Macho Nachos

In Which I am Hopelessly Flummoxed

If there's one thing I like about (most) modern liberal Democrats, it's that they are generally predictable. I know that they like to think that they are generally more interesting and "edgy" than most conservatives, but generally they're just "better" at using four-letter words, and dressing up illogical arguments with hysterical rhetoric. There's nothing particularly interesting about this once you realize that their playbook hasn't really changed much over the last two generations, even if their rhetoric has become a lot more "flavored."

Then, today, they threw me a one-two punch that genuinely left me speechless. And, for the life of me, I can't figure out what the strategery here is. I take a stab at it anyway below the fold

 

First, in a genuine shocker, the generally detestable Donna Brazile wrote this:

On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Who is this columnist, and what have they done with the real Donna Brazile? I checked my calendar, and we're nowhere near to April 1st, and none of the other major news outlets have reported that Donna Brazile is suing the Washington Post for fraudulent use of her name. So what gives?

And for the love of my sanity, why isn't she done saying nice things about President Bush?

The president also laid out the federal government's goal for rebuilding. It is unprecedented in its scope and ambition, matching destruction that is unprecedented as well. He made the challenge clear: This will be one of the biggest reconstruction projects in history. But he also made it clear that we can and will do this. New Orleans, Biloxi, all of the Gulf Coast will rise again. And the residents are ready to pitch in and do their part.

I know, maybe better than anyone, that there are times when it seems that our nation is too divided ever to heal. There are times when we feel so different from each other that we can hardly believe that we are all part of the same family. But we are one nation. We are a family. And this is what we do. When the president asked us to pitch in Thursday night, he wasn't really asking us to do anything spectacular. He was asking us to be Americans, and to do what Americans always do.

* * *

Mr. President, I am ready for duty. I am ready to stir those old pots again. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.

Wow. I was trying to digest the strategery of this (How will she turn this against Bush? How does this help the Democratic party? Is there some sort of secret code embedded in the article that made this confluence of words necessary, independent of their actual meaning?) As I was digesting this, I was simultaneously checking out the musings of the folks on the other side of The Big Ditch™ and came across this, which seemed to indicate that some folks, at the very least, aren't quite so ready to work together with President Bush. At least, I think that was the point:

You ready to pay your fair share in taxes Donna? You ready to ask your wonderful President to ask rich folks like you to pay their fair share?

Cuz I think that is where you can help the most. But maybe you have some carpentry skills we don't know about.

Dude, Armando, what? Are you trying to say that Donna Brazile is opposed to higher taxes for rich people? That Donna Brazile is in favor of the Bush tax cuts? You know that she makes a pretty good living going around the country and telling everyone who will listen that the Bush tax cuts are to blame for the deficit and must be rescinded, right?

And what is this carpentry thing? Are you calling her a chickentaxhawk? A chickencarpentryhawk? A chickenbushcohelpinghawk? Honestly, I don't know what to say about this. Are they really that intellectually vapid, that they're trying to take an illogical argument and shoehorn it into taxes? Against Donna Brazile? Has the chickenhawk meme become so ingrained in your mentality that you haul it out against literally anyone who does anything you don't like, even if they're not talking about the war? If there's a coherent message here (other than, "You're RICH and that makes me ANGRY!"), I'm missing it completely.

A less paranoid person would just say that the Donks have lost their last shred of sanity. But I'm still looking over my shoulder for the Clinton curveball in all of this. I'm sure Nick will sort it all out for me soon.

At the risk of being overly optimistic, I would speculate that if Bush's speech made a believer out of Donna Brazile, then we are soon to see a wave of approval polls trending in the upwards direction for the President. And really, if that happens, I don't know if the netizens of the left will be able to recover from the shock.

Somebody pass the popcorn.

Tied to Failure

As I have watched the Democrats' consensus position on the war in Iraq change over the last three years, my emotional response has run the full gambit from anger to horror to disgust. The anger resulted from their duplicity, when they attempted to court the anti-war vote while simultaneously defending their support for the war. As they attempted to make a dizzying array of justifications for why they should be loved by both sides of the fence, the Democrats bumbled their way to a crushing loss in 2004, which sent them all scurrying for answers.

To our very great pleasure, Jerome Armstrong has found the answer for the Democrats:

The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war. The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating "Stay the course". Gary Hart. He's got tough medicine for the Senators that voted in favor of invading Iraq. That should be simple enough for all Democrats to agree-- that staying the course is not an option.

It is hard to decide which is better news - that Democrats are listening to Gary Hart again, or that there has never been a political party more tied to failure than the modern Democrats.

 

There is, of course, a sense in which the minority party automatically becomes the "opposition party." When a single party controls both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch, they will of course drive the agenda for what is happening in the country. For the Democrats at the federal level right now, there is little hope of pushing positive agenda matters through most committees right now, much less into law. So, as a matter of practicality, there are two options left to the Democrats on many issues: (1) Obstruction and (2) complaint.

What the Democrats have yet to realize (and, to be fair, it took the Republicans a long, long time to figure this out as well), is that opposition is not a winning electoral strategy. They have, with the exception of a delusional few, realized that they are, in fact, losing. However, the disaster for them is that they have determined that the solution to their losing problem is to make their opposition even more rancid. Perhaps, they have rationalized, the problem is that the American public has not yet realized just how much they hate Republicans and everything they stand for.

This kind of strategy is all well and good for riling up the base, and creating a lot of sound and fury. However, it's not so much something average Americans will latch onto. What the Donks do not realize is that the American people, by and large, are an optimistic bunch of people. Sure, we get angry sometimes, and there are moments when we are capable of despair, doom and gloom. But part of what has made America a great nation is our irrepressible optimistic spirit - our refusal to capitulate in difficult circumstances. That spirit, although arguably diminished what it was in times past, is still a large part of our national consciousness. And part of that spirit is that we don't like whiners and defeatists.

And thus the Democrats stumble unwittingly into further electoral defeat in 2006, in that they have hitched their entire wagon to defeat in Iraq, and complaint about the President's prosecution of that war. There is very little question that the public at this point is tiring of the war and that the President's numbers are suffering because of it. Mistakenly, this has led them to believe that a party of folks screaming "I told you so," at the top of their lungs can capitalize on this discontent. Perhaps, if the election were held this November, they could (even though the polling numbers are equally consistent that the Democrats are not benefiting from the President's drop in popularity). Given that the next major elections will not happen until next November, they will not.

Inbetween now and next November, a number of highly significant events are going to take place. The Iraqis are going to have a vote on ratifying their constitution. They are going to begin to get on their feet as an autonomous government. And, one way or another, some of our troops will begin to come home. Make no mistake that the Democrats are praying that exactly none of these things will happen. What they do not realize is that even if they get their wish, and the situation goes to absolute pot in Iraq - absent a positive policy vision, that will not translate into electoral wins for them.

Say what you want about Bush, or the decision to invade Iraq, or the subsequent execution of the invasion/occupation. Attempting to place a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was a grand policy vision. If this policy vision succeeds, and the Democrats continue down their path, they will have tied themselves to a large anchor and tossed that anchor into the sea. This is a risk, however, that the Democrats seem to be willing to take, given that they are absolutely confident that the vision will fail. I believe, however, given the character of the American people, that even if they are successful in their wager, they will have garnered absolutely nothing with the public, except the right to say, "I told you so."

Saying "I told you so," is satisfying for the person saying it. It's gratifying to revel in the knowledge that you were right and all others were wrong. It's also natural to trumpet your "I told you so," claim to the hilltops, making sure that absolutely everyone knows just exactly how right you were. There's only one small problem. Nobody wants to hear "I told you so." Not even folks who are sitting on the fence. It's the political equivalent of acting like a nine-year-old brat, and it will backfire.

The reaction, however, is so very tempting and so very self-satisfying that I don't think the Democrats will be able to avoid reveling in it. I don't see a Newt Gingrinch on their side who is championing the kind of positive agenda that dissatisfied voters can latch on to. Instead, the folks grabbing microphones on the other side of the aisle are folks whose only mode of communication is complaint, whose only hope is failure, and who are, moreover, genuinely unlikeable people. Howard Dean, Michael Moore and Markos Moulitsas are probably genuinely loved by their followers. The failure of the Democrats is to realize how these folks are perceived by the broader population, and further how disastrous it is to march them out before the voting public screaming, "I told you so!"

Many Republicans will remember that in the wake of the 1992 elections, in which all three branches of government were delivered to the Democrats, there were two distinct and necessary elements that led to the victory of 1994. First, you had Rush Limbaugh keeping the base fired up behind the scenes, and providing a voice for those who felt disenfranchised by the current makeup of the government. Rush even went so far as to publish a book called, "See, I Told You So." As I recall, he at one point promised that he'd release a sequel "See, I Told You So" book every year that Clinton was in office (thankfully, we were spared 8 of these books.) On the other hand, the wonkish and smiling Newt Gingrich became the public face of the party, pushing a positive agenda in the Contract with America which was at once simple to understand, popular in its principles, and daring in its scope. The Democrats these days have managed to out-Rush Rush in their scorn for the other side. Where they have failed is in locating someone who is at least marginally likeable, who has a grasp on what the American people really want (Free hint: It's not socialized health care), whom they can place before the microphones to propound a positive legislative agenda that the American people can stand behind.

What is further depressing, if you are a Democrat, is that it's hard to determine where such a person might potentially even come from. Who do they have waiting in the wings who engenders warm feelings in the average American? Harry Reid? God help us, Joe Biden? Easily their best hope was probably Harold Ford Jr., but they denied him a platform from which he could have done some real damage in favor of the immacuately coiffed and intellectually substandard Nancy Pelosi. Likewise, Barack Obama is too new to the game and has no real bully pulpit to use, at least for another 4 years.

Unless they discover a purpose, a vision, and a personality, the Democrats will be doomed to repeat the same political note over and over again - namely, tying themselves to the possibility of American failure in Iraq, or at the very least, Republican failure at home. However, they will always have a problem taking this approach: no one is inspired by someone who looks for failure, who barely contains their glee when it occurs, and who seeks to capitalize on a misfortune that affects a whole country. That is not the sort of agenda that almost anyone votes for, and it certainly isn't one that's capable of flipping a ten-seat majority.

So, here's hoping the Democrats keep taking Jerome Armstrong's advice. Given the performance of the Republicans recently, we're going to need all the help we can get.

Vile Hypocrisy

Erick Erickson, a man who has been a great friend to me throughout my brief blogging career, is being positively lambasted by the left for some comments he made here at RedState. Specifically, the lefties are up in arms over the usage of the term "media whore". Some of them (we are unsurprised to find Atrios among them) are to dull to understand the difference between a "whore" (someone who is paid for sex) and a "media whore" (a person who sells out convictions for media attention).

The ideological brethren of this buffoon, who got fired for emailing Michelle Malkin an obscene and profanity-laced rant from work, have apparently decided that it is time to exact their revenge, and have posted Erick's information, including his work information and Instant Message screen name all over the internet. A sampling of the intelligent and well-reasoned dissent from Erick's mailbox follows:

You filthy co******ing scum.  How dare you call anyone names?  You traitorous dog, supporting a lying draft-dodging deserter.  This woman lost her son - would that your mother could say the same - to a unprovoked war built on a tissue of lies.  How typical of the right - and I bet you'll go to some fundie freakshow church this Sunday and parade your piety for all to see - to smear, and smear viciously a woman who dares to speak out against the uberbutcher of DC.  Why isn't your sorry a** in Iraq if you're so concerned about it being free?  Have you ever done anything for what used to be this country besides being a paid political consultant?  Doesn't that make you a whore as well?  Why don't you stay in your little totally f***ed up red state?  The 21st Century has no need of you.  Maybe you can share a jail cell with shrub when he finally goes to prison for his crimes.

More intelligent commentary from the left:

You're a f***ing hypocrite. Cindy Sheehan has more honor, honesty and integrity in her little finger today than you and your fellow Warstate bloggers will have in your combined lifetimes. With any luck, you

all will get lung cancer like Peter Jennings and die after an agonizing illness. And I'll laugh out loud because you all deserved it.

And my personal favorite:

As an American citizen, Cindy Sheehan is entitled to say, do, think, whatever she wants. She has also <b>EARNED</b> the right to do so without being villified for it by losing her <b>son</b> to Bush's awful adventure. Whether or not her son ardently supported or opposed the war he died in is irrelevant to what his mother (and the rest of his immediate family as it turns out) believes.

As an American Citizen, does Erick Erickson have the right to say that Cindy Sheehan is a media whore without being bombarded and personally threatened at his place of work? Does free speech only apply to those protesting the war, or only those with the incredible intellectual acumen to formulate the phrase "uberbutcher of DC?"

This entire sorry escapade just serves to show that when liberals bleat about "free speech", what they really mean is, "liberal free speech. Conservatives can shut the heck up." That's not exactly accurate, but I don't have the "talent" with expletives that most liberals seem to have, so it'll have to suffice.

Erick has since apologized for the usage of the term "media whore," despite standing by the content of his remarks. I thought that was rather gracious. But because Erick only wrote the post in the first place because I asked him to (not trusting myself to show the proper amount of sensitivity to the moonbat-conspiracy-theorist-who-happened-to-lose-a-son-in-Iraq-and-is-milking-her-sons-death-to-advance-her-bizarre-conspiracy-theories in question), I will also apologize for the usage of the term "media whore," as Erick used it, since I feel somewhat responsible by proxy.

Henceforth, I will use the more accurate term moonbat-conspiracy-theorist-who-happened-to-lose-a-son-in-Iraq-and-is-milking-her-sons-death-to-advance-her-bizarre-conspiracy-theories whenever referring to the woman in question.

By the way, I'm a full-time student posting from home, so don't bother wasting your time.

UPDATE (08-12-05 18:10:00 CDT): In a MachoNachos first, I will now link to something I read at The Huffington Post. That lets you know that this is a brilliant and apropos article, indeed.

Michelle Malkin gets Dowdified

Ah, the delicious taste of manufactured outrage. From Atrios:

Michelle Malkin believes she understands what Casey Sheehan would want more than his own mother does.

I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior.

And from the crooks and liars at Crooks and Liars:

Bill: I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this [publicity] and also for the responsibility for the other American families who lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.

Michelle: I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior.

There is only one small problem with this quote. In the first place, Michelle's sentence was incomplete. Secondly, it completely leaves out the behavior that Michelle was referring to, giving the deliberately misleading impression that Michelle said that Casey would disapprove of his mother's own behavior. This ain't so. Brainster has the full paragraph in question:

"She has aligned herself now with Michael Moore, who considers those very Iraqi terrorists Minutemen. That's what he calls them! He's likening them to the American revolutionaries and considers them heroes. I can't imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct and rhetoric."

So, what we see here is that Malkin was actually saying that Casey Sheehan probably wasn't crazy about the guy who called the very people responsible for his death "Minutemen". For liberals, the Minutemen were the good guys in the Revolutionary War. That's a fairly significant thing to leave out.

Also significant are Michelle's comments before that (from the video):

MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Well, I do want to emphasize what you said, Bill, which is that losing a child in any situation, whether it's in a war, from an accident or disease, is one of the most painful of human experiences. And Mrs. Sheehan deserves compassion and sympathy.

And apparently, according to the accounts from last year when President Bush met with her, that's exactly what she got. I don't think that anybody should demonize her, but I do think that she has turned her private personal pain into a public circus.

And just look what it's like down there in Crawford, Texas. You've got people surrounding her, people who are all too happy to help push her over the edge, yelling and screaming that the president was the one that killed her son.

No, it wasn't. And it's a shame that she doesn't have anybody to help bring her back down to reality to remind her that it was Iraqi terrorists who ambushed her son on a roadside and killed him and many, many other of his colleagues in the military.

Michelle: I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric.

Now, I want you to observe this thread at Tacitus that I've gotten involved in. Towards the bottom, the libs are full of outrage that Malkin would use her son to "slime his mother". Once I pointed out that this did not, in fact, happen, the argument became, "She shouldn't presume to speak for a dead person at all."

Oh, really? Does that mean that we've heard the end of Ronnie and Nancy Reagan when it comes to embryo destruction? I made the following point in that comment thread:

If Kate Michelman dies tomorrow, and her daughter (I have no idea if she really has one) joins the campaign of Sam Brownback in 2008, may we not reasonably conclude that Kate wouldn't have joined in?

I'd say it's at least as reasonable to speculate that a dead soldier wouldn't appreciate someone calling the people who killed him "heroes", and calling him (by implication) the unjust oppressor.

I wonder where the next backpedal will lead them?

Why Won't He Shut Up?

Mark Coffey wonders the same thing I do about Jimmy Carter:

Carter also criticized the U.S.-led war in Iraq as "unnecessary and unjust."

"I think what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and other places is a disgrace to the U.S.A.," he told a news conference at the Baptist World Alliance's centenary conference in Birmingham, England. "I wouldn't say it's the cause of terrorism, but it has given impetus and excuses to potential terrorists to lash out at our country and justify their despicable acts."

All I ask is that someone would tell me that we're not going to be hearing this crap from John Kerry 24 years after HE lost, too.

Byrd in Trouble?

John Cole has the details:

WV Blogger Don Surber has learned that the RNSC will begin carpet-bombing the state with anti-Byrd ommercials starting tommorow. Looks like they decided it would be wise to soften up the landscape for Shelley Moore Capito’s run.

Personally, I am excited, because this will be the first real Senate race in WV in, well, over two decades.

To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine a Senate without Robert Byrd in it (which isn't suprising, given that he was an old hand when I was born) . I frankly don't know that he can be beat.

But, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that he can be made to behave for the next two years - which could be very valuable indeed in the context of 2 (or 3) SCOTUS fights. We'll keep our eyes on this one.

 

Excellent, Are We Piling On?

Via Michelle Malkin we have this utterly disgusting story about PA Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll, who apparently thought a marine's funeral would be a good place to show up uninvited and start passing out campaign materials. Oh yeah, and also to tell the family that "Our government is against this war."

Now, I've been watching politicians do sleazy things for a long, long time, but this one may just take the cake. How could a person possessed of such horrible judgment possess the position that she does?

We're curious to hear what "Fast" Eddie Rendel has to say about this as well. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: John Cole had the good common sense to Google Rhonda Goodrich and provide us with some basis for healthy skepticism. Of course, it doesn't make us automatically assume the story is false, but it does make us want confirmation from other sources.

UPDATE (07-24-05 23:43:00 CDT): Fast Eddie will indeed apologize. Interestingly enough, he has still not spoken with his Lt. Gov to confirm the events in question.