How the Republican Party can win in 2008

Common knowledge has it that this year's elections, representative and presidential, are for the most part an easy win for the Democrats. This, presumably, you already know; if for no other reason than having read my earlier post, "Can the Dems Fumble the Ball?" So, here's a point-by-point analysis of the GOP's chances, and what it can do to win.

1) The Economy: I was perversely satisfied when polls showed that most voters believe the economy is the most important issue facing them this election, rather than what I would have expected: the war. The economy is taking a definite down-turn, and that's bad for all of us. This is an advantage for the liberals because a bad economic situation makes people yearn for New Deal-like government intervention. However, the refund-thing-check that many taxpayers will be getting this year is a good thing: it's putting more money back in the pocket of the consumer, rather than the government. This is a sure-fire, old-fashioned way to stimulate the economy, and will probably be popular. So, my analysis is that this issue could go either way, but still leans left. What that means is that voters who think the economy is the greatest concern will probably go Democratic.

2) The War: It was on everyone's minds in 2006, and the liberal media forecasted that it would be the deciding factor in 2008. That doesn't look like it will happen, but it's certainly a nearly-top priority. Many Americans see our presence in the Middle East as a greedy intrusion, only to safeguard our oil. Frankly, they might be right about the oil part. I mean, think about it. Darfur and North Korea and other places have more or equally tyrannical governments than Iraq or Afghanistan. However, we leave them pretty much alone. Why? Because, in my opinion, they don't have oil. Black gold. I don't see much wrong with this actually. We secured a needed resource and liberated two peoples in the process. I don't think that's a problem. It's as defensible as a nation invading its' corrupt, evil food-producing neighbor with two motives in mind, (1) liberate the people, and (2) safeguard our access to a vital resource. Which brings me back to my central view on the war: we can't lose, we can't leave, so we might as well win. Losing would end America as a world power. Leaving would abandon Iraq to the dogs--the very tyrants who had power before we invaded. Winning, however, would bring one more functioning democracy into the world, give us another ally in the middle east, and make quite certain that our oil supplies are not impeded. This, I think, should be clear to most people--even the voting ones--and thus although at first glance it seems like a cert for the Democrats, I think that we can convince voters of this view. Conclusion: This issue tends Right.

(3) Health Care: HillaryCare, the debacle that sounded the end of President Clinton's honeymoon back in 1994, has been resurrected by Hillary Clinton as one of her campaign promises. What is HillaryCare? Quite simply, it's a complete socialization of the health care system, making it a government program instead of a private sector enterprise. At first glance, that seems ideal. Something about health-care-for-profit does tickles a deep, Robin Hood bone in me, but I have to suppress it. The government would ruin health care like it has ruined public education, and like every other wealthy, industrialized nation has ruined health care. Our health care system is the best in the world, and getting better. Canada, for example, instituted socialized health care and now many citizens are calling for the old system. I won't go into it here, but for an in-depth analysis of the subject, I suggest David Gratzer's "The Cure." His conclusions are interesting, not necessarily a good way, but his data on socialized health care is eye-opening. Not wanting to be left of the band-wagon, Mr. Originality Barack Obama has also started trumpeting a version of socialized health care. However, if the issue gets accurate reporting, the Right has the advantage: if socialized health care gets the stigma it deserves, this issue is a cert for the Right. Conclusion: Right-Leaning.

4) Abortion & Euthanasia: The country has mixed messages about Abortion: polls indicate that a majority of Americans strongly support Roe, but are in favor of restricting Abortion. This is an interesting side-effect of the deification of Roe, and an interesting cultural phenomenon. The partial-birth abortion debate turned the country right-ward on Abortion, and that trend continues. Informed-consent laws, a dearth of government funding for abortions, and a general skittishness about the whole issue have turned the tide against the so-called "Pro-Choice Majority." Re-reading Ponnurru's "Party of Death," I'm confident that Abortion will one day be seen as a national nightmare--on the scale of slavery. Euthanasia, brought into the headlines with the Terri Schiavo debacle, is another issue the Democrats have embraced. Ponnurru reports that a Democratic operative reported, in the wake of the controversy, that "We can't just be the party of death all the time." Which brings me to my conclusion: the Republicans can win this year. We can win by exploiting these issues, and by pulling no punches on anything.

In conclusion, liberals make up a smaller portion of the electorate than conservatives. Hypothetically, that means that they must work harder every election. Forty-five years ago, this was opposite. What changed? The Democrats became the party of death. Although the tide is against us this election year in many ways, we can win.

Can the Dems fumble the ball?

I have removed the brilliant Ford advertising ploy, because I object to soft porn, especially nauseating soft porn. I posted it on an LSD trip and am in no way accountable for it.

Life has resumed it's normal course, and has reverted to its previous vapid milquetoast zeitgeist. I would sigh, but I don't have the heart.

The purpose of this post, however, is not to throw coals on the fire of my despair--to use a little Emo talk--much as I want to. I have a job to do: I need to inform you, my bucolic audience, of what is going on in the world beyond our humble shire. And if I don't, who will? I'm going to feed you politics whether you want it or not. Why? Because, frankly, I'm sick of people moaning and groaning whenever I bring the subject up. Groaning won't magic it away, you know! Blogging about politics is a dirty job, but again, someone has to do it. So, suck it in and do your part. Or I'll turn drill-sergeant on you, you meatheads.

The big issue in the political world is: can the Democratic party, so lauded after the midterm elections, fumble the electoral ball? At first it would seem incredible. Bush's war in Iraq is still going on, and the results thus far have been a decided mixed bag. Destabilizing Saddam Hussein was a good thing, but we've bungled in several ways since then. However, we can't leave. Why? Because it would be rubbing salt in the wounds of the Iraqi people. WE broke the country. WE need to fix it, which I'm sure is what John McCain meant when he said he could see us still in Iraq one hundred years from now. I hope he's exaggerating, but frankly if we've learned one thing from Korea and Vietnam, it's this: don't leave the job undone! We leave Iraq now, bang, instant civil war. The region is thrown into chaos. The oil-dependent world is thrown into chaos.

This is the atmosphere the Dems exploited in the 2006 midterm elections, where they gained seats in the House and Senate. Since then, they've been predictably innefective, failing to do anything much even by the incredibly low standards of the brainwashed, homogenized type of diversity-championing bourgeois bimbos the Democratic party continues to insist on electing.

Remember Jimmy Carter? Well, he's reincarnated in B. Hussein Obama. Frankly, I'm a sucker for a good 'ole inspirational message, and he pelts 'em out like Joel Osteen. I'm not surprised he's doing as well as he is. Of course, he has no substance and could not, in all likelihood, make it to a second term. Just like Carter, his presumptive idol who just won't die.

Clinton, on the other hand, is on some level competent and sensible, with a keen sense of irony and a relentless thirst for power that makes her an ample foil for Obama's numb, vague, photogenic rants against injustice and lack of hope. Unfortunately, she is fit and qualified to be president. Sure, she was only First Lady, but she has the know-how and she's still served in the Senate for four years longer than Obama.

Ann Coulter has said she'll campaign for Hillary if (he did) McCain got the nom. We're still waiting for that, but it shows the dissatisfaction with McCain in the GOP ranks. Frankly, he was my second-to-last choice at the beginning of the race, and became my last choice after Giuliani dropped out. The man is a wretched old coot with questionable morals who is willing to swear at a fellow senator on the floor of the Senate who disagreed with him. But the question is: can he upset the Dems?

The Democrats' smiles became fixed as the contest between Clinton and Obama deepened, and the polls closed until McCain was only a fraction of a percentage point behind Obama, and Clinton was far behind him. The controversy about Obama's pastor, the incident where Hillary Clinton was caught lying through her teeth, referring to landing in Bosnia "under sniper fire," when in reality she was welcomed by a delegation and a little Bosnian kindergartner read a poem to her and Chelsea. Discontent has been growing, and compounding that is the fact that whenever the contest is seriously contested all the way to the convention, as Obama's and Clinton's probably will be, the winner loses. Simple as that. It happened with Kennedy and Carter in 1980, and with H. W. Bush and Pat Buchanan in 1992. It could happen with Obama and Clinton.

What would a loss for the Democrats mean? Well, first of all, the insufferable Clinton-as-savior golden-age reminiscing would grow even more acrimonious, and Al Gore's rhetoric would probably kick up a percentage point or two on the Crap Scale. Other than that, it would prove what David Limbaugh called the "intellectual bankruptcy of the Democratic party." To lose this, of all elections, would prove what conservatives have been saying for years: the guise of tolerance has been washed out the window, the Democratic base is fractured, and there will be room for a new leftist party to arise.

What, on the other hand, would a win mean? It would mean that the media has been successful in its boycott of reality, and that American sensibilities have become so warped that Obama's messianic crud has become the currency of our culture. Or that Clinton's tell-it-like-it-is method of lying has blinded voters to the truth. Either way, life will go on, but it will be a blow.

Book Review: The Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuru

I've decided to do my "Book Reviews" more often. Even if I don't get any credit for them, they're good exercises in Journalism. So, here's another one. Of course, half the work is picking the right book...

Ponnuru's book is a cool and streamlined defense of the Pro-Life philosophy; not just regarding Abortion but the sanctity of life in general—Euthanasia, the utterly bogus “Right-to-Die,” and the New Eugenics of the Left.

His arguments, when he deigns to give them, are excellently formed and well nuanced. They are just simple trains of logic; as all good arguments are. However, Ponnuru does not concentrate on giving a Pro-Life manifesto, although he certainly succeeds, but on the failures and outright intellectual dishonesty of the Left when it comes to the sanctity of life. He gently points out the inaccuracies and the lies of the original Roe v. Wade court decision, other court decisions, and the sometimes very odd screeds against Life.

It's interesting to note that Ponnuru focuses most on the court decisions regarding his subject matter. Although he never uses the term, he points out the Constitutional refutations of so-called “Judicial Activism.” He highlights the basic truths that made Roe v. Wade one of the worst, the most ill-thought-out court decisions in the history of American jurisprudence: that one court of nine people appointed by various Presidents, could change the laws of every single state with a single court decision. 35 years and 45 million destroyed lives later, we still haven't ridden ourselves of that misbegotten, amateurish and fanatical opinion.

Even at the very beginning, Ponnuru shows clear-headedness and a willingness to consider the evidence that I could never have done. He shows that he understands the Abortion debate clearly when he says on page 8, "Abortion is a sign that our society is pitting them [Women] against their children."

The book was widely panned on its release. After reading it, the only reason I can think of for this is that almost every member of the literary press in a FANATICAL PRO-CHOICE IDEOLOGUE. The Media whitewash of Abortion, in place since the 60s, has succeeded particularly well in the literary and Academic, who are generally the first to denounce the media as too of the people.

The book painstakingly tears apart Roe v. Wade and virtually every Higher-Court Abortion decision before and since. Ponnuru shows that he has a sense of humor when he talks about Justice Blackmun's bumbling opinion from the original Roe v. Wade case. Blackmun ludicrously mangled the Constitution, twisting himself in circles to show that the Constitution did not protect any rights of the unborn child; in fact, it prohibits any such rights. How? Geez, I don't know. I thought I knew the Constitution. Well, actually, the "Right to Abortion" was cunningly hidden in the "Right to Privacy" by the Founders, who by the way were all members of NARAL Pro-Choice America. Also, the Constitution DEFINITIVELY states that fetuses are not alive in when it talks about Extradition. You see, since fetuses aren't likely to commit crimes, they aren't alive. Well, as Ponnuru points out, neither do Toddlers.

Ponnuru also covers the Left-ward march of the Democratic party, showing how many rather well-known Democrats have been Pro-Life in the past. Harry Reid, The Rev. Jesse Jackson, and even Bill Clinton once counted themselves as Pro-Life, or said they did.

"'I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a person issue for me,' wrote the minister. He went on to compare Abortion to slavery. 'If one accepts the position that life is private, and therefore you must have the right to do with it as you please, one must also accept the conclusion of that logic. That was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside of your right to be concerned.' He asked, 'What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience?'" Was this a noted Pro-Lifer, a staunch Republican? It was neither. It was Jesse Jackson in 1977. In later years when Jackson ran for President, he shied away from defending life.

In conclusion, Ponnuru's book shows the utter depravity of a society that kills its young, when we have more than enough resources to care for them. There are forty-five million fewer Americans. More, actually. A person born in 1973 could have several children by now. Indeed, the Governor-elect of Louisiana, Republican Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, was born only two years before. Consider how many great Americans were never born. As Ponnuru says, "Perhaps some future society, no doubt with its own smugness and its own sins, will condemn our barbarity.”