranteeing it wouldn’t be used someday to undermine Roe v. Wade.

He’s essentially saying that newborns dying of starvation matters less than the legal standing of Roe, which is horrible enough (remember, reversing Roe would NOT ban abortion—it would just restore the people’s right to vote on abortion policy). But incredibly, the story gets even worse: we now know Obama is lying about his motivations.

In 2003, Illinois lawmakers tried again, now with the very language Obama claims was the original dealbreaker (Senate Amendment 001). At the time, Obama chaired the health committee, which unanimously added the language—only for Obama to vote no anyway, killing it before it reached the senate floor [PDF link]. It shouldn’t surprise us, then, that he recently told Pastor Rick Warren that figuring out when people have human rights was “above his pay grade.”

This is every bit as evil as slavery. It’s shocking that a United States Senator could so callously disregard both his first duty (“to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men”), and basic human decency and compassion—and appalling that a mainstream political party could nominate such a man for the presidency. All Americans—liberal, conservative, and independent—who have any sort of conscience should be utterly disgusted by this man. Obama doesn’t want to heal the sins of the past—he just wants to trade them for brand-new ones in the future.

Aside from his above lie, Obama and his apologists have deployed a full-blown revolving door of excuses for his vote.

They claim Illinois law already had sufficient protections in place for born-alive infants. But that’s not true; the law in question, as Ramesh Ponnuru notes, said only fetuses of “sustainable survivability” would be protected, so any fetus deemed “pre-viable” would not be protected—SB1082 was intended to clear up any ambiguity.

They have argued that there was no evidence what Jill Stanek alleged actually happened. But according to a US House Judiciary Committee report, another Christ Hospital nurse, Allison Baker, gave consistent testimony, and the committee found:

When allegations such as these were first made against Christ Hospital, the hospital claimed that this procedure* was only used ‘‘when doctors determine the fetus has serious problems, such as lack of a brain, that would prevent long-term survival.” Later, however, the hospital changed its position, announcing that although it had performed abortions on infants with non-fatal birth defects, it was changing its policy and would henceforth use the procedure to abort only fatally-deformed infants.

* meaning, as described by the report: ‘‘induced labor’’ or ‘‘live-birth’’ abortions, a procedure in which physicians use drugs to induce premature labor and deliver unborn children, many of whom are sometimes still alive, and then simply allow those who are born alive to die.”

The Illinois Department of Health and Human Services failed to act on the charges not because they thought they weren’t happening, but merely because “abortion procedures” and “the rights of newborns” were beyond the scope of their office.

According to the National Right to Life Committee:

Obama’s defenders now (August 19, 2008) insist that the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was not needed because, they claim, Illinois already had a 1975 law “that requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions.” They fail to mention that the law covered only situations where an abortionist decided before the abortion that there was “a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb.” Humans are often born alive a month or more before they reach the point where such “sustained survival” — that is, long-term survival — is possible or likely (which is often called the point of “viability”). Moreover, this already-weak law was further weakened by a consent decree issued by a federal court in 1993, which among other things permanently prohibits state officials from enforcing the law’s definitions of “born alive,” “live born,” and “live birth.” To read or download the consent decree, click here.

Obama has also expressed indignation at the implication inherent in the legislation that doctors would ever do such a thing to a newborn. This is an idiotic reason to oppose a law—society makes laws precisely because some people will do wrong; one might as well be offended at speed limits in school zones because they imply a driver would ever drive irresponsibly with children present. But it’s also meaningless because, again, Christ Hospital admitted it, and the Committee report also found evidence of similar incidents elsewhere in the US and in other nations. Clearly, not everyone licensed to practice medicine is a saint.

They say bills Obama opposed had language “clearly threatening Roe.” That language? “A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law” (emphasis added). Come on, nobody with any self-respect can parrot this one with a straight face. It specifically refers to children who have already been born, which is exactly where most pro-choicers tell us they draw the line anyway.

They have also said that “even if the federal and state versions had identical language, they would have very different consequences. The federal government doesn’t have a law regulating abortion, so Congress could pass a ‘born alive’ measure without actually affecting anything. But Illinois has an abortion law that would be muddled by changing the definition of a person with full rights.” Please, do we really have to go over how transparent and stupid this one is?

They claim the bill was part of a package deal which went further, but as NRLC legislative director Douglas Johnson notes, “Obama confuses these bills, which were entirely separate. They had sequential numbers, but they were not in any way linked. To call them a package is a tactic to try to reach out and grab issues in an attempt to divert attention from this one.”

And then, of course, it’s kinda hard to get past what Obama said at the time.

Further coverage:

Jill Stanek’s blog
Life with Obama” and “Life Lies” by David Freddoso
Why Obama Really Voted for Infanticide” by Andrew McCarthy
Dead Weight” by the National Review Editors
Red State Obama and ‘Infanticide’ (though it should be noted that Fact Check does not devote the same level of detail to the claim Illinois already protected newborns as it does to Obama’s dishonesty, which they have confirmed is false)

These will be ignored or decried by the shameless propagandists whose ideological bias is so deep that not even infanticide can reawaken their consciences, but cries of “right-winger” or “theocon fundie” are no substitute for providing and refuting facts.

Facts are stubborn things. The evidence is clear, and the bottom line is this: Barack Obama was presented with the scenario of live, newborn, babies being starved to death by the very doctors who delivered them—and decided the continued possibility of this happening was preferable to a nonexistent threat to the logic of Roe v. Wade.

McCain’s Ace in the Hole

With Russia’s attack on Georgia and Barack Obama’s bumbling reaction, now is the time John McCain ought to be hammering the most powerful case for supporting him: in an increasingly dangerous world, America needs serious leadership instead of incompetence. McCain’s own reaction to the conflict is more coherent and substantive than Obama’s, and displays McCain’s knowledge of the issue, but unfortunately doesn’t offer a lot more than “we need to instantly mobilize people to talk about what we’re gonna do.”

If disgruntled conservatives are gonna be convinced to support McCain, it will have to be on foreign policy and national defense grounds. The good news is, he has one ace in the hole (if he realizes it):
the support of John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has a clear view of both the threats facing America and the international community’s inability/unwillingness to deal with them, as well as a proven ability to speak plainly about them, without regard for Beltway hand-wringing. He’s earned the respect of the Right, the venom of the Left, and, if utilized by the campaign, could go a long way toward bringing the case for a strong, clear-eyed foreign policy to the American people in an accessible way.

But beyond that, I’d like to see McCain signal just how serious he is about a meaningful foreign policy change by pledging to put Bolton in a prominent post in his administration. More “realistic” (read: timid) conservatives and Republicans would probably advise against such a move, based on how much liberals would howl about it. I say let ‘em. Heck, they’re calling McCain a racist without anything to go on; what makes you think you can appease these people? Just do the right thing, and defend it with that “straight talk” we hear so much about from ol’ John.