Michelle Malkin has the round up for this one but I can’t simply let this go unnoted here at HoodaThunk?. John Kerry, Democrat loser of the 2004 Presidential elections, stood up on stage at the Democratic Party convention to accept the nomination of his party. To puctuate the matter, he snapped to a sort-of attention and fired off a sloppy salute saying he was “reporting for duty.” He leaned so very heavily on his military service for his credibility and, with the rest of the Left, dared anyone to challenge their patriotism and support of the troops.
Some weren’t fooled, not in the least. They had known him in the military and they could see where his true allegiances lie. They knew he lacked the right stuff to command the U.S. military. Now, Kerry has managed to show his true colors, again, to the rest of us. Speaking at an event for the Democrat challenger for California Governor, Phil Angelides, Kerry addressed the gathered crowd in Pasadena and made it clear what he thinks of the men and women he would aspire to command:
“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Feel free to have a look for yourself. There’s no denying this one or saying that his words were garbled or whatever. It’s clear as day and it shows Kerry’s utter contempt for the military and the people that comprise it.
So, is this what Democrats think? Does Jim Webb and Judy Feder agree with John Kerry’s take on things? That the men and women in uniform are there because they were lazy and stupid? Much has been made of Jim Webb’s military service. Will he stand up now for his brothers and sisters in uniform and call a fellow Democrat on the carpet for these comments? Or will he just remain silent and hope no one notices?
To say I’ve gotten a bunch of direct mail political advertising the past couple of weeks would be an understatement. I still go through them, however, because even the opposition candidate’s stuff can give you information you can use down the road. So it was with a letter received Saturday from one Pat Heelen of Haymarket, VA.
Pat’s studying for the bar exam in Virginia. I know that because it says so at the bottom of the better. Also says he works in Haymarket. I can’t say what he does there because there’s no other biographical data nor is there any contact information, web site, or such. All I do know about him is he works in Haymarket and he’s studying to pass the bar.
Pat leans on those credentials pretty hard as he goes into a 2-page letter describing how Frank Wolf, Republican Representative for Virginia’s 10th District, isn’t a conservative and isn’t really a Republican. The letter details 9 points of order on Wolf’s voting record and his support of certain positions that are, in Pat’s opinion, antithetical to being Republican. Pat wants me (and other letter recipients, I trust) to call on Congressman Wolf and direct him to call a press conference, immediately, and apologize for and disavow his votes in these 9 issues. While he is careful not to say it explicitly Pat obviously wants us to add the “or else” action to our request to Mr. Wolf of actually voting against him on November 7. From his letter:
If Mr. Wolf continues to ignore his base and Mrs. Feder wins, will Feder’s votes be worse than Mr. Wolf’s votes? Yes, but only marginally. At least Feder will have come as advertised and we can easily rid ourselves of her in 2008.
What charmingly idiotic naivete. Feder’s votes will be a whole lot worse than Wolf’s by a damn sight more than marginally. Feder’s entire campaign has been very little more than “vote for me because I’m not Wolf and I’ll yank those troops out of Iraq so fast the vaccum left behind where the soldiers used to be will make sonic booms we can hear from DC.” As for “easily rid[ding] ourselves of her in 2008,” well, that’s just childish talk. Incumbents are extremely difficult to dislodge. Don’t take my word for it, look at history. And even if you subscribe to that theory, how would it be any more difficult to “rid ourselves” of Frank Wolf in 2008? It wouldn’t, that’s how.
There’s no arguing with the facts of Wolf’s voting record and, from the quick spot check I performed over at house.gov and the Thomas Locator it appears that the information in this letter is accurate insofar as reporting the vote record. I’m not afraid to say that there’s some very troubling trends in that voting record. Wolf voted against the Online Freedom of Speech Act which would have exempted the Internet from the seething train-wreck of an intrusion that is the McCain-Feingold Act. My stance on that issue is well-documented and I’m not happy that Wolf voted against this bill. The letter says Wolf voted against repealing the private ownership of firearms ban in DC. I can’t confirm that, yet, but if it’s true then that’s a very large black eye for the Congressman in my book.
There are other issues. The letter goes on to say that we don’t need Frank Wolf “voting with Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi 80% of the time.” That figure may be an exaggeration or it might be accurate, I’ve not done all the math, yet. I challenge the unspoken suggestion that we’d be better off (or at least not worse off) with a Representative Feder voting with Pelosi 100% of the time.
In other words, whatever the problems are with Frank Wolf – or, indeed, in general – the answer isn’t to elect more Democrats to office. You think Congress has been gridlocked the past couple of years? Wait until a Democrat majority in the House starts issuing subpeona after subpeona and passing one impeachment resolution after another. Even if they’re all shot down in the Senate the massive amount of manpower and funds going to investigate every little decision and move made by this administration in the past 6 years will bring everything to a grinding halt. And I do mean everything.
If we, as Republicans, have a problem with Frank Wolf, the time to address that problem is in the primaries. That didn’t happen in 2006, there wasn’t even a challenger. And now there are some who are suggesting that we throw away a Congressional seat in order to register a complaint? That’s called cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s not the smart move in any regard.
Even if I concede everything in that letter (and I don’t, for the record), I’m still better off with a vote my way 20% of the time than 0% and that’s the choice being offered here, even if it’s unspoken.
If someone wants to start up a dialog for running an opposing Republican candidate for the primaries in 2008, fine. But don’t ask for Republicans to vote against their party’s candidate now, with the only choice being to put a Democrat in office. That’s not smart on all kinds of levels and it’s definitely not going to turn out well for anyone who follows that advice.
I’m supporting Frank Wolf for Congress and I think you should, too.
(Hello to visitors from Too Conservative! Welcome!)
I was in college the first time the late singer Rick James was hitting the charts. I won’t go into details but there was a certain amount of ribbing that went along with introducing myself at my college fraternity functions.
Hi, I’m Ric James.
Rick James? Superfreak!
That was usually followed up with a chord or two from that person’s favorite tune by Mr. James usually ending up in, for some reason, a James Brown AAOOOWWWW! Go figure.
In the years since I’ve run into a number of folks who still remember those days and will still toss the “superfreak” label at me, all in good fun. I’m used to it. I had to smile, however, this morning when I came across this post over on Instapundit that points out a candidate for Circuit Court Judge named – Christians everywhere, take note – Pilate. No, not Pontius Pilate of biblical fame. This is Patrice Pilate. Candidate. For a judge, no less.
Man, I thought I had baggage. Good luck, Ms. Pilate!
Has there been a political campaign in recent history that compares, in terms of sheer disgusting nastiness, to what’s going on here in Virginia’s senate race between George Allen and Jim Webb? Rather than hear about what they’re going to do about national security, immigrations, taxes, energy – you know, the issues that face all of us – we get to hear about accusations of the use of a particular racial epithet, allegations about old, worthless stock options, the material in fiction works, and rumors about sealed divorce records. It’s crap and it’s beneath what I’d expect out of two supposed adults vying for the position to represent me for the next 6 years in the Senate.
It’s no secret I support George Allen. I consider him to be the better candidate for the Senate and he’s the only one of the two to actually address his plans for his term, if elected. Webb’s only shot is, “I’m not a Republican and I hate Bush.” That’s not a plan. Webb’s conduct in this campaign was wholely contemptible (it remains so, by the way) and his personal attacks on Allen merely highlighted Allen’s approach of continuing to speak to the issues.
Right up unitl Allen’s latest move of pointing out Webb’s fiction writing. I’ve never read Webb’s books and the excerpts I’ve read in the last couple of days confirms my opinion that I don’t need to. I don’t care if Webb’s books only have 1 or two of these scenes in them, it’s not the kind of stuff I want to read. But calling Webb out on them looks petty and has quite clearly put the both of them in a light that makes this look less like a campaign for a Senate seat and more like the kind of childish bickering you expect from the back seat of the family car while driving somewhere it takes hours to reach. Personally, I’m ready to pull the car over and use a belt on both of them.
Message to Allen and Webb: knock it off. You’ve got over a week to let the mud drop and start talking about the issues and not each others’ skeletons in the closet, and paper-mache skeletons at that. The nation is watching and, more importantly, Virginians are watching, too. Don’t be an embarrassment.
A story in the print edition of the Loudoun Independent reminds me that there’s going to be another referendum on the ballot this year and this one’s about roads. Having become tired of waiting for Virginia’s General Assembly to get off their collective rear-ends and provide some fixes for our road and traffic situation up here, the Board of Supervisors has decided to ask the county residents if they can take out loans (in the form of issuing bonds) to start building the roads themselves. I spoke about this back in July and the latest article does us all the favor of reminding us what’s coming.
In the time since the issue first came to my attention, I’ve not heard anything else on the topic in the public debate. (Plenty on the Dulles South CPAM, but nothing on this.) While I am also tired of the General Assembly’s inability to actually get something done, my mind hasn’t changed on the issue since I wrote about it. I do not see requiring Loudoun residents to pay for roads while still paying state taxes – a portion of that for roads, I might add – as a valid approach. Now, if someone were going to tell me that my state taxes would be reduced so I didn’t have to pay into the state for roads they should be building but aren’t then that would be a different matter.
Of course, they’d also need to tell me that the referendum has something in it that would keep the funds collected from being diverted to other uses. I’ve looked at the referendums that will appear on the ballot and there’s no such language there. I’m skeptical of issues written like this.
So, unless something changes dramatically in the next 10 days, I won’t be voting in favor of either one of the road issues on the ballot. Richmond needs to spend some of that $4 billion surplus on the stuff they supposedly collected it for, not make the local residents pay for their improvements again.
While it may not be true as a rule, there’s something I want to say about me, personally, to the people who have been putting political flyers in my mailbox that don’t have any identifying information on them.
I consider these political missives to be a sign of cowardice and you’re inducing me to oppose your position.
Yesterday, I got a bright orange flyer talking about the issue that’s consuming the county-level political scene lately: the Board of Supervisors’ approval or disapproval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPAM) that will adjust the number of homes that can be built in a region of the county called “Dulles South.” The flyer is directly targeted, talking about my specific supervisor, Bruce Tulloch. It says he should either vote against the CPAM or recuse himself from the vote.
The “why” of this suggestion isn’t my point. The point is that while it’s exorting me to the action of contacting Tulloch to tell him he needs to do one of these things, it does not tell me who wrote the flyer or who’s asking me to take this step on their behalf. I have a word for that: cowardice.
It’s not the first time I’ve gotten flyers like this. I know it won’t be the last, too, but it’s an ineffective tactic so far as this voter’s concerned.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court has ruled, on Constitutional grounds, that the state’s laws
barring same-sex marriage are void providing for domestic partnerships but not full marriage don’t go far enough.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court has left it to the Legislature to decide the rules for gay couples who want to marry in the state.
In a 4-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the state constitution gives same-sex couples the same civil rights afforded to heterosexual couples, but the lawmakers must decide how to grant those rights.
“The Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure, which will provide for, on equal terms, the rights and benefits enjoyed and burdens and obligations borne by married couples,” the court held.
These justices were very careful in how they worded things and they even went further than other courts have done in reminding the plaintiffs – in this case the advocates for same-sex marriage – that they still need to convince the rest of the state’s citizens as to the merits of their position.
The court also suggested that the plaintiffs, seven long-term same-sex couples, must do more than fight their battles in court, they must change social mores.
The courts can ensure equal treatment, the ruling states, but it “cannot guarantee social acceptance, which must come through the evolving ethos of a maturing society. Plaintiffs’ quest does not end here. They must now appeal to their fellow citizens whose voices are heard through their popularly elected representatives.”
In Logic, this last statement is recognized as a loaded proposition. The Court assumes that a maturing society with an “evolving ethos” must, indisputably, come to a position of acceptance of same-sex marriage. This is hardly a given but the Court acts like it is. Moreover, you don’t acquire the voluntary acceptance of a group of people by forcing something on them in the courts. What you get is precisely what you got in 2004 when, after the Massachussets Supreme Court decision that was remarkably similar to this one, multiple states passed constitutional amendments elevating their ban statutes to being constitutional laws. The various social conservative groups told citizens that same-sex marriage advocates were uninterested in changing anyone’s opinion except a judge’s. There’s only 1 way to put this issue into the hands of the citizenry and their legislative representatives and disallow a judge from making the call over their heads.
As in 2004, this ruling will backfire. It will gavanize opposition to same-sex marriage and the increasing number of these cases now proceeding in other states will simply prove the point that’s being made about a federal Constitutional amendment. It will add support to such an amendment and if anyone thinks a state constitution is hard to change, wait till they get a load of how a federal one works.
I’ve said before that I don’t have a problem with civil unions and I still don’t. But this press to use the courts to override what is clearly a majority opinion of the citizenship, today, is a mistake.
Update: Reader RosyBlue correctly pointed out that I’d misspoke when I said the laws barred same-sex marriage. They provided for domestic partnership. They didn’t ban same-sex marriage but they didn’t explicitly provide for them. The Court’s ruling states that they don’t want to actually force the legislature to use the term “marriage” but even a casual reading tells you that this is precisely the effect they want to see. It’s also been noted around the blogosphere that the ruling does not say that the Court couldn’t later rule that anything not using the term “marriage” won’t be sufficient, they just chose not to make that call in this ruling.
Regardless, I overstepped the situation and I appreciate RosyBlue’s comment to more fully describe what’s happening.
It’s no surprise to anyone who has read my stuff that I support the general doctrine used in the war on terror – go after the terrorists before they come here after us. I strongly believe that the Iraqi theater of this war is crucial to our security and I advocate getting the job done.
This comment by Iraqi PM Al-Maliki, however, has got by hackles up:
The defiant al-Maliki also slammed the top U.S. military and diplomatic representatives in Iraq for their Tuesday press conference, at which they said Iraq needed to set a timetable to curb violence ravaging the country. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said al-Maliki had agreed.
“I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it,” al-Maliki said at a news conference.
No one except the people who have been providing the constant security for your government for the past few years and who have a right to expect you to pick up your own burden as quickly as is reasonable, bub. For the record, that would be us.
Al-Sadr and his goons represent the largest destabilizing force currently in Iraq, a position I’ve held since I heard his name the first time well over 2 years ago. He cannot be permitted to do Iran’s bidding and foster terrorism if the Iraqis want peace in their time. His strongholds cannot be permitted to remain to allow his followers bases of operation from which to strike. You would think a Prime Minister would see that.
One wonders why the PM wasn’t consulted (assuming he really wasn’t, for a moment) prior to the operation? Does CentCom consider him a security risk?