Excellent column from Wes Pruden of the Washington Times today!!!
The left gets what it asked for – Washington Times
California is as far from the reality where the rest of us live as you can get and still keep your feet dry. Californians think Geena Davis, the star of the new television fantasy “Commander in Chief,” really is the commander in chief. So when the ground shifted yesterday with the nomination of Samuel Alito to the United States Supreme Court — a solid 7 on the Richter scale — nearly everyone here wondered why that nice, sensible President Davis would have done something like that.
With all due respect to Dan and our readers from the Left Coast, I couldn’t agree more with Pruden’s impression of the detachment of that part of the country. PatriotPartner and I wondered if on 9/11 the self-absorbed California elite felt as though they were watching an action flick rather than brutal murders of 3,000 of their fellow countrymen. I still wonder that to this day. But I digress…
The early action in Washington is media skirmishing, as the players jostle and jiggle for position against the day when it will be time to lock and load. The high priests of secularism are desperate to protect the rite of abortion, which is to the noisily devout of the left what the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is to orthodox Christianity.
What a damning, but truthful statement of the current state of the Democrat Party and liberals in general. They worship the State and hold sacred a ‘rite’ which kills unborn babies. To them, the only God is the God of Government — the Almighty Power to Tax, Spend and Force People To Do What They Want.
The first volley at Samuel Alito is that he dissented when his colleagues of the 3rd Circuit declined to evict the nannies of Planned Parenthood from the bedrooms of strangers, ruling that a wife doesn’t have to tell her husband when she aborts their child. A generation ago, cries that the Democratic Party had become the party of “abortion, acid and amnesty” sank George McGovern and set up decades of Republican dominance. Acid and amnesty are but dim echoes of that vanished era, but “abortion” is the rallying cry that unites what’s left of the party of FDR, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy.
It doesn’t work. The Democrats tried to cast the ’04 presidential campaign as a referendum on “abortion rights,” and now we see how risky such a strategy can be. John Kerry, like Al Gore before him, warned that if George W. Bush was elected, he would appoint conservative men and women to the Supreme Court. How right they were. The Democrats got a president, but only in Hollywood and only for an hour once a week.
Unfortunately for the rest of America, we have to live in the real world where a global enemy is intent on mass destruction, and where the Abortion Party-Out-of-Power is intent on undermining our nation at war. My prediction — by year’s end, the real President’s poll numbers will be north of 50% again. Back in majority territory, something the last real Democrat President never had.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
The Dem’s just don’t get it!!!
They’ve become caricatures of the worst aspect of politicians.
Shrill, Hysterical, Spiteful, Absurd, those are just off the top of my head.
If the Dem’s want to become a viable party again here are some of my suggestions.
LATCH ON TO the “Fair Tax Amendment”. Bill HR 25 http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/index.html
GIVE UP ON Anytime, Any reason Abortion.
Jettison their extreme LEFT fringe. i.e. Dean.
Become the Party for securing our borders.
Come up with a strong & responsible National Security plan.
Come up with a viable plan to FIX Social Security.
Stop pushing America to wards Socialism. i.e. Socialized Medicine, bailing out people in natural disaster zones. Etc.
Oh and grow a brain!!!
(Merriam-Webster definition of BRAIN – “The ability to learn and understand or to deal with problems.”)
I really wish the Democrats really were a viable alternative to the Republicans… speaking as someone who really didn’t want to vote for Bush in 2004, but wanted even less for the country to be run by George Soros, Michael Moore, and Moonbat-dot-org.
I agree V&K, the Dems need to get their stuff together to stop the religious right onslaught, or the moderate republicans have to grow some balls and start taking leadership positions again to bring the GOP back around. When I voted for Kerry it wasn’t because I liked him, it was because I despised Bush so much. Democrats need to put up someone that people can vote for rather than someone that you stand up to have voted against. Or, ideally, the moderate and libertarian wings of the party can tell the religious right to go F themselves.
Hey, they got the lunacy angle down pat though. This morning I overheard a liberal colleague speaking about HMiers nomination this way: Bush nominated her to keep the 1st Lady happy and marital relations open, then HMiers flopped and the Prez got the white radical male he really wanted… along with keeping his wife happy because he 1st nominated a chick.
This guy said all this in the elevator with a straight face to a small group of nodding peers. What is it with the Left’s love fest with lunacy?
#4 — I think you illustrate a point about the left that ties into their obsession with abortion-on-demand. A great part of the left thinks entirely below the waistline. Combine that with their adolescent aversion to responsibility and you account not only for their fixation on abortion as the uber-issue of our time, but also for the vulgarity and sexual imagery that dominates left-wing discourse.
And it sounds like Mr. Moderate pines for the days when moderates like Bob Michel led the Republican party, the party had 35 seats in the Senate, 170 seats in the house, and the Democrats ran the show. I think the country would be better served by a party that embraced real, small-government Conservatism: limits to Federal power, the elimination of wasteful ineffective government programs (that account for $90B in the current budget, according to the CBO), and border security … the precise issues on which Bush is liberal (or “moderate” as some would say). I would actually argue that in many ways … domestic spending, reinstating support for organizations like UNESCO, vast entitlement expansions … the country has moved further left under Bush than Clinton. Lefties don’t like to point this out, but Bush actually appointed several liberal judges left over from the Clinton Era, let Ted Kennedy author the Education bill, and signed into law limits on political speech that the left wanted against his own promises to do otherwise.
Clinton, at least, articulated a moderate position on abortion — safe, legal, and rare. But, contrary to actual Clinton policy, the mainstream does not believe that Partial Birth Abortion, minors getting abortions without parental consent, minors being transported across state lines to obtain abortions without parental consent, abortions without spousal consent, and $200 million tax susbsidies for Planned Parenthood fall into the safe-legal-rare paradigm. It’s also hard to argue that something that happens a million times a year is rare.
#6 — Correction. Not spousal consent, merely spousal notification.
At least, according to Specter, Alito says not only does he agree with upholding Griswald but that he thinks it was a good ruling. I’m sure that won’t win him much love from Dobson and the religious right, but it’s of comfort he doesn’t fit into the ideological wing that thinks the government has the right to say what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom (talk about big government).
Well stated!! The Dems have lost it completely. I for one would like to see the school day start with a Bible reading. The few years I attended public school in the U.S.A I remeber a Bible being on every teacher´s desk. The readings wer usually the Book of Psalms, and Proverbs. The Nativity was read just before Christmas break and the assembly presented both the Chanuka and the Nativity stories. I learned about and appreciated how my Jewish classmates worshipped. As I recall it didn´t create any divisions or animosity. If I had a litmus test for a nominee to the Supreme Court it would be to overturn the notion of a ¨wall of separation between Church and State¨ Article 51, if my memory serves me correctly, of the Constitution of the USSR. What we have here is a matter of symantics in the US Constitution, the word ¨religion¨ in this case is the equivalent of ¨denomination.¨The thirteen colonies each had an official denomination e.g. Virginia (Anglican), Pennsylvania,(Quaker),Rhode Island (Baptist), Connecticut (Congregationalist), etc,
The Constitution provides for the free exercise of relgion. If their is any sense of tolerance on the part of the extreme left it is toward the Muslim religion, probably to appease Al-Quaida.
Democrat: “Bush is a moron!”
Non-Democrat: “So why couldn’t you find a candidate who was smart enough to defeat this ‘moron’, in 2004?”
Democrat: “It’s…it’s… it’s…. KARL ROVE!!! He’s a GENIUS! A DIABOLICAL EVIL GENIUS!!!”
#6: It’s also hard to argue that something that happens a million times a year is rare.
how do you answer when confronted that abortion rates have RISEN during the bush tenure?
Whereas left-wing democrats only want to regulate what you can eat, what you can drink, where you’re allowed to shop, what vehicle you’re allowed to drive, where you’re allowed to invest your income, whom you’re allowed to employ, whom you’re allowed to rent your private property to, how you’re allowed to express your religious beliefs, how you’re allowed to express your political opinions, how you’re allowed to administer discipline on your children, what sports you and your children are allowed to participate in, how you’re allowed to educate your children, your right to determine when its appropriate for children to learn about sexuality and alternative lifestles, what organizations you and your children are allowed to belong to and what moral standards those organizations are allowed to uphold, what opinions you’re allowed to be exposed to (fairness doctrine), the method in which you are allowed to seek health care, what you’re allowed to do with your private property, where you’re allowed to live, what language you’re allowed to use in talking about people, whether you can work without having to join a union, whether your child is allowed to speak with a military recruiter, whether military recruiters are allowed on college campuses, whether you’re allowed to protect your property from forest fires by clearing dead brush, whether you’re allowed to drill for oil (even if it’s in a barren wilderness hundreds of miles from the nearest liberal) how you’re allowed to dispose of your household refuse, what prices vendors are allowed to charge for their products, your right to defend yourself and your property …
I guess one way to put it is that the left believes in total freedom in the bedroom, and total regulation of everything outside of it.
VK, you’re amazing. You nailed it.
VK…pure hyperbole and talking points, but you certainly put them together well.
how do you answer when confronted that abortion rates have RISEN during the bush tenure?
I’d say it’s proof that the “Right Wing” is no threat to “Reproductive Rights.”
#14 — Hyperbole? I think not. I was careful to list only examples of liberal regulation of personal choice when I could think of a policy example being advocated by a mainstream left group (e.g. The Democrat Party, The Sierra Club, Planned Parenthood, the NEA, the AFL-CIO and so on) or actual proposed or enacted legislation.
“Talking points” of whose, Mr. Leftist?
“Talking points” are only “talking points” if they were developed in someone else’s office as actual recommended talking points for someone else to use. So your comment makes no sense.
Could you point to the legislation or mainstream liberal group that supported regulating “what sports you and your children are allowed to participate in”
We can begin a similar list for the right wing too, which doesn’t stop at regulating bedroom behavior, but lists don’t actually win anyone over now do they?
Calarato, blow it out your ass.
And also this:
“The left believes in total freedom in the bedroom, and total regulation of everything outside of it.”
Nails it exactly. That is EXACTLY what the far Left believes, particularly the Gay Left.
You wouldn’t be offended by it or anything, right? Because, ahem, you are emphatically NOT one of those far leftists, isn’t that right?
Comment 19 – Thank you Mr. Leftist for thereby conceding the argument 🙂
“what language you’re allowed to use in talking about people” which group is zealously going after pay for media services (cable and satellite radio) to include them in the FAA censorship trap…I’ll give you a hint, it’s being spearheaded by Republican Senator Brownback
Calarato, I’m not conceding anything, I’m just dismissing you out of hand.
#18 — Title IX, which has been interpreted by leftists in such a way that many schools and colleges are forced to shut down athletic programs in order to achieve gender-parity.
#22 — Ever hear of speech codes?
“how you’re allowed to express your religious beliefs”
Which group is it that wants the entire student body or school game attendees to be forced to pray yet won’t allow a Wiccan to open a public assembly prayer because “that’s not a real religion”?
With an ad hominem. A personal insult.
That’s always a concession of the argument. Just like hitting someone would be.
Violence, and also ad hominems or plain insults, are where defeated people go.
I’m really happy to have gotten that reaction from you. It really does prove VK’s point, plus other stuff I suspected about you.
“Ever hear of speech codes?” yeah I’ve heard of plenty of them from uptight puritanical types who can’t stand anything more coarse than, “golly, gee” and “oh shucks.” I’ve heard of plenty from the left too, I’d say it’s about square between the left wing PC crowd and the right wing thought police crowd.
Title IX, signed by that arch liberal Nixon and brought under executive management in the Department of Education by that other arch liberal Reagan…
#26 “blah, blah, blah”
That’s better!
It would have been more seemly and effective for you to have used that type of language the first time.
So, back to this:
“The left believes in total freedom in the bedroom, and total regulation of everything outside of it.”
Nails it exactly. That is EXACTLY what the far Left believes, particularly the Gay Left.
VdaK, nice recital. Concise, cogent, on point. Methinks you should take up the blogpen and start something novel… like witty parodies with biting insight, comical send-ups of current news… something like that.
#25 — Ever hear of the ACLU? A group dedicated to the systematic elimination of religious (specifically Christian) expression in all areas pf public life? A group that isn’t satisfied that a city sell a piece of land with a cross on it to a private group to avoid the appearance that the government thinks Christianity is okay (We are a long way from the Establishment clause at this point), but won’t be happy until the cross (and all crosses everywhere) are completely dismantled and destroyed?
#28 — But only under the Clinton Administration did the Federal Government’s definition of Title IX go from equal access to athletics to mandated equal participation in athletics. As a result, schools and colleges began to cancel athletic programs in which males dominated for the sake of achieving equality of outcome.
And yes, Nixon was a liberal. Thanks for noticing.
#32 — Thanks, but there’s already plenty of opinion bloggers out there much better than me. Besides, I’m doing pretty well on “pull my finger” and Andrew Sullivan jokes.
Yep, freedom in the bedroom, and that’s pretty much it.
I don’t hear any Democrats at the national level challenging the War On Drugs or the War on Alcohol in a serious way. And don’t even mention the War on Tobacco.
All-
You’d be interested to know that this topic — Dems only support freedom in the bedroom — is being discussed now on Rush’s radio show. Chris Matthews was unsuccessful in getting Howard Dean to use the term “pro-choice” and Dean pretty much said that the Democrats are for no interference with people’s personal life.
And then Rush laughed and lit into Dean and said… yeah, except for (the litany that VthK so eloquently laid out in #12).
Just FYI….
#33 The ACLU has taken up the cases of students who were not permitted to read bibles in class as well as other public expressions of religion. I know the right wing mythology is that the ACLU is trying to drive Christians into their basements and out of public view. Their cases on “public” displays always are on displays paid for with government money or on government owned land. That is not the same as pursuing religious expression viewable by the public on privately owned land. They certainly go too far in pursuing a lot of different cases, such as going after Christmas displays, but then again they also represent the free speech rights of white supremists.
…and because I know you wouldn’t believe that the ACLU also defends Christians and their churches from perceived infringements on their civil liberties (nor would you google to find information that might burst the “ACLU hates and wants to kill Christians” mantra, I provide three quickly found links):
http://tinyurl.com/aqzzu
http://tinyurl.com/ytgjq
http://tinyurl.com/4raw3
#37 — Uh, Mod, has it ever occurred to you that the only reason the ACLU devotes a teeny, tiny amount of effort into the cases you cite is to give themselves cover when they devote the much vaster amount of resources they do to things like eliminating a teeny cross on the LA county seal, or destroying crosses that have been landmarks for decades? To making war on the Boy Scouts? To defending the rights of child molesters to hand out candy to children on Halloween?
Also, note the ACLU’s refusal to defend the free speech rights of pro-life protesters.
In the words of ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class… Communism is the goal.” (No wonder Jimmy Carter gave him the Medal of Freedom).
And, the state religion of communism is… what?
Besides which, no one has ever explained how having a Nativity Scene or the Ten Commandments in a public space actually harms anyone. Maybe some neurotic people are offended by them, but the last I checked, there was no Constitutional right not to be offended by anything.
VK, I’ve tried to post links to three cases the ACLU has defended, but they aren’t going through. Unless they don’t have a knee jerk support of all Christian expression lawsuits, like forcing non-Christian students to participate in Christian prayer, then I guess they won’t matter. Remember “non-Christian” doesn’t mean atheist, although I know the religious right likes to paint that as such. I’ve already stated that they go too far sometimes, like the cross issues you mentioned, and as I mentioned their support for white supremists. There was no sanctioned religion in communist countries and Marx underestimated the strength of having religious convictions. What was the state religion of Spain during the Inquisition? What was the state religion of Russia during the pogrom day’s? A good religion, or lack thereof, does not necessarily make a good government.
Nothing you have said has contrsdicted my point that the left, as represented by the ACLU, is seeking to regulate people’s right to religious expression. One of the many personal choices I listed in #12 that the liberal left thinks should be subject to government regulation. The fact that they take a few anamolous cases doesn’t change that.
#41 Right of religious expression includes not being forced to pray during state sponsored events, especially those where attendance is compulsory. I know you can’t fathom why someone wouldn’t want their kids to be indoctrinated into some religion that they have not chosen to bring their children up in, so we’ll just leave it at that I guess.
Now all we need is one more to retire before 2008 … Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens.
Mr. Mod has, in fact, completely demonstrated my point. He opposes government regulation of sexual expression in the bedroom. But, he supports government regulation of religious expression outside the bedroom.
V the K — watching you for some time here, I see two clear patterns emerging in your posts: 1) you don’t seem to be able to carry on an argument without twisting the other person’s words; and 2) you claim to be a political independent, which is such BS that it’s become laughable every time you try.
Pussy
#1 – Gay people, under constant threat of curtailed rights from ultra-conservatives, should really band together and support the rights of all people, including a woman’s right to control her body and re-production.
Protect our borders? Is that why Pres. Bush proposed the guest worker program to allow more foriegners into the country to work low paying jobs? How about fair, decent, living wages for citizens in this country?
Social Security? Yeah, Bush blew that one by proposing privatizing the whole system in the wake of corporate fraud and greed. Nice timing. It was rejected soundly by conservatives and liberals alike.
Socialized medicine? Seems to be working in most areas of the world that have it, especially in the ever-evil Canada.
Bailing out people in a natural disaster? Well, then we should permanently declare most of Florida unlivable and shutdown the shipping on the Missississippi River – As dumb as it is to have a city between 2 bodies of water higher than itself, the mouth of the Miss. River is essential as the entry to the most important shipping waterway in the nation. I’m not exactly opposed to donating food and water to people who can’t obtain it themselves. Are you? Course if we didn’t have those disasters, we would have missed those hilarious stories from Bush about his mis-spent youth in the French Quarter or looking forward to sitting on Trent Lott’s new porch in Missississippi when he re-builds. How awful that those pesky, starving, dehydrated people showed up on TV, trapped on their roofs, beggin to be rescued.
Conservatives seem to love being in control of the Legislative/Executive branch, but when it comes to showing some responsibility, they are missing the boat…
#3: Good for you!!! This is what I like to hear from moderate gays (i’m just assuming you are gay). I don’t mind co-existing with conservatives (and I hope vice-versa). It just scares the hell out of me that people who want to control the lives of others are gaining so much power.
4: Why the heck did he nominate Meiers?? As a liberal, I’m not thrilled with most of Alito’s views, but from the conservative point of view, he is what Bush’s conservative base would want. To me, it just points another bad, personal decision made by Bush on his own that makes him a bad president.
#5 Bush “let Ted Kennedy author the Education bill”?? funny, I thought members of congress could introduce whatever legislation they wanted. When was it up to the president to “allow” any member of congress the privilege of authoring legislation.
#9: I attended public school and my bible reading / religious worship occurred at home and on on weekends. All students had one minute of silence in the morning after the Pledge of Allegiance. Seems to me that was enough for everyone. I think people need to go back and read abot why we have a government that “shall make no law regarding religion”. We’ve forgotten the persecution that people suffered when one religion dominated a government.
Excuse, but is everyone commenting here gay / lesbian / bi? I certainly understand that sexaulity is just the slimmest commonality, but why are gays attacking other gays like this? I have, in my life, chosen to stand up for my rights and for the rights of other. I like to think that I have a good world view by supporting other people who are oppressed, attacked in various ways just because of who they are. I have also decided to take on certain (but not all) liberal causes because I don’t like seeing people in the world who have money and power who work actively to hold back and push down others who don’t have the same resources they do.
#43: I read statements like this and I scratch my head. On the one hand, certain conservatives claim they want judges who will rule on strict interpretation of the law. On the other hand, there always seems to be this glee (like in your statement) to get rid of liberals on the court. If you want judges who rule based on law, shouldn’t it be about their track record with the law and not about their political leanings?
“Also, note the ACLU’s refusal to defend the free speech rights of pro-life protesters.”
Have you ever seen anit-abortion protestors outside a clinic/hospital? The simple fact is that so-called right to life protestors are organized to harass / intimidate / stop women from engaging in something that is their right to do and (at least for now) protected by law.
I’d also like to point out that when i lived in boston, I noticed these protestors only seemed to gather in places where affluent women had abortions; they never seemed to protest at places where poor women had abortion. Just something to think about.
#12: Please provide links to all of the items you mention to verify your assertion that the government has doen this to you and everyone else. I’m curious to see how many of them really exist. I can’t seem to find anything on the first 4 items alone that back up your statements.
“On the one hand, certain conservatives claim they want judges who will rule on strict interpretation of the law. On the other hand, there always seems to be this glee (like in your statement) to get rid of liberals on the court.”
Think on it a little harder.
It might have something to do with the way a liberal (meaning Leftist) philosophy makes judges go beyond the law; abandoning strict interpretation. Big examples already cited.
“#12: Please provide links to all of the items you mention to verify…”
VK can give you links if he wants. Briefly, the items he cited are in the news almost daily; your challenge reveals where/how you haven’t been paying attention.
“VK can give you links if he wants. Briefly, the items he cited are in the news almost daily; your challenge reveals where/how you haven’t been paying attention.”
Yeah, thanks a laundry list of things people don’t like, but no backup? Let’s start small: How exactly is the government stopping people from buying the cars they want?
#56
We’re all still waiting for links proving your asinine gay extermination rantings.
Comment 56 – cleverly moving the goalposts, a frequent Democrat tactic.
VK had talked about Democrats proposing to control “what vehicles [people are] allowed to drive”.
But under Kevin’s goalpost-moving, VK must instead prove “government stopping people from buying the cars they want”, a different proposition.
It’s different because (1) Kevin will now be satisfied only if VK shows a car that the government stopped outright, after (or upon) its entry to the market; and (2) “the government” means Republicans.
As for proving VK’s proposition – that Democrats propose to control “what vehicles [people are] allowed to drive”, let me say it a little more clearly for you, Kevin:
It is in the news often enough that, no, I am not going to do your own 5-minute Google for you of phrases like “democrats regulate auto industry” or variations.
If VK feels differently and wants to do it for you, he may.
Excuse me – I should have said “moving the goalposts, a frequent Left tactic”. It is about philosophy – not party as such.
The “Party of Abortion” Strikes Out Again
=============================
Ahem, if you must be specific, Democrats are The Party of CHOICE.
You don’t have to have an abortion, but nobody can tell you you can’t have an abortion. You don’t have to have an abortion, you can adopt, keep it, whatever but it is the WOMAN’S right to choose.
And where is the fiscal outrage at the possibility of eliminating the IRS mortgage interest and state income tax deductions?
Where are the pocketbook Gopers?
heather chandler –
I think that eliminating as many deductions as possible, while drastically lowering the marginal rates, would be just great.
I agree. Eliminate deductions and tax people less.
As far as I’m concerned, the only deductions should be the personal exemptions, standard deduction, and deduction for health insurance and retirement funds. And NOTHING else.
I think the mortgage interest deduction has far too large a constituency to be eliminated. Besides which, that would be pulling the rug out from under millions of taxpayers for whom their home is their primary investment. And anyway, contrary to the lies of hysterical shrieking leftists, the commission (which was bi-partisan, by the way) only suggested capping the mortgage interest deduction for higher incomes. Also, the bi-partisan commission suggested scrapping the state and local tax deductions because they subsidize high tax states like New York and California.
As far as I’m concerned, the only deductions should be … and deduction for health insurance…
Comment by Frank IBC
===========================
Itty Bitty,
Wow, you have just endorsed universally subsidised health care for working Americans.
What are you, a Socialist?
H@@@
Do you have a point, Miss Heather?
V the K –
Yes, in reality, there is little chance that the mortgage deduction will ever be phased out – as you say, it’s just too popular. But ideally, the drop in marginal rates would be enough to make up for the loss of that deduction.