Friday's Klips: Shooting your elephant in the foot

My column has been posted, over at Friday's Klips, as usual. It went up a day later than I usually post, for reasons best left alone. At any rate, This week I offer advice to the Republican Party leadership about what not to do while campaigning toward the White House, in Shooting your elephant in the foot:

The Republicans are making a couple of mistakes. The first one is the "ABC" crowd's non-choice choice.

Then there is the hard-right base, taking the view that, if our guy isn't perfect, we'll split the party and let the office go to the opposition. Well, that's using your noodle! If you can't find somebody far enough to the right on every single issue, then let somebody from the far left take over and make things worse (in your perspective). Following that kind of logic, the next time I get a pimple, I should simply peel away all my skin.

Oddly enough, while I was scribbling furiously (okay, typing maniacally), somebody up there heard my thoughts and sent this forth: Social conservative leaders back off third-party threat but still fear Giuliani

I feel better knowing I'm not shouting into a hurricane of stupidity, sanctimony, and self-righteousness. There may be hope for that party, yet.

Still, there is more to my column than just that, so please pop over & have a look-see. It's right over there.


Do you think I linked it enough, yet, or should I do one more?

The Dark Lord has a family?

Who'd a thunk? Rove is resigning and leaving the WH in order to spend more time with his family.

Funny thing, though... he seems to be leaving of his own volition. No frog march. No humiliations galore... just going on home to TX to be with his loved ones and maybe write his memoirs.

I guess that must put some panties in a leftward bunch.

I wonder how his book will turn out? Think it'll reach #1 on the NYT bestseller list? Ja, suuuuure, ya betcha. Just like Bill O'Reilly's book did. Heck, it could outstrip the Qur'an and the Bible combined, for sales, and it'd still be left off the Times' list, wouldn't it? Unless the Cubs win the World Series this fall, that is. After all, a conservative like Rove topping the list and the Cubbies winning the series would be sure signs of the apocalypse.*

*which would make Derrek Lee
the first baseman of the apocalypse, no?

At last! a senator who gets it!

Via CQ: Minnesota's Norm Coleman is doing what he can to protect the citizens and the law of this country:

In an effort to strengthen national security, Senator Norm Coleman yesterday introduced an amendment to the Immigration bill to make sure local law enforcement officials are able to communicate with federal law enforcement agencies regarding suspected immigration violations. Currently, a number of cities throughout the nation are using a loophole to get around Sec. 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 by instituting ordinances forbidding local law enforcement to even ask the question as to whether a person is in the U.S. lawfully, thereby evading their legal responsibility to report their suspicions to the federal government.

“In a post 9-11 world, it is simply unacceptable for communities to ignore federal laws requiring them to share this type of information with federal authorities. This is not a matter of making state and local governments enforce federal immigration laws, it is simply a matter of closing this loophole that certain cities have created,” said Coleman. “This defies common sense, as the rule of law must apply to both legal and illegal residents. Moreover, we know how crucial it is to connect the dots in order to avert another terrorist attack in this country. The consequences of prohibiting information sharing are too great. To close this loophole, I have introduced an amendment that will ensure the lines of communication are open between local and federal law enforcement officials.”

Senator Coleman’s legislation will not require local law enforcement to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Moreover, it does not require local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids or act as federal agents. Senator Coleman’s bill will simply give law enforcement officers the ability to inquiry about a person’s immigration status during their routine investigations, and in turn report their findings to the appropriate Federal authorities though already-established channels, as they are currently required to do by law.

I don't really ask all that much, I think, when I ask our elected representatives to stand up and recognize that this country was built on the principle that the law is egalitarian toward its citizens, and, in light of that, should at least act as though they respect those laws. It's nice to know somebody's senator sees his job in the same light, and is willing to try to do something about those who undermine the law of the land.

I wish, I wish, I wish... dammit, I'm still stuck with Durbin as my senator!

Will somebody from Minnesota please give Coleman a big kiss for me?


Update: Power Line has another good reason for shutting down "sanctuary city" policies and enforcing the law as written. Follow the link to Jean Hopfensperger's Star-Tribune story, especially.

Snow returns!

Not this kind


-- these pics


are a few weeks old,


already. The weekend is the start of a heat wave -- hot Snow... Tony Snow.

Hot diggety dog, he's scheduled for return to his dais tomorrow!

A petition worth signing

I have had a lot of bones to pick with John McCain, over the years, but he's dead on the money, on one issue -- the war in Iraq. As he says, surrender is not an option.

Also, over the years, I've learned that online petitions to congressmen usually aren't worth the paper they're printed on. I stopped signing and forwarding those things in my e-mail box long ago.

Nevertheless, putting the two of these together actually seems like a good thing, for once. John McCain has an online petition worth signing and sharing around:

• The supplemental appropriations bill that passed the Senate on March 27, calling for a date certain withdrawal from Iraq, is nothing more than a guaranteed date of surrender.
  
  
• It is a refusal to acknowledge the dire consequences of failure, in terms of the stability in the Middle East and the resulting impact on the security of all Americans, whether home or abroad.
  
  
• Democrats have chosen the politically expedient position of failure rather than putting aside the small politics of the day in the interest of our nation and the values upon which this nation rests.
  
  
• We the undersigned remain steadfast in our support for the war against terrorism and mindful of the consequences of failure in Iraq, even if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid refuse to acknowledge those consequences.
  
  
• We support our troops and the new strategy and believe it should be given the opportunity to succeed. American national security interests are directly at stake. Success or failure in Iraq is the transcendent issue for our foreign policy and our national security. People say they want to defeat the terrorists, but if we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, it will be the terrorists' greatest triumph.
  
  
• If we leave Iraq based on an artificial timetable, al Qaeda will be free to plan, train for and conduct operations from Iraq just as they did in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Please go here and sign it, then pass on the address to everybody you respect. (HT: CQ)

Update: For a really good reason to sign the petition, read what Sergeant Krueger has to say (as posted by Scott Johnson) at Power Line.

Have you signed the pledge, yet?

Over 26,000 Americans have promised they will not give a dime to the campaigns of those who support the resolution (binding or not) to thumb their noses at the commitment of more troops to the task in Iraq. Won't you join us in signing the NRSC Pledge?

It isn't about thwarting Bush-haters (that's just a bonus). This is about showing support for the troops, and about telling them that we will not support a Republican who can not stand up and speak for those troops.

I don't expect a Democratic member of the House or Senate to actually come out backing the very thing Harry Reid demanded less than six weeks ago -- their memories go back only as far as the last poll. But the Republican candidates should know better than to undermine the very thing their chosen field commander, Gen. Petraeus, has asked for.

If they can't back their own troops, the folks who do back the soldiers have an obligation to find somebody else to fill their positions. Put your signatures -- and your checkbooks -- where they will do the most good, today.



Update: I said I expected nothing from the Demos. Still, there's a nifty response to Jim Webb's "rebuttal" speech, from a fellow USNA alum. via Hugh Hewitt. with fun, useful comments.

I shall sport a scarlet "R"

Like Dr. Helen, I can't honestly say I would be happy declaring myself wholeheartedly a member of the Republican party, or even call myself a capital-"c"-Conservative. Although, "right-leaning Libertarian" doesn't do it for me, either, for reasons I will not go into right here.

And, like Dr. Helen, I'm finding myself more and more weary of the nastiness and foul attitudes coming mostly from the left -- and not always the far left. (I'm not so concerned with the far right. The far right is a bunch of ninnies who have a talent for shooting themselves in the foot with their sanctimony.) I find political extremes distasteful and usually destructive toward the society which follows them.

Yeah, I tend toward the right on a number of issues, but, more often than not, I simply enjoy playing devil's advocate.

I like a really good, honest dust-up. Sometimes I go looking for a proper scrap. Sometimes, I post here just hoping somebody will come by and throw an honest punch or two. Without open debate, I'm stuck listening to the sound of my own blatherings, and, when you're crazy, that's frowned upon.

But when I'm looking for a proper rumble, I expect the discussion to be based on facts, not on ad hominem attacks upon anybody. Name-calling isn't really any sort of battle. That sort of nonsense is what we older broads used to call "chick-fighting". It wasn't even up to the level of mud-wrestling. It's sniping and whining and cattiness and bullying without muscle, because you know you'd never win in a real face-to-face, facts-against-facts fight, so you'd rather just be snide and self-absorbed.

And too often, even the people I count as friends (despite or even because of the fact that they trend leftward) get caught up in that sissy crap. And, by and large, they're better than that, if they'd just apply themselves.

Unfortunately, the "chick-fighting" path is seductive. It's much easier to simply say, "you suck!" than it is to explain why the practices or policies of the person don't or won't work, or to bring up actual evidence of error or sin. It's fun, when sitting all alone with a keypad, to type vulgarities in somebody else's comments... it makes a person feel all naughty and powerful, all at once.

Because it's such a siren song, I am thinking long and hard about declaring myself a Republican, then painting on the scarlet "R" and joining the nasty, dirty "chick-fight".

Lucky for me, "R" is also my initial, so if I get tired of madly flailing my words about, I can honestly tell people I have a colossal ego. I can wear it with pride, if I so choose. Or I can wear it with slime, as I earnestly say, "Hillary, you ignorant slut."

I stand accused, and confess my madness

In response to a couple of recent comments directed toward me, not only here at my blog, but via e-mail (partly as a result of my weekly columns, too), I must now admit what they say I must: I'm a card-carrying member of the Republican party. I hate everybody and everything different from myself -- you know, people of color, gays, furriners, and stuff. I know nothing. And my party is doomed, next month, to ignominious defeat and to the impeachment of "my" president.

Except that, I don't have any card saying I'm a Republican. My voter registration card simply lists my name, address, voter registration number, and the precinct in which I live. It also says I'm supposed to vote at the National Guard armory, but since 9/11, that has changed, and they haven't bothered to issue me an updated card. And I have yet to vote straight ticket, even when I was a registered Democrat, so I suppose the Republican party wouldn't send me a card, now, anyway.

Also, I have up until now failed to hate. Well, not entirely true. I hate taking prescription Tussionex when I get a really bad cough with my biennial bronchitis. The stuff is like snot on a spoon, with bubbles, because you have to "Shake Well Before Using." I hate cleaning a cat litter box. I do both of them, though, because the alternative is worse. As to people, though, I've yet to find a person I truly hate. Distrust, perhaps. Envy, occasionally. Fear, naturally (and there are greater fears outside the primate circle). But not hate.

As to the lack of any knowledge... pegged right off the bat, I'm afraid. But then, I'm crazy, so what do I know?

All I know is what I've seen with my own two eyes -- and even that is in doubt, since I'm nuts. But I have read quite a bit, and can't seem to quit the habit. And, I have an unfortunately strong memory when it comes to that sort of thing. I may not be able to tell you where my shoes are, or what the name is of the person who lives with the Jack Russell terrier next door, but I can recite to you, from memory, more than a dozen "Little Willie" poems, as well as some less gruesome fare. I can recall π to the 6th digit past the decimal point. I can write up a lesson plan. I can balance a checkbook -- if I ever get one, again. I can rewire a lamp, refit a door frame, build a cat playground from scrap lumber and carpet. I can read a map, and can find my way home from just about any point in the Midwest without a map or a compass. And those are just for starters. Still, I'm not Einstein or Leonardo or even Ezra Pound.

And I tend to be a tad on the optimistic side. I think the moderates will look around and think to themselves that, given the choices we have, it's better to elect a self-made ninny over a ninny who was trained by, and to be, a jackass. But then, I'm crazy, so what do I know? What I know is I don't really like any of my choices, this year. I didn't like many of the choices we had last election, either. But, as an optimist, I'd rather choose the one who hasn't already listed attitudes I find indefensible than the one who goes all the way down the line as a partisan hack.

And, if the Democrats win everything (which I can't yet pretend I think will happen), and they then try to impeach the President, they will have one helluva legal fight on their hands. Because if "Bush lied to get us into war," then so did all the members of the intelligence committee... including Democrats. So, in pursuing that goal with any sense of honor, they should resign their offices and wait to be prosecuted, as well. I don't see this happening.

But then, I'm crazy, so what do I know?