136 comments posted · 148 followers · following 20

16 years ago @ Political Grind - Ferraro Censoring Forg... · 1 reply · +1 points

Liberals have said for a long time that the Republican party is racist, sexist, etc., precisely because they are "largely made up of white male Christian men." The Republican party is made up of all kinds of people. It's curious to hear now that because of those deficiencies, we haven't had to deal with those issues. Too often we have seen minority Republicans that have and do hold high positions in government dismissed as tokens or as not authentically black, etc. by the left. You don't hear that kind of obsession from the right, probably because we are used to having our arguments dismissed with such lofty retorts as "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe."

It seems rather obvious that the left has profited from stoking animus and victimhood among and between race/gender/religious groups over the last 50 years. Is it any surprise we are seeing weapons used on outside political enemies now being used against each other?

16 years ago @ Political Vindication - Left Wing Anti-America... · 0 replies · 0 points

Thanks My Point Radio!

16 years ago @ Political Grind - Why McCain Must Never ... · 0 replies · +1 points

The Republican base knows exactly what has happened to our party, and the struggle over control has been going on for years. Conservative Reagan Republicans are in a death match against compassionate Conservatives (Blue Bloods) over whether the party ought to fashion their principles around conservatism or around what will win us votes from moderates and independents. Let's go through your gripes.

1. Bigger government - it's a national trend that Republicans in power sought to feed rather than confront. The stinging defeat of Newt Gingrich's attempt to face down Clinton on this issue proved to many Republicans that Americans want to be cared for by their government, regardless of the support for lower taxes. Conservatives have yet to come up with an eloquent and persuasive way to convince Americans that what they get from their government is not free. The current apostasy by the party on this issue has resulted in a revolt among the Republican base and losses in 2006. That looks like an invitation to the correction conservatives have been looking for.

2. War of Choice - it was a tough choice, and Republicans are glad we made it. Someone has to start confronting extremist Islam.

3. Bigger Education Department? Ah yes, Reagan's Bane. Compassionate conservatives think working with Kennedy to enlarge the ED means more votes. I disagree. Conservatives need to continue making the case.

4. Government Intrusion into personal matters - this point here is particularly thoughtless. Terri Schiavo's case was a tragic one, where not having a will left the power of life of death with a husband that had beaten her when she was alive. Her parents were willing to accept responsibility for her, but he chose to starve her to death because he needed her life insurance money to pay the medical bills. Conservatives believe the government ought to protect innocent life, not assist in killing it.

5. Political corruption - WTF? No party, philosophy or person is immune from the dark streaks in human nature. Being a conservative means insisting on a higher standard from ourselves and those around us - no conservative defends corruption.

6. Sex scandals - again, what's the fucking point? Sex scandals have brought down presidents and convicts alike - at least Republicans actually punish their own, there are plenty of Democrats who are still bigwigs in the party with no shame after enduring sex scandals.

7. Spending - read #1.

8. The debt as a percentage of GDP is low, but still not low enough, I agree. Government is inherently inefficient and remains so.

Conservative talk radio is MSM? - how you can say that Rush, Laura and the gang are not battling conservative is beyond me. They take a beating for hewing to the conservative line, and have bucked their party time and again because they ask for the same consistency you ostensibly claim is missing. You need to stop listening to Air America.


1. We stay as long as it takes to get Iraq on its feet, defending itself, and not a day longer. Sensible Republicans recognize the complexity of rebuilding Iraq and have pondered your question long than you have.

2. Money and blood is an investment we're willing to make to realize a vision Ronald Reagan spoke of - that a democracy in the Middle East will bring freedom and peace. I happen to be more pessimistic about that, but that's what this administration is aiming for.

3. Every American life is precious, and when I wonder aloud why our soldiers are dying to assure the freedom of Iraqis who will not fight for it themselves, I am angry as well. Our patience is not limitless, but we will fight to win, never giving thought of surrender because Irhabbists have succeeded in killing another brave American.

4. This last query is the worst kind of demagoguery. Your challenges before this one led me to believe that you were a jaundiced Republican gone wild, but I see now that you've been reduced to leftist platitudes that are both meaningless and vile. It deserves no answer, only deep disgust.

The philosophy of conservatism is a thinking person's philosophy, borne of a respect for human dignity and a constrained vision of human nature. We are constantly battling against statism and the pimps of government largess that promise hope but deliver only dependency. But it's an uphill battle we fight because once Americans learned that they could vote themselves anything, we are in the position of trying to convince them that they don't really want it. It's a tough sell, and often we find ourselves spending a lot of energy just keeping our own from succumbing to the seductions of the state. But a true conservative understands the dangers of changing the relationship between the individual and her government. If that doesn't give some meaning to Conservatism, then nothing will.

16 years ago @ Political Grind - In the Wake of New Ham... · 0 replies · +1 points

Actually some in the media were alluding to racism practiced by Democrats and independents specifically - which is not only unfair, but offers another example of why that charge has lost the power it once had. Many reputable pollsters warned their readers that any polls taken in the days preceeding a primary are notoriously inaccurate, and I expect that the pollsters practicing their art in New Hampshire knew that. So it begs the question: if such inaccuracy is common knowledge, what were the pollsters trying to accomplish?

It is the political season, which is to say - its the season where the media is at its most potent in influencing the choices we make. We've been offered a circus and then asked to rely upon the clowns to tell us what's going on. There's nothing funny about that.

16 years ago @ Stix Blog - stix1972.typepad.com/ · 0 replies · +1 points

It's good to see this story exploding around the blogosphere.

I am interviewing Lionheart on my internet radio show on Thursday, January 17 at 6 pm PST. The show is called Political Vindication Radio, and can be found at BlogTalkRadio.com. If you want to express your support for Lionheart in his fight against censorship - here's a chance to speak to him and tell him so in person.

My radio page: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/politicalvindication...

Let's get the word out, and let Lionheart know we support him!

16 years ago @ Political Grind - How Strongly Do We Wan... · 0 replies · 0 points

Carpetbagger Clinton is a hard left Democrat - only the willfully blind call her anything else. Obama appeals to moderates because they are unwilling to study candidates that promise them the stars - a quick look at his voting record proves how liberal he is. That leaves Edwards, a man so slimy you could pull him through a wood chipper and he wouldn't suffer a scratch. That's your Democratic line up, and the only way you make them sound centrist is to pass out booze before every speech.

Who is it that really has the centrists? Republicans! As is natural the passionate Republicans are unimpressed with the field because we want candidates that are proven conservatives - instead we have Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee and McCain - all of them far closer to the center than the Dems noted above. They all happen to have more experience than the Dems noted above, but who cares about that? It seems governing experience is being downplayed this year because the Dems don't have any.

Whoever is elected for the dems will be sabotaged by their fringe left kooks - as they were in 2000 and 2004. That's all us Republicans need to wait for- months before the election Hollywood stars, KOS and MoveOn, Sheehan and the rest of that circus will burst with righteous and bitter ignorance, offending every American (not to mention every moderate). Again we will have the same comparison faced by the voter: vote for whining children who blame Americans first, or adults who face the challenges of the future with resolve.

16 years ago @ Political Grind - Theres More to Politic... · 0 replies · +1 points

There is so much wrong in this screed that I wonder if it's even worth beginning to deconstruct it. Since you haven't given much thought to it, I'll limit myself to five minutes...

This wide-eyed delusion:

"The question that Mr. Romney tried to address, and that JFK did address, runs deep thru the veins of our own history. What is the proper role of faith and religion in political discourse in America? Should America establish an official religion? Should public discourse be void of any religious overtones or should it play a part in public discourse? Should candidates for public office incorporate their theology in the decisions they make for the common good? Should candidates be automatically disqualified if their faith is not part of mainstream religion?"

Besides the last line - this paragraph is a litany of liberal challenges and has nothing to do with what Romney was addressing in his speech. My guess is that you believe that people ought to leave their religious convictions at home when they go to vote, which shows you have no idea of the influence that government has in our lives that affects directly the issues that many religious people care about. Are we to be limited to secular reasons to oppose abortion? Prayer in schools? Sex education? The banning of religious displays?

And this:

"Although Ronald Reagan is said to be the hero of the conservative Christians, it wasn’t until George W. Bush that we saw a leader who let his faith influence public policy decisions in a brazen and confrontational way."

WTF? I know this is asking a lot of you, but can you go into a little more detail about what President Bush did while entranced by his religion? That sentence reeks of immaturity, and I'm dying to know your thinking behind it.

Mario Cuomo is a liberal who is frustrated that religious people recognize that the Democratic party is hostile to them. Instead of trying to shame religious people into dropping out of the political arena, he ought to have been lecturing his party to stop attacking and belittling the religious. You see faith as a hindrance to responsible governance - I see it as integral to recognizing that the power one holds is paltry to the power God holds over us. I'm sure Lenin and Chairman Mao weren't constrained by religion - is that the kind of hubris you're looking for in a leader?

16 years ago @ Political Grind - With High Confidence; ... · 0 replies · 0 points

Simmons grunts "That's like saying evolution is a theory. It doesn't hold its ground."

Um, ok. Whatever.

Why do I even waste my time?

16 years ago @ Political Grind - With High Confidence; ... · 2 replies · +1 points

Simmons says "The information in the report essentially guaruntees there will be no war with Iran unless a report suggesting the polar of opposite of this report is released. "

The information in the report is an estimate - hence its title - National Intelligence Estimate. Inasmuch as you trust the information in the report, it supports a position of nonintervention (though it hedges its assumptions), but no one but the president can guarantee that there will be no war with Iran. Reports from non-elected bureaucrats don't set policy - they only inform it.

Can the estimate be trusted? I say no - http://politicalvindication.com/?p=1524

16 years ago @ Political Grind - With High Confidence; ... · 4 replies · +1 points

There is one outcome from this debacle, and the Wall Street Journal puts it succinctly:

"All the more so because the NIE heard 'round the world is already harming U.S. policy. The Chinese are backing away from whatever support they might have provided for tougher sanctions against Iran, while Russia has used the NIE as another reason to oppose them. Most delighted are the Iranians, who called the NIE a "victory" and reasserted their intention to proceed full-speed ahead with uranium enrichment. Behind the scenes, we can expect Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to expand their nuclear efforts as they conclude that the U.S. will now be unable to stop Iran from getting the bomb."

It's not about Iraq, Simmons (though with the left everything is about Iraq). It's about a nuclearized Middle East - and the consequences of failure in the negotiations with Tehran go far beyond a terrorist state attaining weapons of mass destruction, it forces everyone else in that region to do the same in order to protect themselves from being blackmailed by Iran. What this report has done is serious damage to the momentum gained for international opposition to their program. For those crying about American unilateralism - this report wipes away years of effort at building a coalition - and actually increases the likelihood of violence to neuter Iran and quell the Middle East's belief that it must nuke up to protect itself.