Hilary Clinton's foreign policy experience is that once she went to Bosnia when someone might've had the opportunity to shoot in her general direction. Hmmm. I think that means Jessica Simpson also has the same amount of foreign policy experience. After all, she says she heard mortar rounds in Iraq.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:52 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

What happened yesterday was an Obamination. (Sorry, I just really wanted to find a way to make that joke.)

Ace:

Madonna is "controversial," champ. Changing the opening theme to Monk was "controversial." The Patriots' SpyGate was "controversial."

This was vicious and vile anti-Americanism and racism and anti-semitism. If those things are, to you, merely "controversial," it seems you need a teachable moment or two, rather than presuming to fill us with "understanding."

Stanley Kurtz:

No, Obama does not fully agree with Jeremiah Wright, but the Democratic Party under Obama will be complacent about its Michael Moore wing. ThatÂ’s why the MoveOn types are so excited about Obama. There will be plenty of the most left-leaning appointees staffing the federal bureaucracy and set into judgeships under Obama, and all of it will be smoothed over by speeches about national healing and understanding pain. Under Obama, the Michael Moore-MoveOn wing, far from being purged, will be in the catbird seat, and all because theyÂ’ve found the perfect spokesman.

Newt Gingrich:

So, here's question; if you knew a year ago that (Wright) was saying things so anti-American, so dishonest, so hateful, that you were going to have to disown him, then...why did you only disown him when it became such a big political issue? And if you thought what he was saying was false and wrong and to be condemned, why didn't you care enough for him to try to teach him the truth? I don't think he can have it both ways...

...if he can't give a different opinion to Reverend Wright, who he has known for 20 years, I sure don't want him visiting the dictator, Ahmadinejad, or visiting the younger Castro brother. ...This is a core question of character. How can you ask me to believe that this guy who has said he wants to visit Kim Jung-Il...(he thinks) the President of the United States ought to talk to anybody. He can't even talk to his own pastor?

Here's something really obvious that I haven't yet heard someone ask. Obama says that he wasn't in the pews when these things were being said. But he was friends with this pastor for 20 years. In all their personal talks after church or in their homes, these ideas never came up? Wright cares enough to get fired up on Sunday but not to mention his beef with the US when he's got a Senator's ear? I seriously doubt that. I mean, seriously. He screams and rants and shouts from the pulpit but never once brings his views up outside of church? Right. Obama knew his pastor was an angry racist and continued to be friends with him. Period.

Has Obama jumped the shark yet?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

I heard this in the car yesterday. Rush makes a good point:

Obama, by the way, is purposely campaigning on character, his character. He is a uniter, we need to get past the old visions, politics of the past, blah, blah, blah, blah, without ever providing evidence of that character. We haven't seen any evidence of the character. We've heard flowery speeches of nothing, delivered greatly. We don't see any evidence of the character. What we see is that this guy is surrounded by people who are constantly enraged, ticked off about everything, mostly their country. Now we see evidence of his character as exemplified by his choice of church, by his choice of reverend, and we're supposed to await proof of him being in the pews, when the worst of these things were spewed to the pews?

The double standard here is Mitt Romney. Here's a guy whose religion was trashed as a cult. The Drive-By Media did everything they could, there were some on the Republican side -- ahem -- no need to mention names now because they're no longer in the race, but they were out there trying to undermine Romney on the base of religion. Romney went out and gave a great speech in Texas about it. We're supposed to just look past this because Obama wasn't in the pews when the Reverend J. Wright was spewing this stuff to the people in the pews.

You remember that I read countless comment threads about Romney and people who wouldn't vote for him because he's Mormon. And there were always many comments about how Romney is racist because offical Mormon doctrine was racist up until 1978. And because he didn't denounce his church's policy or renounce his faith when blacks couldn't be members, they would not be able to vote for him.

So Romney was held personally responsible for church doctrine from 1978, but Obama doesn't have to answer for what his minister says last month if he wasn't actually in church that day.

Wow.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

My husband encouraged me to watch the new McCain campaign video this morning. I hadn't watched it because, well, I already know I'm voting for him. But I did watch it, and I loved it. It was beautiful and inspiring. Ann Althouse dissects the commercial here.

Also, what is the deal about this McCain "flipping out" thing? Seriously, talking forcefully to a reporter is called losing your cool? These oversensitive people should have a conversation with my husband; just yesterday he said that a certain Army wife author should be "set on fire and pushed down the stairs." And that's a gentle insult coming from him. We were laughing that we wish McCain would flip out, really let someone have it. He said he wants a president who doesn't suffer fools.

We watched Annie Hall last night and kept pausing it and trying to put it in it's social context. My husband noted that it came out four years after McCain was released from Hanoi. While it's a decent enough and quirky movie, can you imagine seeing it after being tortured for five years? These are people's problems? This won Best Picture, a show about people who are unhappy dating each other? I don't know how you go back to being a normal person after being a POW. How long does it take before the little things in life start bugging you again? I wonder when you feel normal enough again to complain about the pseudo-intellectual talking loudly in line at the movies. When does the just-happy-to-be-alive feeling wear off?

Posted by: Sarah at 03:38 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Regarding the "gentle insult..." Have your husband and Chuck Z met? Sounds like they would be very sympatico. LOL!

Posted by: FbL at March 08, 2008 05:02 AM (rW1/8)

2 FbL -- I have wanted to get my husband and Chuck Z in a room together for years I think it'd be a riot.

Posted by: Sarah at March 08, 2008 05:52 AM (TWet1)

3 I wish that, along with his heroic time as a POW, that he and Cindy's adoption of a orphan in Bangladesh would also be publicized. I think these are pretty good testaments to his character.

Posted by: Nicole at March 08, 2008 03:25 PM (YHVU/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I got Fredstruck this year and forgot my love for ol' George W. This video of his whiteboy dancing reminded me of how charming I think he is. He deserves to party like a rock star for a day.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

John Hawkins has a good post up today called Conservatism: Principles and Power. One section that caught my eye was this:

We've also gotten way off the tracks on the "purity" issue. There's this sense that if conservatism gets more pure, if we can just get rid of the RINOS, we can dominate again -- but that's not true. When a political party is losing, they need to find ways to draw more people into the tent, not throw people out.

I've been reading many comments sections these days, so I'm sorry that I can't remember where I read this. But someone was complaining that the Religious Right gets all the focus as the base of the Republican Party. He said (paraphrase), "As a fiscal conservative, when will I finally be accepted as part of 'the base'?" I completely relate to this. I want to know when my worries about spending will matter as much as others' worries about the sanctity of marriage. Pres. Bush (pbuh) has been running around like a teen with his dad's credit card, but all the questions at the YouTube debate were about which parts of the Bible the candidates take literally. I just don't freaking care.

In another comment thread the other day (sorry, don't remember where I saw this either), Democrats kept saying that the reason they need to defeat John McCain is so he won't overturn Roe v Wade. Honestly, that is so far from my mind right now that it made me snicker. I would prefer that abortion be left up to the states, but this issue is not at all a priority for me in voting. I am worried about the war and about spending. Period.

Hawkins is right when he goes on to say:

We should always be asking ourselves, "How can we reach out to more Americans?" How can we apply our principles in different areas to reach larger blocks of voters? What new solutions can we come up with to the problems that the American people are concerned about? In some of these areas, we've done a good job. In others, we haven't.

Solutions. We need real ideas, and realistic ideas, especially on spending. I remember how thrilled I was when Pres. Bush was talking about reforming social security back in 2004. I was beside myself with excitement at the time, but it went nowhere. And I think the Democrats are deluding themselves over health care the same way we did over social security four years ago; it's just not going to happen. Or at least it's not going to happen the way they want it to.

I remember hearing John McCain in one of the first debates getting hammered for the immigration bill, and he got an exasperated look on his face and tried to explain that it wasn't a perfect bill, it wasn't even something that he personally was all that thrilled about, but that you have to make concessions and compromises in order to get anything done in Congress. And I felt for him in that moment. It's so easy for those of us on the outside to point fingers at Congress about what they should and shouldn't be doing, but we don't have to sit in the same room as Nancy Pelosi and try to hammer out solutions. Can we even have any idea how hard that must be?

Most people don't like McCain because he is too willing to work with the other side, but that's how you get more people in the tent. And I quoted Lileks yesterday on compromise; I do believe that it's folly to compromise on your major principles. But if Congress is at a roughly 50/50 split, there's no way a MoveOn.org idea nor a Pon Raul idea is going to pass the vote. The solutions will have to be somewhere in the middle.

Which is why I think that the most important thing is for Republicans to get seriously better at explaining how their positions help people. Read a Thomas Sowell book and you have all the info you need, in layman's terms, to show people how economic ideas that are typically labeled "Republican" are the better choice. So why don't our Republican politicians do this? Steal from Sowell if you must; I bet he wouldn't mind! But make people realize that all these feel-good ideas the Dems come up with -- everything for everyone, free! -- are nonsense. Help people think beyond stage one. Show them that a clean environment is good but Kyoto will cripple us, that more affordable health care is within our reach if we let the free market take its course, or that a higher minimum wage means we get our hours cut. Arm the voters with knowledge and the tides will shift, and when Congress tips in our favor, we have to make less concessions and compromises.

We need to stop letting Democrats get away with "stage one thinking" and start pulling more people into our tent. Why are the same people thrilled that Lieberman moved slightly right of center but appalled over John McCain? There should be plenty of room on our side for both of them, for everyone.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge said that our country is steadily getting more conservative. I'd really like to believe that. But I think we could give it a little push if we got better at explaining our solutions.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

I want to go on the record as agreeing with Rachel Lucas. She has apparently been taking a ton of heat for saying that conservatives ought to vote for McCain in November if they don't want someone worse. I said it in a short version recently, but she lays it out in far more detail than I did. If you want to follow her argument, which I think is completely sound, here are the relevant posts:

Dear People, You have lost your minds. Love, Rachel.
I feel like I've been at an illegal cockfight for 2 days
I can stand the heat so IÂ’m staying in the kitchen. (But I will not make you a sandwich.)
This debate is like crack

Posted by: Sarah at 05:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

OK, I'm irritable. Our state primary isn't until May. May, for pete's sake. Nothin' like having zero say at all in the primary process. I imagine my choices will be McCain and Pon Raul. Gee, thanks.

So in theory, Michigan was right. Even though they forfeited their delegates, they still got to influence the outcome. They get no votes later, but at least they got the media reaction. Meanwhile, states like mine get nothing at all, no influence, no delegates that matter.

So we still have about 20 states left, and it's done. And my candidate was out after only six states. Maybe if the primaries weren't spread out over five freaking months, he might've had a better chance. Or someone would've had a better chance. More importantly, people would've voted for the candidate they agreed with, not the candidate that the media steered them towards by telling them their first choice had no shot.

Not happy.

Posted by: Sarah at 12:41 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm just kind of flabbergasted that it looks like the Republican candidate might be McCain. Six months ago there was no way on earth it'd be McCain. Shoot, one month ago in Iowa he got slightly less delegates than Fred. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck didn't see this coming.

John Hawkins lays out some good points in his new article, "Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It!" There are some on teh internets who say that they'd rather stay home than vote for McCain, or that we deserve four years of Hillary to wake us up to just how bad it can get.

I told that last one to my husband, who replied that stupid, stubborn Republican voters will indeed deserve Hillary if they can't hold their nose at the polls and punch a chad for McCain, but that our military doesn't deserve Hillary. Our troops don't deserve a fate of fleeing Baghdad à la Saigon. Our troops don't deserve to be told again that they fought and died for nothing.

So hold your nose, throw up in your mouth a little, whatever it takes, but vote for McCain if he's our guy. There may not be a huge difference between him and the Dems, but there certainly is a difference when it comes to the GWOT.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:15 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 1 kb.

"So, who are you going to vote for?"

There are few words that strike fear into my heart like those. How much should I say to someone I am just getting to know? Should I let on how much I follow this kind of stuff? Dear heavens, what if she says she's voting for Hillary?

It worked out just fine in this case and we had a lovely chat. But man, do I hate when that comes up for the first time.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:47 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

I had the thought today that, if Hillary Clinton is elected president, as a woman I will probably be expected to be happy that we have reached a historical milestone. Instead I will feel zero percent joy. I don't care if we ever have a woman president; I only want a good president. I don't care if it's a woman, man, Rhodesian Ridgeback, whatever, as long as they approach the job from my value system. Otherwise, I will be bummed.

(Also, do go and read that link of Rachel Lucas' dog's platform, if only for the little quotes under the issues. See here and here. It is teh funny.)

Posted by: Sarah at 07:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Parting thoughts from a Fred Thompson staffer:

Personally, IÂ’m hoping that he does not accept one of the political appointments, which he shall surely be offered. Ultimately, the reason that his ideas couldnÂ’t overcome the advantages of organization is that ideas still do not count for as much as they should in the 21st century. Fred, however, is in a better position today to spread and explain those ideas than he ever has been; sort of a Newt Gingrich without the baggage.

If you were a Fred guy, read the whole thing.

I remain disappointed that you have to lust after the presidency in order to be considered a serious candidate.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.

It sounds like Tim and Patti had a good day. I got this email from him tonight:

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:58:22 -0500
From: tim
To: sarah
Subject: Just to Make You Jealous...

...I shook hands with Fred today.

Tee Hee

Tim

Too cool.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:06 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That is pretty cool.

Posted by: Butterfly Wife at January 14, 2008 06:04 PM (K0acE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We watched the Democrats debate last night. How tired am I of the phrase "But let me first say..."? They get asked a direct question and given 30 seconds to answer, and they say, "But let me first say..." and go on some tangent and never answer the original question.

There was also a mini-exposé about how Social Security will run out in 2017 and Medicare will run out in 2013, so what do you suggest to do about it as president? All of them answered that the solution to the problem was...change. They are all pro-change. They actively and vociferously support change. Problem is, they never exactly said what it was they planned to change in order to make us stop running out of money. They completely didn't answer the question.

Vodkapundit clowned on 'em in his drunkblogging:

9:00pm Did you know that Hillary has experience? Experience with change? Change that only her experience, her experience with change, can bring about? And that sheÂ’s a woman, a woman bringing change with her experience of womanness? Yeah, me neither.

Roger L. Simon has decided we must ban the word change from English.

The whole exchange was so meaningless that it reminded me of the presidential debate on Futurama:

John Jackson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates.

Jack Johnson: Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said.

Are we there yet?

Posted by: Sarah at 06:04 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Wyoming held its caucus today. (Did you even know that? I didn't. Iowa stole the show.) Romney got most of the delegates, but this quote from the article rankled me a tad:

"Number one, he campaigned here," delegate Leigh Vosler of Cheyenne said of Romney. "I think that helped while some other candidates ignored us. But also he's the right person for the job."

Am I the only one who thinks that it's sad that people will vote for someone just because he kissed up to them? I have not gotten a single piece of mail, email, or phonecall from any candidate at all, so I based my choice on reading articles and opinion pieces from people I respect and watching the debates. I don't need a candidate to come suck up to me and shake my hand in a diner to make me want to vote for him.

Politics is so fascinating...and so disgusting.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:33 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

This, this is exactly how I feel:

I know, this is how politics in America works, it's all Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, all the time. But look at the ideological variety on the GOP side, and tell me that if we listen only to the winners coming out of those three states, how can they POSSIBLY produce a consensus candidate for 2008?
...
Just because bat-crazy Iowa loves its Huck and looney-tunes New Hampshire loves to vote for mavericks, this means I'm going to lose any chance at all to support Fred, Mitt, or Rudy in a mere month's time? And this is accepted as normal and sane why??

I've only been interested in politics for a few years, and I didn't have to do much last time except watch my incumbent and wait for November. But now that this caucus and primary rigamarole affects me too, I feel mighty frustrated.

I'm just ready for it to be November already.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:18 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

My husband told me this morning about the speech Fred Thompson gave on why he wants to be president. I am trying really hard not to get too emotionally invested in this man, because I'm not sure the rest of the country wants the same type of president that I do. And if I want it too badly, I will be too disappointed if it doesn't work out. But I want a president who says things like this:

I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ainÂ’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide itÂ’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

IÂ’m offering myself up. IÂ’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. IÂ’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think IÂ’d make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I donÂ’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I donÂ’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, itÂ’s all about fire in the belly. IÂ’m not sure in the world we live in today itÂ’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly.

I mean, I just want to quote the whole danged thing, it's that good. He goes on later to say:

If what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United StatesÂ… someone who can look you straight in the eye and say theyÂ’ve enjoyed every minute of campaigningÂ… (laughter) I ainÂ’t that guy. (more laughter) [To questioner] So I hope IÂ’ve discussed that, or I havenÂ’t talked you out of anything. I honestly wantÂ… I canÂ’t imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under a false pretenses, especially if you feel the way I do. IÂ’ve gone out of my way to be myself, because I donÂ’t want anybody to think theyÂ’re getting something theyÂ’re not getting. IÂ’m not consumed by this process, IÂ’m not consumed with the notion of being president. IÂ’m simply saying IÂ’m willing to do whatÂ’s necessary to achieve it if IÂ’m in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what IÂ’ve always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. YouÂ’ll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably canÂ’t jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And youÂ’ll know where the president stands at all times.

(Hat tip to my husband and Instapundit.)

Posted by: Sarah at 10:09 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 529 words, total size 3 kb.

I will support the Republican nominee for president. I could be fully satisfied with any of the men in the field right now, and I would embrace any one of them as my president. But it's time to say who I'd prefer to see in office, and it's time to get out the checkbook.

I'm with Fred.

And I'm with Fred because of things like this:

But in the last month or so Thompson has acted like a man who has been liberated from something. And that is what voters saw on stage Wednesday: a presidential candidate who has declared himself fully free of the stupid stuff one has to do to become president of the United States.

If youÂ’re going to ask Fred Thompson to participate in a grade-school show of hands, or demand that he sign a pledge, or insist that he speak emotionally and at length about how much his religious faith means to him, well, you can just forget it. HeÂ’s not gonna do it.

And that's why we love him.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:45 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Although I don't particularly care for Thompson, I did enjoy seeing his refusal to answer one of the questions posed at the most recent debates--I think it had something to do with global warming. It was another intended to push the Republicans into a corner from which they can never get out. I commend him for pushing back.

Posted by: Nicole at December 14, 2007 06:32 AM (r5h4I)

2 Everytime I do a political survey, he is my top match.

Posted by: Kasey at December 14, 2007 06:38 AM (tttDj)

3 I'm with Fred, though I've been trying to talk myself out of it lately. But if he's got what it takes to finish, I'll be right there with him.

Posted by: pam at December 14, 2007 06:39 AM (l6NIn)

4 I could be on board with Fred or Mitt, anyone but Hillary or (*Gulb*) Obama. I need more time frankly.

Posted by: tim at December 14, 2007 08:10 AM (nno0f)

5 I am on board with Fred myself! We will see what the coming months brings for him and if I still have him as a choice in Nov. If not, I will have to step back and take another look around, yuck!!

Posted by: LMT at December 15, 2007 05:38 AM (y9taJ)

6 Yes, I am fully on board with Fred too. Because that guy never makes a misstep or rather "misspeak". I love his answers to the stupid questions they have been throwing at the candidates, and not just the debate questions, but the stupid questions along the lines of briefs or boxers, like: What do you like to do in your lazy time? Fred: campaign. What is your most prized possession? (Other candidates answers: Obama: picture of where his mother's ashes are scattered; McCain: autographed baseball) Fred: My trophy wife. How refreshing, a guy who refuses to campaign, but just wants to be President. I hope the Republicans wise up and elect him as the Rep candidate.

Posted by: CaliValleyGirl at December 17, 2007 02:26 PM (Ijp/q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I am always fascinated when I come across something that a vaunted past president did, something that would never be considered heroic or courageous if the current president did it.

Right before the move to Dorchester Heights during the Revolutionary War, George Washington issued the following order to his continental army (as quoted in David McCullough's 1776):

But it may not be amiss for the troops to know that if any man in action shall presume to skulk, hide himself, or retreat from the enemy, without the orders of his commanding officer, he will be instantly shot down, as an example of cowardice. [emphasis in original]

Just imagine, if you will, our current George putting forth such an order...

Posted by: Sarah at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

I watched part of the second half of the YouTube debate last night, and I came away from it feeling quite confused. I wondered if I was the only one who thought the questions were caricatures of Republicans. I mean, really, what else can you make of questions about What Would Jesus Do about capital punishment and "would you put women who got abortions in jail?" All the questions I heard sounded like Democrats asking Republicans about their stupid, weird views. Questions about what you think about the Confederate flag or a Muslim asking how to get the rest of the world to like us again? Really? I thought all the questions sounded like Democrats trying to play gotcha with the candidates. Do you believe every single word in the Bible? Puh-lease. That's political debate?

But I thought maybe it was just me. I only saw the social conservative questions, and that's not really my bag. I prefer the tax and terrorism stuff. I thought the questions were dumb, the cartoon Cheney was offensive, and the whole thing was weird.

I turned on the radio on the way home from my knitting class this morning, and I was actually surprised to hear that Rush Limbaugh also thought the questions were stupid. He made an astute point: people submitted their YouTube questions to CNN and CNN picked the ones to use. Since everyone at CNN is a Democrat, of course they picked questions that I think are stupid. They think my views are weird and laughable, so naturally they picked the questions that made the Republicans look kooky.

But seriously, the Confederate flag? That's just plain condescending and offensive towards my worldview.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:48 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.