The World Is Watching

Perhaps I'm not the only one to have observed over the last four years all the bumper stickers, signs, t-shirts emblazoned with an image like this one:
As with the "Jesus was a community organizer/Pilate was a governor" mantra, 1/20/09 indicated a level of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) that never quite made sense. What's the point in sulking and wishing your life away just because the person sitting in the Oval Office isn't the one for whom you voted?

I don't expect BDS to magically subside on 1/20/09. My sense is people who so viscerally despise President Bush will sustain their vehemence against him even after he settles back in Crawford, Texas.

Similarly, I don't expect to see a corollary of BDS morphed into "Barack Derangement Syndrome" within conservative ranks. Again, what's the point? Barack Obama will be our President. That's the way elections work in our country.

I appreciated Steven Den Beste's cogent summation "Not the End of the World" on what the next four years could look like. The column isn't right-wing sour grapes or whining ... just one guy's musings about the "Change" our country may actually experience under Democrat control.

One sobering aspect of Den Beste's prognostications is his expectation "Iran will get nuclear weapons." Serious diplomats acknowledge the heightened possibility (see here, here, and here) Israel may launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities within the next two months. Who can blame them? Holocaust-denier Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his animosity towards the nation of Israel. Once Iran attains nuclear status, will anyone warrant Israel's survival?

Another Den Beste prediction shouldn't surprise us either, given Joe Biden's 10/19/08 pronouncement on the campaign trail in Seattle. Without apology, our Vice President-elect said: "Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking."

I imagine there are several who campaigned for the presidential nomination who are now breathing easier in the knowledge the awesome responsibilities of that job are not resting at this perilous time in history on their shoulders. Being president is surely a weighty and often thankless task. The world will be watching. How soon should we expect to see the emergence of 1/20/12 bumper stickers?

Sarah Palin, Grandmother

Given John McCain's previous support of amnesty, campaign finance "reform" and his notoriety as a member of the "Gang of 14," the candidacy of John McCain for President had earned only my most tepid support, far short of what can be termed enthusiasm. But, when I heard Sarah Palin's comments after John McCain introduced her as his VP choice, tears came to my eyes and I experienced a surprisingly energized hope for conservative principles.

The Palin announcement definitely boosted my confidence in John McCain's candidacy! I won't belabor this column with details of Palin's biography. That information is plentiful elsewhere, and while there will be myriad detractors (especially given her outspoken and strong pro-life stance), I'm excited in what she brings to the campaign, and after the November election, how she will enhance the office of Vice President.

Then news sources began churning with rumors of Bristol Palin's pregnancy. I read the reports and my mind hearkened back some seventeen years when my own daughter (16 years old at the time) revealed she was pregnant with our first grandchild. No, thankfully I wasn't a sitting governor nor a presumptive Republican nominee for Vice President, but no parent is eager to hear the words "Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant."

Having heard those words myself, I understand the impact on a family. One mom to another, one grandmother to another, I know the depth of potential turmoils and anguish Sarah Palin and her husband Todd must now attempt to make sense of as they assist daughter Bristol in navigating a redirected future. What they face is a trade-off of certain aspirations and dreams for the embrace of other hopes and possibilities.

It is so refreshing to reflect on the contrast of Sarah Palin's affirmation of Bristol in her news release confirming her daughter's pregnancy and Barack Obama's proposed approach to an unplanned pregnancy! On one hand, Palin unequivocally welcomes this new life. On the other, Obama (whose own parents were unmarried at the time of his conception) appears to believe being pregnant while unmarried is, in fact, "being punished with a baby."

So, bravo to and God's blessings on Sarah Palin! She is a true celebrator of LIFE, and I applaud her and her family as they deal with life issues in a candid and wholly normal manner. What a breath of fresh air in the stagnant world of politics!

Angry White Men: The Return

As Obama and Shrillary continue their scorched-earth campaigns across the Democrat party landscape, I found the following column, by Gary Hubbell for the Aspen Times Weekly, extraordinarily enlightening.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.

Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...

From Reagan Republican to Coulter Democrat

Now that Mitt has -- at least temporarily -- followed Fred into the glorious sunset of their respective campaigns and I'm consoling myself with lots of pre-Valentine's chocolate, I realize I am way overdue blogging on what has been the most important Republican primary in a very long time. Frankly, I don't have the strength to catch up. Instead, I'm going to press on to the general election.

Now that McCain is the presumptive nominee in the minds of the voters, rather than just the adoring media, I've been doing a substantial amount of head-scratching. Does anyone remember who this guy is?

Four years ago, if McCain's name came up, there were only two questions: "Will McCain become John Kerry's running mate?" or "Will he pull a 'Jim Jeffords' and go Independent?"

That's right. John F-ing Kerry. In case you've forgotten (along with the rest of the Democrat party) he was their nominee in 2004.

And his sometime bedfellow is now our presumptive nominee. McCain, the man who, if elected, will lead his party into the next glorious era of Republican political achievement, surpassed only by the Reagan Revolution. Hmmmm. Not so much.

There are a lot of words suitable to describe John McCain: establishment, entitled, opportunistic, flip-flopping, disengaged, old and crabby. Conservative is not one of them. I don't think Republican even qualifies.

The irony is that in order to secure the nom, McCain has done nothing if not swing to the right. For all that he critiques Samuel Alito for "wearing his conservatism on his sleeve," McCain has done everything in his power to get the name of Alito's tailor. He's successfully out-righted Guiliani, Thompson and Romney. The only reason he has yet to be pegged as more conservative than Mike Huckabee is because of that whole "Jesus and Satan are brothers" thing.

Another week of campaigning and I'm certain we'll see Huckabee absolve himself of that Jesus & Satan kerfuffle when he finalizes his own deal with the devil -- in other words, sliding into that VP spot McCain has been keeping warm for him.

If anyone wants to take bets on how long before McCain's Conservative excursion train derails, I'm running a pool. The minute the GOP field has cleared, we're going to see McCain return to his moderate/independent (i.e. liberal) roots and forget he ever mentioned Reagan, strict contructionism, or securing the borders first. I know amnesiac two-year-olds with longer institutional memory than this guy.

Which brings me to Ann Coulter. AKA: Hillary's newest celebrity endorsement.

(SIDEBAR: Do you think Bill has asked Hill's campaign staff to make room on his schedule for some face time with Ann yet?)

The very notion of voting for Hillary has me in cold sweats. Still, the pig's ear that would be the McCain presidency leaves me asking myself: "Who do I want to be held accountable for four years of disastrous liberal occupation of the Oval Office? A liberal Democrat or a liberal Republican?"

Ann Coulter has obviously taken her position on this. El Rushbo himself, though he has yet to outline his strategy publically, has at least decried the lack of leverage a Republican Senate and House would have against a president of their own party.

These are compelling arguments, people. After all, it takes the Congress and the President to complete the legislative process. Making sure we have legislators in Washington in position to put up a fight for Conservatism has me tempted to begin looking for a pharmacy with some OxyClinton left in stock.

Charles Krauthammer laid it out straight, calling the Hillary campaign for the presidency "one giant alimony payment." But even though I agree that a second Clinton presidency would be disastrous, I'm not blind to the seductive pull of liberals giving the nation a violent shove to the right by virtue of nothing more than their rank incompetence to actually solve any problem. (Oh, except that little "problem" of Americans deciding what to do with their own money. They've had that one in the bag for decades.)

If I don't do a Mitt write-in or just stay at home waiting for my healthcare to arrive, I might have no other choice but to become a Coulter Democrat.

Since it only takes nine months for a human embryo -- sorry, "two-celled blob of useless tissue better known as 'a choice'" -- to develop into a full-term baby -- sorry, "a planned and wanted child" -- maybe it will be sufficient time for me to acclimatise myself to this heinous exercise of either-or.

In the meantime, I'll be waiting for the Ann Coulter and William Jefferson Clinton Campaign Tour: "Little Black Dress Express."

No Cigar

This is as close as John McCain will ever get to true Conservatism.

Nice Try

This is as close as Ron Paul will ever get to the Presidency. (Sorry, sis.)

The Reagan Legacy

It's the political season. (It has been for what ... the last 3,000 days? But I digress.) Despite disapprobation from uber-partisans, even Democrat candidate Barack Obama has sought to tap into the mystical mantle of Ronald Reagan! Obama observed how Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." (View video here.)

Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!

[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]

I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.

(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)

The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!

CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?

Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.

History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.