Things are looking better for my man Mitt in Zogby’s latest New Hampshire poll. If he keeps up with solid interviews like last night’s sit-down with Hannity, and ads that tackle the rest of his positions with the same sharp, gung-ho attitude displayed in this one, we just might save this party from itself.
http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
Reporter Commentary: Say NO to Rudy
The Reporter has published my latest Guest Commentary (adapted from my CPAC post) about the danger of a Giuliani candidacy—perhaps the most important editorial I’ve ever written.
Moonbats and Military Service
An eloquent, thoughtful fellow named “Anonymous” has just left this pearl of wisdom on the same-sex marriage article I recently posted:
–
“Hey hotshot. You’re such a flag-waving, “God-Bless-America’ing, Bush-loving, war-supporting, sabre-rattling 19-year-old, why haven’t you joined the armed forces yet? Put that money where that mouth is, chicken-boy. College indeed!”
–
I’d actually like to thank our mysterious friend for his comment, because it helps me illustrate just how loony the Left can get without having to sift through the moonbat mud that is the Daily Kos.
–
First: Notice how the comment has nothing to do with the topic? I guess we’re just in a bitter mood and feel the need to vent about it.
–
Second: I assume that each “ing” he attributes to me denotes a particular trait he finds objectionable. Sadly, he hasn’t articulated exactly what is objectionable about each of them. Folks, if you expect to be taken seriously in life, coherency is key.
–
Third: Bush-loving? It’s true that I’ve defended the president when justified, but I haven’t been a stranger to blasting him, and on several occasions. It’s too bad that the Left so often doesn’t bother to look for background to support what they’re talking about.
–
Fourth: This is a good opportunity to address one of the Left’s most common propaganda tactics: This oft-parroted line, that if you’re not a soldier you aren’t entitled to have an opinion favorable to military action, needs to be challenged. For one thing, whether or not somebody serves says nothing about whether or not his positions are right. Oliver North, John McCain & Sam Johnson view the Iraq War in a fundamentally-different way than do John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Max Cleland. They’re all military veterans, yet they obviously can’t all be correct.
–
So why haven’t I joined the military? Simple: like many Americans, I don’t have what it takes. I freely admit that. The fact that I’m not serving my country in uniform is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated myself to saving America another way: by using my particular God-given strengths—writing, debate, commentary, etc.—to the fight against internal threats to our nation’s survival. I’m proud of what I do here on CFO, in the Reporter’s opinion pages, and elsewhere, but I have never made an attempt to present my work as anything more than what it is. I will always stand in awe of the true heroes willing to trek halfway across the world, endure grueling conditions away from their families, and risk death & suffering to keep us safe & free.
–
I do not know of a single conservative who views such sacrifice lightly. I certainly don’t—several friends of mine have enlisted (or will enlist), and the possibility that they might die in combat someday scares me to death. But I look at my friends and neighbors, my parents and family, and the possibility of their murder scares me to death, too. I don’t want my little goddaughters or my future children to inherit a world where madmen can slaughter whomever they deem religious heretics with reckless abandon—which is exactly what happened on a Tuesday morning six years ago.
–
So while the bravest of our society fight the War on Terror, I’ll keep on fighting the War of Public Opinion. You think I’m wrong? Fine. Show me where. But if you think I’m going to apologize for what I believe, or for doing my (relatively small, admittedly) part for America’s survival, think again.
–
“Hey hotshot. You’re such a flag-waving, “God-Bless-America’ing, Bush-loving, war-supporting, sabre-rattling 19-year-old, why haven’t you joined the armed forces yet? Put that money where that mouth is, chicken-boy. College indeed!”
–
I’d actually like to thank our mysterious friend for his comment, because it helps me illustrate just how loony the Left can get without having to sift through the moonbat mud that is the Daily Kos.
–
First: Notice how the comment has nothing to do with the topic? I guess we’re just in a bitter mood and feel the need to vent about it.
–
Second: I assume that each “ing” he attributes to me denotes a particular trait he finds objectionable. Sadly, he hasn’t articulated exactly what is objectionable about each of them. Folks, if you expect to be taken seriously in life, coherency is key.
–
Third: Bush-loving? It’s true that I’ve defended the president when justified, but I haven’t been a stranger to blasting him, and on several occasions. It’s too bad that the Left so often doesn’t bother to look for background to support what they’re talking about.
–
Fourth: This is a good opportunity to address one of the Left’s most common propaganda tactics: This oft-parroted line, that if you’re not a soldier you aren’t entitled to have an opinion favorable to military action, needs to be challenged. For one thing, whether or not somebody serves says nothing about whether or not his positions are right. Oliver North, John McCain & Sam Johnson view the Iraq War in a fundamentally-different way than do John Kerry, Jack Murtha & Max Cleland. They’re all military veterans, yet they obviously can’t all be correct.
–
So why haven’t I joined the military? Simple: like many Americans, I don’t have what it takes. I freely admit that. The fact that I’m not serving my country in uniform is one of the reasons why I’ve dedicated myself to saving America another way: by using my particular God-given strengths—writing, debate, commentary, etc.—to the fight against internal threats to our nation’s survival. I’m proud of what I do here on CFO, in the Reporter’s opinion pages, and elsewhere, but I have never made an attempt to present my work as anything more than what it is. I will always stand in awe of the true heroes willing to trek halfway across the world, endure grueling conditions away from their families, and risk death & suffering to keep us safe & free.
–
I do not know of a single conservative who views such sacrifice lightly. I certainly don’t—several friends of mine have enlisted (or will enlist), and the possibility that they might die in combat someday scares me to death. But I look at my friends and neighbors, my parents and family, and the possibility of their murder scares me to death, too. I don’t want my little goddaughters or my future children to inherit a world where madmen can slaughter whomever they deem religious heretics with reckless abandon—which is exactly what happened on a Tuesday morning six years ago.
–
So while the bravest of our society fight the War on Terror, I’ll keep on fighting the War of Public Opinion. You think I’m wrong? Fine. Show me where. But if you think I’m going to apologize for what I believe, or for doing my (relatively small, admittedly) part for America’s survival, think again.
Media Bias Consumption
Editorial: Another ‘451’ lesson: As mainstream media struggles, democracy wanes
–
As Fond du Lac Reads! reaches its closing chapter, we stand in awe of author Ray Bradbury’s fortune-telling capabilities.
–
In his “Fahrenheit 451” masterwork, he envisioned a culture in which literature — and, by extension, serious journalism — are as obsolete as the democracy that once relied upon them.
–
We take that message seriously. The names you see at the top of this page represent the editorial board of this newspaper, and not one of us lives in a gilded ivory tower. We are quite aware of the public’s perception of what we do and how we do it, day in and day out.
–
Depending on whom you ask, The Reporter is either too liberal for conservatives OR too conservative for liberals; either pandering to the needs of minority communities OR not sensitive enough to the increasingly diverse face of Fond du Lac; either spending too much time focused on outlying communities OR ignoring everyone but our urban center. The paradoxes seem endless.
–
If I had a nickel for every time I heard this line! Media lefties love to turn criticisms against themselves into “he said/she said” affairs: who’s to say who’s right?
–
In short, our daily newspaper is confronting the same challenges faced by every other “traditional media” outlet in the country, if not the world — from the New York Times to the local evening broadcast. It is the bane of any news gathering organization that tries to appeal to a broad swath of the public at a time when “custom,” “niche” and “segmentation” are the new buzzwords of choice.
–
Indeed, the hunger for information, entertainment (and their devilish offspring “infotainment”) has never been higher.
–
What has changed — what Bradbury so wisely foresaw — is the way in which consumers want it presented. Objectivity, be damned:
–
– Those on the left end of the political spectrum can read The Progressive or Mother Jones, tune in to the BBC or Air America each night and, perhaps, read Anna Quindlen’s latest novel. Nary a right-leaning thought need ever enter their heads.
–
– Those on the far right can consume The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator, savor the witticisms of Rush Limbaugh, enjoy the Fox News Network and kick back with Ann Coulter’s most recent opus. Any whiff of liberalism can be scrubbed from their existence.
–
Calling the Fox News CHANNEL a right-wing venue actually exposes that the Reporter editorial staff does indeed have a liberal bias. For one thing, FNC’s resident “conservative” Bill O’Reilly believes in global warming & denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. For another, they employ more than a few liberals & other pundits who clearly aren’t conservative: Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, Mort Kondracke, Mara Liasson, Nina Easton, Neal Gabler, Jane Hall…Fox Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, commonly offers legal interpretations unfavorable to the Right. Fox’s straight reporting does give both sides of the story, and with regular guests like Jane Fleming, Bob Beckel, Wesley Clark, Ellis Henican, Laura Schwartz, Al Sharpton, Jonathon Turley, and that Farrakhan henchthug who’s on Hannity & Colmes all the time, the Left is always amply represented.
–
And, for the first time in U.S. history, individuals on both sides of the socio-political spectrum can spend a lifetime without having exposure to a thought, notion, idea or position that in any way offends their sensibilities.
–
This, of course, is an exciting prospect from a consumer point of view. Imagine a world where niche after niche after niche is tailored specifically to our personal biases, thus freeing us from having to cope with anything that might be “disconcerting” or “off-putting.”
–
Kate hit this nail on the head: “No doubt there are some who read, or watch, only things that agrees with their point of view. However, any reasonably intelligent conservative also reads the ‘other side’.” Also, most conservative commentary I’m aware of tackles the Left’s arguments head-on.
–
God forbid we wrestle with any issues that might make our days — how shall we put this? — less pleasant. Indeed, why sweat the future of Social Security when, oh, we can get live graveside coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s burial?
–
As Ray Bradbury presciently stated in his 1953 novel: “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him: give him one. Better yet, give him none … “
–
As the segmenting of America continues, we fear the loss of the proverbial “town square,” that safe place where neighbors of all creeds, beliefs and stripes can converge to exchange ideas and weigh them in a civil manner. (Too many nightly news shows suggest that the “winners” of such debates aren’t those with the best arguments, but the pundits who yell the loudest).
–
Ah, the obligatory “Loudmouth O’Reilly” slap! Has anyone at the Reporter even sat through an entire episode of the Factor?
–
Simply put, “Fahrenheit 451” foresaw the death of “we, the people” when individual citizens only care about “I, the person.”
–
Indeed, the novel’s cautionary message rings more true today than it did more than a half century ago.
–
And if that doesn’t frighten you, it should.
–
As Fond du Lac Reads! reaches its closing chapter, we stand in awe of author Ray Bradbury’s fortune-telling capabilities.
–
In his “Fahrenheit 451” masterwork, he envisioned a culture in which literature — and, by extension, serious journalism — are as obsolete as the democracy that once relied upon them.
–
We take that message seriously. The names you see at the top of this page represent the editorial board of this newspaper, and not one of us lives in a gilded ivory tower. We are quite aware of the public’s perception of what we do and how we do it, day in and day out.
–
Depending on whom you ask, The Reporter is either too liberal for conservatives OR too conservative for liberals; either pandering to the needs of minority communities OR not sensitive enough to the increasingly diverse face of Fond du Lac; either spending too much time focused on outlying communities OR ignoring everyone but our urban center. The paradoxes seem endless.
–
If I had a nickel for every time I heard this line! Media lefties love to turn criticisms against themselves into “he said/she said” affairs: who’s to say who’s right?
–
In short, our daily newspaper is confronting the same challenges faced by every other “traditional media” outlet in the country, if not the world — from the New York Times to the local evening broadcast. It is the bane of any news gathering organization that tries to appeal to a broad swath of the public at a time when “custom,” “niche” and “segmentation” are the new buzzwords of choice.
–
Indeed, the hunger for information, entertainment (and their devilish offspring “infotainment”) has never been higher.
–
What has changed — what Bradbury so wisely foresaw — is the way in which consumers want it presented. Objectivity, be damned:
–
– Those on the left end of the political spectrum can read The Progressive or Mother Jones, tune in to the BBC or Air America each night and, perhaps, read Anna Quindlen’s latest novel. Nary a right-leaning thought need ever enter their heads.
–
– Those on the far right can consume The Weekly Standard or The American Spectator, savor the witticisms of Rush Limbaugh, enjoy the Fox News Network and kick back with Ann Coulter’s most recent opus. Any whiff of liberalism can be scrubbed from their existence.
–
Calling the Fox News CHANNEL a right-wing venue actually exposes that the Reporter editorial staff does indeed have a liberal bias. For one thing, FNC’s resident “conservative” Bill O’Reilly believes in global warming & denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. For another, they employ more than a few liberals & other pundits who clearly aren’t conservative: Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes, Greta Van Susteren, Mort Kondracke, Mara Liasson, Nina Easton, Neal Gabler, Jane Hall…Fox Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, commonly offers legal interpretations unfavorable to the Right. Fox’s straight reporting does give both sides of the story, and with regular guests like Jane Fleming, Bob Beckel, Wesley Clark, Ellis Henican, Laura Schwartz, Al Sharpton, Jonathon Turley, and that Farrakhan henchthug who’s on Hannity & Colmes all the time, the Left is always amply represented.
–
And, for the first time in U.S. history, individuals on both sides of the socio-political spectrum can spend a lifetime without having exposure to a thought, notion, idea or position that in any way offends their sensibilities.
–
This, of course, is an exciting prospect from a consumer point of view. Imagine a world where niche after niche after niche is tailored specifically to our personal biases, thus freeing us from having to cope with anything that might be “disconcerting” or “off-putting.”
–
Kate hit this nail on the head: “No doubt there are some who read, or watch, only things that agrees with their point of view. However, any reasonably intelligent conservative also reads the ‘other side’.” Also, most conservative commentary I’m aware of tackles the Left’s arguments head-on.
–
God forbid we wrestle with any issues that might make our days — how shall we put this? — less pleasant. Indeed, why sweat the future of Social Security when, oh, we can get live graveside coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s burial?
–
As Ray Bradbury presciently stated in his 1953 novel: “If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him: give him one. Better yet, give him none … “
–
As the segmenting of America continues, we fear the loss of the proverbial “town square,” that safe place where neighbors of all creeds, beliefs and stripes can converge to exchange ideas and weigh them in a civil manner. (Too many nightly news shows suggest that the “winners” of such debates aren’t those with the best arguments, but the pundits who yell the loudest).
–
Ah, the obligatory “Loudmouth O’Reilly” slap! Has anyone at the Reporter even sat through an entire episode of the Factor?
–
Simply put, “Fahrenheit 451” foresaw the death of “we, the people” when individual citizens only care about “I, the person.”
–
Indeed, the novel’s cautionary message rings more true today than it did more than a half century ago.
–
And if that doesn’t frighten you, it should.
This Is Your Brain on Drugs
The effort to make Rudy Giuliani appeal to social conservatives seems to result in some truly stupid commentary:
–
Social conservatives will probably be drawn to Giuliani in ever greater numbers as the campaign progresses. Many of them will conclude that he is more likely to advance their agenda than nearly anyone else their party could nominate. They will reach this conclusion because it is probably true.
–
HUH?!
–
A president who fully grasps both the value of human life and the destructive nature of the homosexual “rights” movement isn’t necessarily of much use to the social right. Consider the example of the present incumbent.
–
George W. Bush has socially conservative opinions but he avoids confrontation with the cultural left the way cats avoid water. Even when he does the right thing he feels compelled to do it in an apologetic, almost cringing way that empowers his enemies and dispirits his supporters.
–
He will nominate sound judges (most of the time) but never make the case that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned because it is the cornerstone of the left’s profoundly destructive jurisprudence of judicial supremacy. He will stand against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research but never articulate the strong libertarian basis for that stand or attack the callous disdain his political opponents show for the inherent value of human life. He will say as little as humanly possible about the drive for “gay marriage.”
–
No arguments on the huge social disappointment that is George W. Bush, but Bush’s record indicates that he doesn’t “fully grasp” social issues more so than that a candidate who does “fully grasp” them has some inherent flaw.
–
Social conservatives could benefit from the presidency of someone who agrees with them less but fights for them more. This is the crux of Giuliani’s appeal to the social right and every other Republican constituency. He is a fighter, and Republicans of all sorts are sick and tired of turning the other cheek and seeking common cause with the enemy both at home and abroad.
–
Unlike any current or former president named Bush, Rudy Giuliani has never been afraid to appall the left. He may very well be ideally situated to puncture two of the left’s most cherished idiocies and hand social conservatives near total victory in the long-running culture war. The first of those idiocies has to do with abortion the second with “gay rights.”
–
Being a fighter is useless if it’s not on the battles that need to be fought.
–
The “pro-choice” argument has always been incoherent because it depends on the absurd idea that there can be a constitutional right to do wrong. Rational and decent people can believe that abortion should be legal, but only a monster or a moron can maintain that a civilized nation should celebrate abortion as a constitutional right.
–
No, the pro-choice argument is incoherent because babies are distinct individuals from their mothers, deserving of their own protection. We actually have the constitutional right to do all sorts of wrongs: ugly speech, leading a life of greed & self-promotion, promiscuous consensual sex…
–
Social conservatives don’t need a president who will mount a crusade to re-criminalize abortion nationwide. They need a president who can persuade the American people that proclaiming a constitutional right to abort is barbaric. In all the decades since Roe v. Wade no politician has ever made this point clearly and forcefully.
–
I seem to recall a politician named Ron…but I’m sure I’m just remembering something wrong…
–
Giuliani could be the first. He could argue that there can’t be a right to do wrong more persuasively and with much less political risk than any pro-life true believer. Just as it took a career anti-Communist to normalize relations with China, it may take a politician with no pro-life credentials to terminate Harry Blackmun’s reign of error. By fighting for the proposition that Roe v. Wade has distorted our constitutional law long enough, Giuliani could do more to defeat the culture of death than any of his Republican predecessors.
–
Rudy in his own words: “I think [Roe v. Wade is] up to the court to decide. I think that it’s been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it’s precedent. It’s going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it. I think probably they’re going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they’ll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.” Now there’s somebody ready to take the fight to the abortionists on Roe! Give me a break.
–
The animating idea of the “gay rights” movement is every bit as ridiculous as the case for the right to “choose.” The left would have us believe that society has no grounds for its ancient disapproval of homosexuality. If society approves of heterosexual relationships that typically serve to create and sustain families it must also approve of homosexual relationships that typically do not serve that purpose. Those of us who approve of one and not the other are bigots in need of punishment and reeducation.
–
Nobody ever makes this argument. When clearly stated it is self-refuting nonsense.
–
Social conservatives will probably be drawn to Giuliani in ever greater numbers as the campaign progresses. Many of them will conclude that he is more likely to advance their agenda than nearly anyone else their party could nominate. They will reach this conclusion because it is probably true.
–
HUH?!
–
A president who fully grasps both the value of human life and the destructive nature of the homosexual “rights” movement isn’t necessarily of much use to the social right. Consider the example of the present incumbent.
–
George W. Bush has socially conservative opinions but he avoids confrontation with the cultural left the way cats avoid water. Even when he does the right thing he feels compelled to do it in an apologetic, almost cringing way that empowers his enemies and dispirits his supporters.
–
He will nominate sound judges (most of the time) but never make the case that Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned because it is the cornerstone of the left’s profoundly destructive jurisprudence of judicial supremacy. He will stand against federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research but never articulate the strong libertarian basis for that stand or attack the callous disdain his political opponents show for the inherent value of human life. He will say as little as humanly possible about the drive for “gay marriage.”
–
No arguments on the huge social disappointment that is George W. Bush, but Bush’s record indicates that he doesn’t “fully grasp” social issues more so than that a candidate who does “fully grasp” them has some inherent flaw.
–
Social conservatives could benefit from the presidency of someone who agrees with them less but fights for them more. This is the crux of Giuliani’s appeal to the social right and every other Republican constituency. He is a fighter, and Republicans of all sorts are sick and tired of turning the other cheek and seeking common cause with the enemy both at home and abroad.
–
Unlike any current or former president named Bush, Rudy Giuliani has never been afraid to appall the left. He may very well be ideally situated to puncture two of the left’s most cherished idiocies and hand social conservatives near total victory in the long-running culture war. The first of those idiocies has to do with abortion the second with “gay rights.”
–
Being a fighter is useless if it’s not on the battles that need to be fought.
–
The “pro-choice” argument has always been incoherent because it depends on the absurd idea that there can be a constitutional right to do wrong. Rational and decent people can believe that abortion should be legal, but only a monster or a moron can maintain that a civilized nation should celebrate abortion as a constitutional right.
–
No, the pro-choice argument is incoherent because babies are distinct individuals from their mothers, deserving of their own protection. We actually have the constitutional right to do all sorts of wrongs: ugly speech, leading a life of greed & self-promotion, promiscuous consensual sex…
–
Social conservatives don’t need a president who will mount a crusade to re-criminalize abortion nationwide. They need a president who can persuade the American people that proclaiming a constitutional right to abort is barbaric. In all the decades since Roe v. Wade no politician has ever made this point clearly and forcefully.
–
I seem to recall a politician named Ron…but I’m sure I’m just remembering something wrong…
–
Giuliani could be the first. He could argue that there can’t be a right to do wrong more persuasively and with much less political risk than any pro-life true believer. Just as it took a career anti-Communist to normalize relations with China, it may take a politician with no pro-life credentials to terminate Harry Blackmun’s reign of error. By fighting for the proposition that Roe v. Wade has distorted our constitutional law long enough, Giuliani could do more to defeat the culture of death than any of his Republican predecessors.
–
Rudy in his own words: “I think [Roe v. Wade is] up to the court to decide. I think that it’s been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it’s precedent. It’s going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it. I think probably they’re going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they’ll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.” Now there’s somebody ready to take the fight to the abortionists on Roe! Give me a break.
–
The animating idea of the “gay rights” movement is every bit as ridiculous as the case for the right to “choose.” The left would have us believe that society has no grounds for its ancient disapproval of homosexuality. If society approves of heterosexual relationships that typically serve to create and sustain families it must also approve of homosexual relationships that typically do not serve that purpose. Those of us who approve of one and not the other are bigots in need of punishment and reeducation.
–
Nobody ever makes this argument. When clearly stated it is self-refuting nonsense.
–
Nevertheless, the left cheerfully assumes that all disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry. It goes on its merry way agitating for changes in law and society which would suppress every expression of this society’s distaste for homosexuality and eliminate every distinction between traditional marriage and other sexual relationships.
–
Rudy Giuliani has long been sympathetic with the movement to make society less hostile to homosexuals. This shouldn’t trouble social conservatives. I’ve never met one who burned with hatred for same sex couples and longed to make sodomy a capital crime. The caricatures of the left notwithstanding, there is no substantial conservative constituency which is hostile to homosexual individuals.
–
Social conservatives don’t need a president fond of quoting Leviticus, 18:22 and fulminating about abominations. They need president who understands that the moral distinction between sex which creates and sustains families and every other sort of sex is a key part of this society’s foundation. They need a president who can make the case that society can’t always treat homosexuals the same as everyone else because in one important respect they aren’t the same as everyone else.
–
This is a case that can’t effectively be made by a born-again Christian or a Mormon. Too many hearts and minds are barred shut against any discussion of sexual morality which has exposed religious roots. It may take a notorious sinner with vaguely unconventional views and a very secular image to tell America the obvious in a convincing way. If he chooses to lead in this area Giuliani could make himself a hero to the social right without repudiating any statements or actions in his past.
–
The fact that Giuliani could win social conservatives by defending the right to disapprove of homosexuality and attacking Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean that he will. If he does, however, his campaign might well prove unstoppable. It will be interesting to see how he chooses to proceed.
–
The whole problem with this crap argument is that it speculates Giuliani will do things which there’s zero evidence he’ll actually do. Sorry, but I expect more from a president than “if.”
–
Rudy Giuliani has long been sympathetic with the movement to make society less hostile to homosexuals. This shouldn’t trouble social conservatives. I’ve never met one who burned with hatred for same sex couples and longed to make sodomy a capital crime. The caricatures of the left notwithstanding, there is no substantial conservative constituency which is hostile to homosexual individuals.
–
Social conservatives don’t need a president fond of quoting Leviticus, 18:22 and fulminating about abominations. They need president who understands that the moral distinction between sex which creates and sustains families and every other sort of sex is a key part of this society’s foundation. They need a president who can make the case that society can’t always treat homosexuals the same as everyone else because in one important respect they aren’t the same as everyone else.
–
This is a case that can’t effectively be made by a born-again Christian or a Mormon. Too many hearts and minds are barred shut against any discussion of sexual morality which has exposed religious roots. It may take a notorious sinner with vaguely unconventional views and a very secular image to tell America the obvious in a convincing way. If he chooses to lead in this area Giuliani could make himself a hero to the social right without repudiating any statements or actions in his past.
–
The fact that Giuliani could win social conservatives by defending the right to disapprove of homosexuality and attacking Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean that he will. If he does, however, his campaign might well prove unstoppable. It will be interesting to see how he chooses to proceed.
–
The whole problem with this crap argument is that it speculates Giuliani will do things which there’s zero evidence he’ll actually do. Sorry, but I expect more from a president than “if.”
WI Supreme Court: The Race Is On
Two letters today on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race:
–
Experience makes Ziegler best choice
–
On April 3, voters have a clear choice when selecting the next Supreme Court Justice.
–
Judge Annette Ziegler, who has been on the bench for 10 years, is the only judge running for the Supreme Court.
–
Judge Ziegler’s opponent, Madison immigration lawyer Linda Clifford, has never been a judge on any level.
–
Judge Ziegler is known to be tough on crime and has put hundreds of criminals behind bars for a total of over 1,000 years.
–
Judge Ziegler has been endorsed by a majority of Wisconsin’s sheriffs and district attorneys. Republicans and Democrats alike are backing her campaign.
–
In fact, every single law enforcement group that has endorsed in the Supreme Court race has endorsed Judge Ziegler.
–
Judge Ziegler has been endorsed by a majority of her fellow judges. Judges from every part of Wisconsin agree that Judge Ziegler’s experience and background make her the right choice for the Supreme Court.
–
Judge Ziegler is the clear choice for the Supreme Court. Please join me in voting for Judge Ziegler on Tuesday, April 3.
–
Linda Becker
–
Clifford stands up for working people
–
With the spring election less then two weeks away many people are just becoming aware of the race for the State Supreme Court.
–
This race isn’t about who is a Republican and who is a Democrat — it’s a nonpartisan race. That means we have to look to see who the most qualified candidate is.
–
I feel that person is Linda Clifford.
–
Linda has 32 years of legal experience and is the only candidate who has ever argued a case in front of the Supreme Court.
–
Linda worked her way through college as a union steelworker. During law school she clerked at the Department of Justice. She also served as assistant attorney general and now is a full partner at a Madison law firm.
–
Linda will stand up for the rights of consumers and working people. Linda also has consistently stood up to protect the environment and take on polluters. Linda has earned many endorsements, including that of U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold and former Gov. Lee Dreyfus.
–
One of the few areas I can think of where a judge can legitimately “take a stand” for working people is eminent domain. Can we take this to mean Clifford doesn’t want the government taking people’s homes?
–
On April 3 I think the choice is easy. Vote for Linda Clifford — working with real people, solving real problems.
–
Sue Reich
Start the Indoctrination Young
Why Mommy Is a Democrat by Jeremy Zilber “depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others” in “plain and nonjudgmental [of course] language.” You know, just in case your kids happen to attend some theocon backwater school where the condom training doesn’t start until, say, sixth grade.
–
A highlight? “Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” A little too honest for its own good, perhaps?
–
I do wonder, though, how one would adapt some of the thornier issues of liberalism for a children’s book:
–
Abortion – “Mommy, where’s my little brother that was in your tummy?”
–
Wealth redistribution – “But I made the lemonade stand all by myself! Why does he get the money?”
–
Affirmative action – “Timmy, you just won’t be able to do as well as your white friends in school.”
–
A highlight? “Democrats make sure we all share our toys, just like Mommy does.” A little too honest for its own good, perhaps?
–
I do wonder, though, how one would adapt some of the thornier issues of liberalism for a children’s book:
–
Abortion – “Mommy, where’s my little brother that was in your tummy?”
–
Wealth redistribution – “But I made the lemonade stand all by myself! Why does he get the money?”
–
Affirmative action – “Timmy, you just won’t be able to do as well as your white friends in school.”
Think About It
Kudos to Kate for the Thinking Blogger tag; so what blogs make me think? Too many to list, but here are some of my more frequent visits…
–
An Ol’ Broad’s Ramblings
–
American Thinker (not exactly a blog…)
–
The Daily Dish
–
The Corner
–
Boots & Sabers
–
Michelle Malkin
–
IMAO
–
WuzzaDem
–
The People’s Cube
–
(Okay, so the last three occasionally make me think, but mostly just laugh)
Negative Campaigning
Months ago, I had intended to send a letter to the Reporter regarding the specter of “negative campaigning,” but the emergence of a bigger issue shelved it. Still, I think my initial piece has a message worth pondering, so I figured I’d dig into the ol’ archives and post it here:
—————–
—
—————-
Throughout Election 2006, we heard seemingly endless complaints about “negative campaigning.” One Reporter reader surmised that the candidates “should all be in great physical condition with all the slinging they have been doing.” Another demanded everyone to “please stop!”
———
True, a candidate’s first duty is to explain his or her vision for Wisconsin and answer where they stand on the issues. Which they did – for instance, Mark Green wanted to cut taxes and Jim Doyle wanted to expand embryonic stem-cell research. It is then up to the voters to determine whose positions are more effective and honest.
———-
But beyond that, our ideas toward “negative campaigning” are wrong. Obviously, candidates musn’t lie about their opponents. But isn’t strong moral character the first quality we should demand of our leaders? Of course it is. Whether or not our leaders engage in unethical is a fully relevant question; indeed, a necessary question. Example: If Candidate A takes bribes for policy decisions, Candidate B must bring it to our attention. Such campaigning is necessary, not negative, and our sole criteria for judging such ads should be, “Is it true?”
———-
I believe our disdain for the ugly side of politics stems, in part, from laziness. We can’t be bothered to take the time to get all the facts; we have more “me time” if we just assume they’re all corrupt. But it isn’t true. Sure, no party is without closet skeletons, and no candidate is perfect, but that’s a far cry from saying they’re all the same. Often there truly are serious ethical differences, and as American voters it is our duty to root them out. As Benjamin Franklin said, America has “a Republic…if you can keep it.”
Conservative Standards 