You should vote for John Kerry if…

You’d like to see arabs from the west bank to the Iranian border dancing in the streets.

You’d like to see euro-twits go into spasms of orgasmic ecstasy and swoon like 12 year old girls at an Eminem concert.

You’d like to see our enemies in Fallujah firing off their automatic weapons in joyous celebration.

You don’t mind enduring the vacuous blatherings of monkey brained moonbat pundits who will tell us in sonorous, somnolent tones that the defeat of George Bush will change the world.

You want to be put to sleep during Kerry’s inaugural address.

You want to see Kerry go before the UN and spit APOLOGIZE spit for American actions over the last four years. (sorry Misha, couldn’t resist)

You want to see an Iraqi “Summit” with Muqtada al-Sadr grinning like a crocodile that just swallowed a dik-dik shaking hands with US Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

You want terrorists and the states that enable them emboldened to attack US targets without much fear of any serious reprisals.

You want Iraq to recieve the same competent administration as Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, the Darfur region of Sudan, and other nations and regions falling under the jurisdiction of the virtuous, infallible, and o-so-fair-and balanced-when-it-comes-to adjudicating-the world’s-troubles United Nations.

You don’t mind if Iran has nuclear weapons.

You don’t mind if North Korea ditto.

You don’t mind President Kerry blaming the above on the “misguided policies” of his predecessor.

You want to see the Democrats declare victory on election night REGARDLESS OF THE ACTUAL VOTES CAST BY AMERICAN CITIZENS.

It seems more and more likely to me that John Kerry could very well win this election. Bush should be pulling away; he’s not. Couple that with the usual Democratic “suprise” the last few days before an election (I wonder what it will be this year?) and there’s a real chance for a Kerry min-landslide…more than 320 electoral votes and a comfortable margin in the popular vote.

We’ve seen this kind of election before in 1980. The last polls in that election year saw Reagan and Carter in a dead heat. Then, with 48 hours to go before election day, the polls switched dramatically and Reagan won comfortably.

Many conservatives saw the 1980 election as a last chance to stop what liberals called the “inevitabilty” of communism. I fear that liberals see this election as THEIR last chance to stop the rise of conservative governance.

George Bush represents a new kind of conservatism. Where Ronald Reagan was forced by circumstances to govern as head of a coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats and George Bush (41) hardly tried at all to work with conservatives on anything, President Bush has brought conservative thought to near majority status by showing that Republicans can be a governing party and not a party of “obstructionists.” This is the most direct threat to liberal dominance in nearly 80 years. And they are throwing everything they have into this election to defeat the President.

Can they stop this revolution even if Bush is defeated? Probably not. But it almost certainly will slow this revolutionary idea of an “ownership” society until someone emerges from the inevitable civil war between old-line conservatives and governing conservatives that will occur with a Bush defeat. How rancorous and divisive that war will be will depend on how the war against terror goes. If we’re hit again, it may galvanize the paleo-conservatives like Pat Buchanan and Lew Rockwell into the realization that this is a war we have to fight “over there” and not over here.


UPDATE: LOOK MA! I CAN TRACKBACK!

I thought I’d play with my new trackback toy. Now, let’s see…hummmmm…who do I want to ping today.

I tell ya I don’t get this computer lingo. What’s a ping…As if! It sounds personal…like “pardon me, I think I just pinged you…” Does it involve bodily contact? If so, if I ping a teenager will I get into trouble? Anyway, c’mon boys! Ping Away!

Ace has some interesting economic news. (Couldn’t ping Ace’s new addresss…does this mean that Ace is ping-proof?)

Vodkapundit shows the Euro-trash in full groveling mode before the mighty mullahs.

Bill at INDC picks up on the good news from Iraq with a link to an LA Times editorial by Truth in Iraq founder Stephen Moore.

Cap’n Kevin’s WIZBANG links to a great pc story involving a Washington State school district banning Halloween because it offends witches! Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get on the wrong side of witches what with their spells and incantations and all…mebbe they do somthin’ to take away Superhawk’s manliness…(mebbe they’d be too late)

The gorgeous Fausta (your hair looks fine, hon) has some interesting thoughts on the Kerry campaign (hat tip: Kerryhaters)

Once again, Varifrank has given everyone who is going crazy this election a reason to take a deep breath step back, and look at the BIG PICTURE.

And for a laugh out loud tears in your eyes gut buster, try Sir George’s take on a Court decision involving “The standing of Whales…”
(I always wondered about this whaling song):

“When the whale gets stuck
and the line plays out
and the whale make a flunder with its tail…”

What the hell’s a “flunder” and is it anything like the “mooning calf” in Sir George’s screed?

UPDTATE AND EXPLANATION AND APOLOGY

To all of you who I just pinged…JEEEEEEEESUUUUUUS! I’m sorry! It took me about an hour to figure out all the ins and outs of this trackback stuff and I still don’t have it down.

Your patience will be appreciated.

I have obtained, at the cost of several brave men’s lives (who will be memorialized CIA fashion with simple gold stars placed in the foyer of the HOUSE)a bloodstained copy of the new Kerry campaign ad attacking President Bush.

WARNING: DUE TO THE GRAPHIC NATURE OF THIS ADVERTISEMENT, PARENTAL DISCRETION IS ADVISED.

OPENING: A large, ferocious Rottweiler (apology to the Emperor. Ed.)sitting silently. (CLOSEUP): Dog sits very still, watching, looking. An atmosphere of menace emanates from the dog. Voice over:

PRESIDENT BUSH HAS A PLAN TO MURDER MILLIONS OF SENIOR CITIZENS BY THROWING THEM OFF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ROLLS AND BANNING THE USE OF METAMUSIL.

(CLOSEUP): Dog starts to growl menacingly. Voice over:

PRESIDENT BUSH WANTS TO DRAFT YOU INTO THE ARMY AND TAKE AWAY YOUR X-BOX.

(CLOSEUP): Dog barks loudly twice…continues growling. Voice over.

PRESIDENT BUSH WENT TO WAR IN IRAQ TO DISTRACT AMERICANS SO THAT HE CAN TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION, SET UP A MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, AND FORCE FEED BABIES MILK CONTAMINATED WITH ANIMAL GROWTH HORMONES.

(CLOSEUP): Dog bares teeth…saliva drips out of the corner of its mouth…growls get more menacing. Voice over:

PRESIDENT BUSH ALLOWED THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY TO USE THE WHITE HOUSE SWIMMING POOL JUST 2 DAYS AFTER 9/11.

(EXTREME CLOSEUP): Dog’s lips are curled in a terrifying snarl…saliva pours from its mouth…hair on dog’s neck and back standing on end. Dog is ready to attack. Voice over:

PRESIDENT BUSH IS…A…CHRISTIAN!

(MEDIUM SHOT): Dog leaps and savagely attacks a George Bush lookalike grasping his teeth around the faux Bush’s throat and takes him to the ground. (Background noise of dog attack) Voice over:

JOHN KERRY WILL GRAB CHRISTIANS BY THE THROAT AND WON’T LET GO TO GET A BETTER GRIP. ELECT JOHN KERRY.

(SCREENSHOT): Block Letters: “If it was good enough for the Romans, it’s good enough for us!

(Voice): I’m John Kerry and I approved this message.



AND NOW FOR SOMETHING NOT COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:...

A very interesting exchange between Lawrence O’Donnell and Pat Buchanan, subbing for Joe Scarborough last Thursday night. O’Donnell not only managed to insult Christians (and anybody with even a smidgen of belief in God) but also tried to overturn three hundred years of western thought on the natural rights of man.

Here’s O’Donnell on “Bush’s God.”

O‘DONNELL: Well, but most Americans do not have that kind of simpleminded faith.

George Bush‘s God is a very strange God. This is a God who wants everyone to be free. That‘s a very, very peculiarly frustrated God. That is a God that has been apparently frustrated for centuries in George Bush‘s imagination.

BUCHANAN: Ever since the Garden of Eden.

O‘DONNELL: Well, this is a God—this is also a God who gives the gift of freedom. He says that‘s a gift from the almighty, that the Afghan people got this gift from the almighty this year.

What was George Bush‘s God doing to those people up to now? You see, that‘s the problem with this. For very simpleminded religious people, that stuff works. That is a minority of the American population, who have a more sophisticated view of God, those who accept it…”

For O’Donnell, a supposedly learned man to not recognize the “natural rights” argument for God creating man to be free is breathtakingly ignorant. Hey Moonbat! Remember this one?

“We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

Without this argument, there might not have been a United States of America.

The entire rationale for self-governance is that people are BORN with certain freedoms. It is governments, created by MAN that curtails those freedoms. Ever since the 18th Century, Europeans like Rousseau getting a look at native Americans and native Africans existing free in a “natural” state, Euro-philosophers accepted the idea that man, born into a state of natural freedom, was given this gift by a deity.

Read what monkey brain O’Donnell says about prayer:

BUCHANAN: Now, Lawrence, do you have a problem with the fact that this guy falls on his knees and prays to God Almighty to do the right thing before he invades Iraq?

O‘DONNELL: Absolutely. He should not do any praying about going to

war, none. It has nothing to do with going to war. It has no place in

going to war…

Father O’Donnell, after first dissing those with “simple minded beliefs” (as opposed to the moonbat “sophisticated” notion of God) now goes on to lecture the President on when he should pray!

I didn’t see the show on Thursday night, but I caught the Friday night show where the above quote came from. O’Donnell was forced to come back on Friday after MSNBC got thousands of e-mails complaining about the moonbat’s comments.

You can read the entire transcript for Thursday here and Friday here.

George Bush has proven over nearly 4 years that he will defend freedom with every ounce of energy and every fiber of his being even at the expense of losing the Presidency.

John Kerry won’t.

George Bush has proven over nearly 4 years that there is nothing more important than protecting the American people, even if it means losing his Presidency.

John Kerry won’t.

George Bush has proven over nearly 4 years that he will, in the immortal words of Zell Miller, “grab the terrorists by the throat and not let go to get a better grip” even if it means losing his Presidency.

John Kerry won’t.

George Bush has proven over nearly 4 years that he doesn’t care if the rest of the world opposes him in these efforts, even if it means losing his Presidency.

John Kerry won’t.

In his book “Plan of Attack”, Bob Woodward quotes George Bush as saying that he didn’t care if going to war in Iraq costs him his Presidency, he knew it was the right thing to do.

I do not believe that John Kerry believes in ANYTHING that much.

In the end, the Presidency is the lonliest job in the world. In a crisis, all the President has are his core beliefs and his faith to sustain him.

I do not believe that John Kerry has any core beliefs and his faith has been reduced to a matter of political convenience, trotted out when politically expedient.

Domestic issues are superfluous. What does the budget deficit matter if the country is crippled in a terrorist attack? How relevant are economic issues if the economy is destroyed by one nuclear bomb detonated in one American city? Is social security, health care or any other issue as important as preventing a catastrophic attack the likes of which civilization has never seen?

The answer is an emphatic no.

George Bush has proved that he will take the war to the terrorists and fight them where they live, not where we live.

John Kerry has rejected that notion.

Because I trust George Bush on this overarching issue of security and I don’t trust John Kerry, I will vote for George W. Bush for President.

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! The forces of darkness are gathering to strike a blow against liberty, justice, the American way, and…and…THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!

The Electoral college?

Yes, it’s true. Not content to emasculate the American military, Kerry lickspittles have now set their sights on stripping America of one of its oldest and most cherished institutions. Now, gentle reader, before you scratch your head and ask the obvious question of WHO THE F**K CARES…perhaps a little history lesson is in order. And who better to give it than I, Professor Superhawk, BFA, MS, and VAH (Very Amateur Historian).

WHAT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE (AND DO THEY HAVE A FOOTBAL TEAM)?

I’ll take the second question first, Alex. Not that I’m aware of although I understand they’ve had some pretty wild keggers over the last 212 years. And starting in 1920 when the college went co-ed, panty raids became a huge problem.

Notwithstanding such juvenile shennanigans, the Electoral College is a product of one of the more divisive debates that took place during the constitutional convention. For a very educational and thorough examination of this history, I recommend you go here since I’ll be dealing with only the bare bones of what the institution is all about.

The College consists of electors, chosen by the states in various ways, that (ideally) reflect the outcome of the popular vote in that particular state. The number of electors is what’s important; that number is determined by how many Senators(2) and Congressmen (proportionally awarded based on most recent census) the state has. So Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes because they have 2 Senators and…how many Congressmen? Class?...CLASS? WAAAAAKE UUUUP! . Thank you. Nineteen Congressmen is the correct answer. The kicker is that it’s a winner take all competition…whoever wins the popular vote gets all the electors from that state.

ISN’T THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE KIND OF ARCHAIC?

Depends what you mean by archaic. Given that Kerry as voted against every major weapons system currently in use by the military (an exaggeration, but hey! We don’t call this the RIGHTWINGnuthouse because we’re impartial!), perhaps he wants us to fight terrorism using bows and arrows…or spears. Do you mean archaic in THAT sense? The answer is no. And like my sainted father used to say “Old things are best.” Many of the reasons for the electoral college are still valid today.

Look at the election of 2000. Algore would have been President if he had carried one more state. That would have given him a grand total of 18 states voting Democratic. George Bush would have won 32 states and gotten nothing, nada, zip-i-dee-doo-da. This is exactly what the electoral college was set up to prevent. Al Gore, if he had won Florida, would have captured 8 of the 10 largest states and won the election by appealing largely to both urban and coastal constituencies. George Bush demonstrated broader support in the electoral college appealing to states in the north, south, east, and west. Bush, even though narrowly losing the popular vote, proved himself a much more national candidate.

Now, there are voices of dissent who maintain we no longer vote for regional candidates and that direct popular election is the only fair way in a democracy to choose a President. Not so fast my kool-aid drinking, tin foil hat wearing monkey brained moonbats! Consider below…

WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WITH DIRECT ELECTIONS FOR PRESIDENT?

If we were to simply go by the popular vote to decide who’s elected President, 3 major alterations would occur that would permanently change the landscape of our political culture.

1. Democratic candidates would concentrate on big states in their campaigns. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, that candidate would move to California, set up residence, and shake 40 million hands over a two year period. An exaggeration, but a politician who already lived in California…say a Governor or Senator…would have an enormous advantage in any race for the Presidency. If such a candidate could run up a huge majority in California the task of getting 50.1% of the vote would become much easier.

2. Minorities would become marginalized. If you think candidates ignore the concerns of minorities now, you’ll love direct elections for President. More than ever, Democrats would take the minority vote for granted and Republicans would continue their half-hearted attempts at outreach. the rationale being, why spend time and money preaching to (or begging from)) the converted?

3. Small states and rural areas would be slighted. Would a campaign that never visited Bucktooth PA or Watchoutforthatcroc FL be any fun at all? I doubt it. I think that we’d lose something if Presidential candidates only visited big states and big state TV markets. Somehow, watching a candidate interact with these simple folk gives you a handle on what kind of person they are, hence what kind of leader they’d make.

WILL WE TOSS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ANY TIME SOON?

Not as long as the current political party situation remains unchanged. Republicans would be at enormous logistical disadvantage under such a system. Think of it like a war. Republicans have a lot more territory to defend than Democrats and thus, their resources would be stretched much thinner. To get to the magic number of 50.1%, Democrats would be able to expend a lot less energy and money to defend their own turf thus freeing them up to raid Republican strongholds. Republicans would have to fight off Democratic insurgencies in red states while carrying on an expensive battle in blue states to pick off a few voters here and there.

No wonder this idea is so popular with the moonbats.

I’ve resisted the temptation for several days of writing anything about Jacques Derrida. The so-called “Father of Deconstruction” died this past week and thereby passed into history…which he didn’t think existed…or did it?

Monsieur Derrida was, to put it mildly, an obscurant. His writings at various times were called, illogical, raving, beautiful, and piquant. His seminal work on language “Of Grammatology,” so beloved by comparitive lit teachers and social critics in the west, was a masterpiece of obfuscation. And that was the point; that lanuage is tyranny, meaning is meaningless.

What made Monsieur Derrida so attractive to western intellectuals was that at bottom, deconstructionism was a scathing social critique of hierarchical societies, capitalism, nationalism, racial dominance, imperialism, and culture. It allowed for relativistic formulations of concepts once thought to be unchallengable like truth, morality, even science. He turned the academic world upside down in the 1970’s as “theory” replaced “literature” as scholarship.

Deconstructionism fell out of favor in the 1990’s when many of its adherents tried to apply the theory to the sciences. This led to some (thankfully) shortlived movements such as “women’s physics” and “african biology”...movements where enthusiastic boosters tried to overturn the empiricism of the natural sciences in favor of the idea that, since most scientists were white males, the data was corrupted by a privileged frame of reference.

Why was this important? It’s my belief that Monsieur Derrida and his collegues severely undermined faith and belief in western civilization amongst the intellectual left in Europe and the United States. As a method of textual analysis, it was a benign force for change in criticism of the arts. As a vehicle for social commentary, it was a disaster.

Deconstruction is a very difficult concept to get my mind around. In many ways, it reminds me of how I “understand” quantum mechanics…I can “see” what they’re getting at, I just can’t quite understand it. Perhaps I misunderstand what this counterintuitive theory is all about…but there’s no mistaking in my mind what the effects have been. Our best and brightest; those who in the past gave life and breath to the liberal democratic ideas embodied in western culture, abandoned the society that nurtured them to embrace a formless intellectual conceit which may yet lead us all to destruction.

Better explanations here and here.



Update:


My brother Jim from the left coast has joined the colloquy. I’ll quote extensively from the e-mail, without giving away all those family secrets like…”remember when you got drunk and threw up on the piano?”...or “was that you or your brother Larry who I caught naked, smeared with peanut butter, and dancing in the garden with that blonde chick?”...nothing embarrasing don’t worry. And while I usually like fisking right smartly the odd moonbat who visits, I’ll make an exception in your case.

“I think that this piece, like all your stuff I’ve read, is literate and thoughtful (even when raving – I love that ‘rightwingnut” site name!), and it shouldn’t surprise you that I agree with your conclusion.”

Actually, it DOES surprise, but pleaes continue…

“Mother and Daddy grew to intellectual maturity in the era of the beginning of the New Critics like F.R. Leavis, Jerome Buckley, and jeez, I can’t think of all the other names I used to quote so freely. It’s now called formalism, and its basic tenet is exactly the opposite of Derrida – that the text is everything and to be trusted implicitly for meaning (you can see exactly what Derrida was reacting against). History, biography, psychology – these are far less relevant than the actual words in front of you.

New Criticism was a product of 30’s liberalism, which is why Daddy was enraptured of it. It was in its turn rejecting the idea of literature/art as historical artifact only. It’s how we all grew up reading books; it’s the fundament of the way I’ve taught for 30 plus years”

So far so good…and sure’n if yer not a fine taicher, me good lad.

“Deconstruction grew out of or up with the New Left, so called – the Left of quotas, pc, anything-but-white, American hisotry as genocide, and other such delightful ideas. Classic liberals cut from our parents’ cloth (and that would of course include me and I believe those of your siblings who lean this way) may appreciate a good revisionist take on an issue now and again – but we ain’t gonna go into the woods, put on paint and feathers, and wish that we were Lakota and not Irish.”

I dunno…sometimes you go on the warpath when we talk about Kissinger or Reagan so go easy on the Lakota refs.

“As I’ve observed in some of my internet writings, the “New Left” isn’t left at all – it’s arrogant Stalinism that has hijacked the cause of Progressivism and in fact undermined it by creating both Neocons and pusillanimous centrists like Clinton and gutless wonders like Kerry (you didn’t think he would actually appeal to me, did you? – not that I’d vote for GWB in a millenium).”

Well, we agree on something…and for that last rant, you’ve been granted honorary access to THE HOUSE whenever you wish. As for your thoughts about Bush, this IS the new millenium and…well, in the words of that famous deconstructionist and towering intellectual giant Roseanne Roseanna Danna:

NEVER MIND!

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

“John Kerry is not a good man.”

Lynne Cheney, in one of the few unscripted moments of this campaign, said what tens of millions of Americans had suspected about John Kerry but were hesitant to believe.

After months of linguistic gymnastics on Iraq, twisting and turning on the issue until he ended up resembling one of those soft pretzels you can buy on the street corner (with or without mustard), Kerry has proven once again that he’ll say anything to get elected.

Now we’re not babes in the woods here. We all know politicians will say many things that aren’t necessarily true, but are appealing to one group or another. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. “A chicken in every pot!” “Remember the Maine!” “Making the world safe for democracy!”

But John Kerry wasn’t trying to appeal to anyone for votes. In what may be the most cynical campaign ploy in the history of modern presidential politics, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Mary Beth Cahill were actually attempting to discourage people from voting.

By bringing up Mary Cheney’s sexual orientation, in what any rational observer would have to say was a coordinated campaign tactic, the Kerry smear machine was hoping to depress the turnout of evangelical Christians in key battleground states where just a few thousand people staying home on election day would tip the contest Kerry’s way. The rationale being that many of these voters are casual observers of the political scene at best and would recoil in horror upon learning that the Vice President had a lesbian daughter.

How do we know this was a campaign tactic? In the hundreds of speeches given by both Edwards and Kerry on the campaign trail, nary a word was spoken about Mary Cheney. It wasn’t until the debates-first the Vice Presidential debate and then the final debate between the President and Mr. Kerry-when 50 million people were watching (including the more casually observing evangelical Christians) that Kerry and Edwards found it necessary to mention the sexual preferences of the Vice President’s daughter.

The final act of this political Kabuki dance was Mary Beth Cahill’s extraordinary claim that Mary Cheney was “fair game” in the campaign. And just for good measure, Elizabeth Edwards, sounding like the nosy neighbor next door who spreads all the malicious gossip you love to hear but makes you feel like taking a shower after visiting with, cattily said that Mrs. Cheney was probably “ashamed” of her daughter’s sexual orientation, which explained her comments about John Kerry.

What kind of hole has the Kerry campaign dug for itself? It goes without saying that most of the gay rights organizations and mainstream media outlets have rushed to Kerry’s defense. Hilary Rosen wrote a column in the Washington Post saying that Republican outrage “Rings False.” She compares what Kerry said to the battle over Bush administration efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“All of the Cheneys have sat back as senators and members of Congress who stood up for their position against the constitutional amendment were attacked in campaigns across the country. In Texas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Carolina and elsewhere, Republican candidates are using the gay issue against Democrats who have done nothing more than vote to protect the notion of fairness and equality in our Constitution.”

“Where is the outrage of Dick and Lynne Cheney over this?”

There’s no outrage, Ms. Rosen, because the President sincerely believes that the constitutional amendment is necessary. Despite your protestations, the President is NOT using the gay marriage issue in an unfair way. Politicians are held accountable to their constituents for the votes they cast. If the voters disagree with that politician on a vote he’s cast or a position he’s taken, they have every right to vote against them.

It’s what we call “democracy.”

Given this kind of rabid defense of the Kerry campaign, it came as a huge surprise that in a Washington Post Poll, 64% of respondents thought that the remark was uncalled for. Kerry has issued a statement trying to explain that he was trying to say something positive about “strong families.” Nobody’s buying it. And it may be too late now for any kind of an apology. Such a mea culpa would ring hollow given the time elapsed since the debate.

As for lasting damage, early indications are that possibly, maybe, Bush has begun a surge. Daily tracking polls (except the Washington Post) indicate the President has opened a slight lead. My feeling is that Bush would be surging with or without this cause celebre. His performance in the last debate plus a trickle of good news from Iraq and the elections in Afghanistan have combined to solidify his base and move some independents his way.

In a contest where momentum is everything, the Mary Cheney flap has given impetus to the Bush campaign while throwing a monkey wrench in Kerry’s political machine.

It may be too late for Kerry to recover.

It’s a black dog kind of day.

Winston Churchill, who may or may not have suffered from bi-polar disorder, described his frequent bouts with depression as “the black dog” coming upon him. Now, I know that at times it seems that I suffer from some rare and serious mental disorder (especially if you read my rants about Senator Flip Flop and his band of bully boys) but the fact is I’m usually a pretty happy-go-lucky sort of fellow and tend to see the glass half full.

Not so today.

Trying to get out of my depression, I visited the usual places. The Commisar, The Duck, Jeff Goldstein , The Imperial Torturer, even Scrappleface...nada.

Even good war news couldn’t shake the black dog’s grip from my throat.

What, you might be asking (and thanks for caring) brought on this canine ennui?

It’s becoming increasingly clear that, come January 20, 2005, Dennis Hastert will be sworn in as President of the United States.

Now Speaker of the House Hastert is a genial sort of fellow but Presidential timber? I think not.

How did I reach this bizarre albeit depressing (there’s that word again) scenario?

Watching Lou Dobbs on CNN yesterday, Ron Brownstein of the LA Times had this to say about the election aftermath:

“Perhaps one candidate will widen to the point where some of these issues wont be as significant, because their margins will be bigger. But if we stay in the direction we are in, I think we’re going to have a lot of arguments unfortunately again. And quick point, the post-election fight, the battle beyond election day now seems to be accepted as part of the rules of engagement as in so many other areas. We’re widening the battlefield.”

“Rules of engagment”...”widening the battlefield…sounds like war to me. Brownstein also points out the fact that both candidates have fielded dozens of lawyers and that “when you have that many lawyers around, they are going to do something.”

What does this mean for our republic? Stephen Green has a good answer:

“Democracy is the free market of political systems. And like any free market, it can’t function without some basic level of trust. That trust comes, slowly, from hammering out rules even competitors can live with. That trust comes, with difficulty, by honoring those rules, even when your candidate doesn’t win. That trust exists in relatively few places around the world.”

Green makes the point that we’ve been building this trust for 228 years and can lose it in an instant. Just ask the people of Germany in 1933.

And what happens if these nightmare scenarios come true? What if:

President Bush decides for the good of the country he can’t relenquish power to the Speaker on January 20? Who or what can stop him?

We experience a massive terrorist strike between election day and January 20? If the election is in the courts with Kerry ahead in the electoral college, would Bush surrender power?

The tables were turned and Bush was ahead? Would Kerry concede?

I wrote a piece a few days ago asking whether or not violence would mar this election. Would either side accept another election decided by the Supreme Court if the decision went against them? What happens when half the people refuse their consent to be governed?

Nightmare questions…nightmare scenarios.

I decided to wait till this morning to do my analysis and round up of the debate last night so that I could better absorb what pundits and pajama people were saying.

The short version is that it was a draw which was okay for Bush but good for Kerry.

CNN poll has Kerry winning 52-39 while ABC had Bush up 43-42. CBS? They used a sample of “undecided voters” which is a crock of shit because the reason people are undecided is that they’re unsure whether or not to toss the incumbent. Historically, they break 2-1 for the challenger. Still, Kerry won 36-25 with another 36% saying it was a tie. Might be good news for Bush…could be undecideds are willing to go Bush IF (and that’s a big if) war news and economic news don’t get much worse.

Round up of the pajamahadeen is a mixed bag (see below). Interesting that the Kerry remark about Cheney’s gay daughter seems to have hurt Kerry. MSM is even taking him to task on it. That and his unintentional reference to “marrying up” (read I am NOT a gigolo) could play some part…we’ll see.

Crushkerry calls it a clear Bush win. (They’re going to stay up after the election renaming-hopefully-the site “anklebitingpundits.com”)

Kerryhaters has some good post debate comments and some questions for the Senator on SS.

Glen Reynolds has his usual post debate round up. Consensus…it’s BUSH! (Yeah, so…it’s not a surprise)

PowerLine watched the debate with 600 cheering conservatives and guess who won…

John at RWN liveblogged the debate and has a very good round up.

Polipundit thinks that the debate sealed Bush’s re election (we’ll see)

Aceof Spades calls it for Bush and wonders why the Volohk Conspiracy doesn’t include him!

Stephen Green seems afflicted by Churchill’s “black dog” (or maybe he’s a little down in his cups) but nevertheless gives it to Bush.

The Commissar (Hail the Revolution!) says its a tie.

Frank J. is perplexed. (Check out this cartoon)

Finally Bill at INDC has some great analysis and an excellent round-up.

We’ll revisit this debate on Tuesday (after weekend polling) to see where we are.


UPDATE: THE MYTH ABOUT 9/11

I’ve always bristled at the notion that somehow, the invasion of Iraq “squandered” the goodwill and sympathy of the world towards the US following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The fact is, anti-americanism may have been slightly muted in SOME quarters, but it was business as usual for the anti-american bigots in Europe and elsewhere even in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.

An article in the Guardian on September 17, 2001 by William Shawcross (no paragon of American booseterism himself) is revealing of the hate towards America less than a week after human civilization suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history:

“I did not see the BBC’s Question Time last week. Part of the studio audience bayed at America and slow-handclapped the former US Ambassador Philip Lader, reducing that man almost to tears just 48 hours after his people had suffered the worst attack in their history.”

Shawcross was horrified and rightly so. He goes even further:

“But the disdain with which its failures and its efforts are greeted by some in Britain and elsewhere in Europe is shocking. Anti-Americanism often goes much further than criticism of Washington. Too often the misfortunes of America are met with glee, a schadenfreude that is quite horrifying.”

And, presciently, Shawcross wonders how long any of the “sympathy” exhibited in Europe and elsewhere will last:

But I have an awful fear that the solidarity with the US expressed at the United Nations and in Europe this week will not last long. Fundamentalist anti-Americanism will again rear its head, as it did on Question Time.”

This is less than a week after 9/11.

But what of today? What can we say about this will-o-the-wisp sympathy that either came and went very quickly or was never there in the first place?

A piece in Wall Street Journal by John Rosenthal explores this “myth of solidarity” with the US following 9/11 and traces it ti an editorial in “Le Monde” entitled “We are all Americans.” Rosenthal fisks the editorial right smartly, pointing out that if you get beyond the title of the editorial, some interesting thoughts are contained therein. To wit:

“...it amounted to the first, albeit awkward, suggestion in the French press that America had perhaps merely got what it had coming. In the following paragraph, Mr. Colombani went on to add that perhaps too “the reality” was that America had been “trapped by its own cynicism,” noting that Osama bin Laden himself had, after all, been “trained by the CIA”—a never substantiated charge that has, of course, in the meanwhile become chapter and verse for the blame-America-firsters. “Couldn’t it be, then,” Mr. Colombani concluded, “that America gave birth to this devil?”

Thus, another myth, this time born in Europe, America got what it deserved on 9/11. When you hear Democrats talking about “squandering” the goodwill of the world after the tragedy, do we also hear how that “sympathy” took form of arabs dancing in celebration from the West Bank to Teheran? Or how Canadiens less than a week after the attack booed the National anthem at a baseball game? Or how ordinary Brits reduced a former ambassador almost to tears by hurling anti-american insults on a TV show?

We don’t hear of this because it suits the liberals purpose to ignore history and live in fantasy land. It goes to the heart of John Kerry’s ridiculous notion that “mythical” allies will put tens of thousands of boots on the ground in Iraq and take over a substantial burden of the cost of the war.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…America is virtually alone in the world. If we have to save civilization in spite of itself…so be it. Suprnational organizations are powerless against the evil that threatens to blow us back to the stone age (or further). To depend on them is folly.

Historians generally agree that when it comes to ranking Presidents, Jimmy Carter is in the bottom 10% in effectiveness. This is due to a variety of factors, but the overarching reason is Carter’s management style.

In short, it was a disaster.

Carter was a so-called “detail man.” Trained as an engineer (he was a grad of the Naval Academy) Carter brought a manic desire to “understand the problem” to his role as chief executive. Hence, on every issue-large or small-Carter would carefully and, according to his aides, maddeningly, personally research the problem while discussing with his aides various policy options then asking them for MORE information while all the time, the problem would usually be growing worse. Carter would often take the position of devils advocate just to elicit more information from his frustrated aides. Zbigniew Brzezinski has some fascinating insights into this aspect of Carter’s management style.

Here’s a quote from Theodore H. White’s “America in Search of Itself” on Carter’s manic obsession with information gathering. A New York Democrat visited the oval office and found Carter sitting at his desk:

“...There sat Carter at his desk with a pile of papers knee-high beside him. “Do you know what that is?” he asked the visitor. “That’s the Air Force budget,” said Carter. “I’ve read every page of it.” he said proudly.

Aides like Hamilton Jordan were driven almost to distraction by Carter’s inability to make up his mind. Jordan, a political pro of the first order, was incredulous when, during the gas crisis of 1979, Carter cancelled a speech on energy to delve into what White called “the spirit and faith of a questioning nation.” There followed perhaps the most bizarre period in modern American history. With lines at gas stations stretching for blocks and Americans beating each other over the heads if someone cut in front of them, the President went on a personal journey trying to ascertain “what was wrong.” with America. He called in wise men like Clark Clifford. He talked to ordinary Americans from all over the country. He talked to party leaders, teachers, preachers, businessmen, activists, blacks, whites, hispanics and children. While he was doing this, the dollar was dropping like a stone on international markets, gas lines were getting longer, Americans were getting madder, and Europeans were starting to worry. And what was the result of all this?

Carter determined that what was wrong with America was, well…Americans!

Evidently, the people had lost faith in the country and each other. What became known as the “Malaise” speech sealed Carter’s defeat in 1980.

Teddy White summed this period up succinctly:

“In the court of almost any other contemporary soveriegn, the attempt (to ascertain the spirit of the nation) would be material for comedy, except in China where such doctrinal disputes end in tragedy…”

And what about the management style of John Forbes Kerry?

A PBS puff piece (actually, a 2 hour campign commercial for Kerry complete with attacks on the President), interviewed long time Kerry aide Jonathon Winer who spoke briefly about Kerry’s decision making process:

“So he goes to the other side, the opposite position that you want. “Why should I do this?” He’s got the following problems with it. “I might be justifiably attacked for this. Why shouldn’t we do that instead? Those kinds of arguments—it’s [an] environmental issue or energy issue or a foreign policy issue or a tax issue, and you have to battle him. He won’t just do it with one staffer. You could sort of deal with that one on one. He does it with a whole group, and encourages everybody else to participate in whichever angle of the discussion they want to be.”

Now there’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting a wide variety of viewpoints when trying to make a decision. President’s need that kind of feedback in order to organize their thoughts and set priorities.

But here’s what the Washington Post says about Kerry’s campaign decision making apparatus:

“Almost 25 years later, Kerry brought the same voracious appetite for information to his presidential campaign. He has three dozen domestic policy councils, two dozen foreign policy groups, an expanding corps of consultants, and many informal advisers he calls—about 15 per night—before going to bed.”

When Kerry was Senator, this kind of overlap and duplication wasn’t possible. But given a preference in his own campaign, Kerry makes exactly the same kind of mistake that Carter made…overloading himself with information.

The Post pretty much draws the same conclusion:

“But in his presidential race, the approach has bogged down his campaign in indecision or led to jarring changes in direction—even if the result, so far, is that Kerry remains in contention with President Bush. “Things you thought you resolved a week ago pop up again because he’s had another four conversations,” a former adviser said.”

This is the crux of Kerry’s problem. There is a monumental difference between policy making and crisis management. When faced with a crisis in his campaign, Kerry has either loaded up on new advisors, changed his message, or even revisited decisions already made. Sometimes, he’s done all three.

The Post points up the problems with this approach:

“Before setting a course of action, he regularly engages aides and friends in long discussion and argument, often playing devil’s advocate to probe for weaknesses and, if he finds them, insisting on more information until he believes he can argue all options equally well.”

“Argue all options equally well”...Evidently, Kerry is bucking for “Debater in Chief” rather than Commander in Chief.

Finally, the Post shows why Kerry is more like Carter than Reagan.

“Another recurring theme in Kerry’s executive style is that he almost always believes consensus is possible if he knows enough about an issue and the concerns of all those affected. “He thinks he wins because he knows the most,” said a longtime friend and aide.”

While consensus is desirable on any number of issues, the fact is they don’t call the Presidency “the loneliest job in the world” for nothing. There comes a time when a President is tested with making a decision alone. Will John Kerry have the ability to to make the tough, lonely choices that would protect us from catastrophe?

His track record to date does not instill any confidence that he would.


UPDATE:

P.J. O’Rourke is my favorite political satirist. If you haven’t read “Holidays in Hell,” an uproarious journey to Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicauragua, and Russia (among other places), then you’re missing the funniest travelogue written since Mark Twain’s “Innocent’s Abroad.” Some classic P.J.:

On Saddam Hussein: “He’s worse than Hitler, worse than Stalin, worse than waking up wearing a wedding ring next to Roseanne Barr…”

On the Ottoman Empire: “...so called because it had the same amount of energy and intelligence as a footstool…”

On the Naming of Birds in the Amazon: ...”these are very useful if, for instance, you’re writing an epic poem about the Bush (41) administration cabinet secretaries and need a rhyme for “Manuel Lujan…”

P.J. has “16 obvious points President Bush should make during the Wednesday night debate.” Read it and weep (with laughter).