KILGORE OUT BACK
Re: David Holman’s Can Kilgore Be Saved?:
David Holman’s up front and astute assessment of Jerry Kilgore’s serious campaign problems in the run-up to the Virginia gubernatorial election next week paints an accurate, but incomplete picture of lost opportunities and roads not taken. Kilgore, a popular figure in the state’s Republican Party, won a landslide victory as Attorney-General four years ago, but, as Holman noted, has been unable to gain traction during this campaign. Aside from Holman’s appropriate criticism that Kilgore’s campaign strategists have been unfocused on the pro-life issue and fiscal restraint, of equal importance, in my judgment, has been their apparent reluctance to capitalize on the Democratic candidate’s refusal to deal with the legal, financial, and public health aspects of illegal immigration into the state. I believe Kilgore’s campaign handlers have been far too cautious in getting him out front on this issue; instead, the Kilgore campaign has played it safe and concentrated on transportation and education issues, neither of which will resonate with Virginia’s conservative electorate in the same way.
Another problem noted in Holman’s piece was the Kilgore decision to keep a noticeable distance between his campaign and the White House. I attended a fundraiser for a Republican incumbent for the House of Delegates (during the Miers nomination controversy) and the legislator expressed the view that Bush’s presence will not aid the Party’s candidates in Virginia next week. While Senator Allen attended the president’s recent foray into Virginia, he is not up for re-election in ’06. Several weeks ago, an appearance by Karl Rove at a Kilgore rally in Fairfax was, at the last moment, cancelled.
Even if Kilgore spends the last week hammering the opposition on fiscal restraint and pro-life issues, I am not sure that his earlier caution can be overcome. I plan to cast my ballot for this honorable and decent man, but I am reasonably sure, however, that unless the campaign strategists include the consequences of the impact of illegal immigration on this state, they will have failed their candidate. There is much to do and little time. To quote Salisbury at Agincourt: “‘Tis a fearful odds.”
— Vincent Chiarello
WHO LOST BASRA?
Re: Patrick Devenny & Robert McLean’s The Battle for Basra:
Americans weren’t watching Tony Blair’s lips when he said he was on their side in invading Iraq. If they had, they would have seen him say, repeatedly, that the reason he wanted to join with America against Saddam was that, if he didn’t, GWB would act alone anyway and the British would have no influence whatsoever. Blair supported America in Iraq to restrain their policies, not to assist them. Blair never was a friend on Iraq or in the GWAT, he is a worm who well understands that worms thrive on the inside of the apple, not on the outside. I am stunned that nobody in Washington comprehended that, and they still don’t, by the sounds of things. Spend five minutes looking at Blair’s record and it is obvious that he always was utterly useless on opposing terrorism — just look at how he has responded to the IRA, Libya, the Palestinians, Syria, Pakistan, and Iran. His response to the London bombings was nothing but hot air. Against terrorists and in Iraq, Blair has cut and run every time, he is a serial appeaser who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Attila the Hun, and I suspect that the only reason he hasn’t done a deal with Osama bin Laden is he doesn’t have his phone number. Basra is only the latest in a long line of dots that started years ago, and I bet the crown jewels that it won’t be the last.
Americans were so obsessed with signing up so-called “allies” against Iraq that they didn’t look at the fine print, even when written in bold, large print capital letters, and when that involves people as gutless and slimy and driven by self-interest as Tony Blair, that really is the mother of all mistakes. Nobody who has read Sun Tzu and Machiavelli would want Tony Blair and the British within 100 miles of a battlefield where they were fighting, they are simply too gutless and stupid and racked by multicultural political correctness to be any use. The times when a thin red line of phlegmatic Yorkshire fusiliers held off waves of screaming, bloodthirsty Zulu head loppers against all hazards are long, long gone, you would be an utter fool to base your war fighting calculus on those memories now. Instead, the British for some considerable time have been the spiritually linear descendents of the Italians of WW2 — the best you can hope for is that they change sides and cause your enemy as much trouble as they caused you.
People who are fooled by the likes of Blair and the British really need to be employed elsewhere than in the national security establishment, they lack basic intelligence and understanding of human nature and they do far more harm than good. Get used to reading about setbacks like the battle for Basra, because I reckon the fundamental problems and serial misjudgements that bedevil the war in Iraq and the GWAT are still there, and while they remain there will be plenty more stories like the battle for Basra.
Written far more in sorrow than in glee.
— Christopher H
The “Softly, Softly” approach needs to be re-examined. The British cite Northern Ireland as the mantle of success for this strategy. However, the rise in Republican and unionist organized crime in the absence of law and order is another example of its failure. Rudy Giuliani’s “Broken Windows” approach shows more promise in effective keeping of the peace.
— Donald Parnell
London, United Kingdom
Maybe you could shoot a copy over to Prince Charles; he seems a little light on current events.
— Danny Newton
A TIME FOR JUDGING
Re: The Prowler’s Eating Dirt:
Let me add my kudos to the Prowler for revealing the despicable tactics of the DNC when it comes to Judge Alito’s Italian heritage. “Eating dirt” is a far more polite description of the Dems’ activities than I would have expressed it. This casual slander of “mafia in our genes” comes amazing easy to a political party that prides itself on cultural sensitivity and multiculturalism. It’s part of their problem and why they are in a political swamp. Allow me then use this as a segue and a warning to “our problem,” the exalted “Gang of 14,” who are about to meet over the “Constitutional Option.” Sen. McCain is at a crossroads; he can either make principled political hay with conservatives and finally put an end to the unconstitutional filibuster of judicial nominees or he can placate his Democrat colleagues in Club Senate and allow a nominee of unquestionable merit to be ravaged by the far left. If he chooses the latter, that same dirt will be used to bury his prospects of an ’08 presidential run. Even Chris Matthews won’t be able to help him.
Lets see now, according to The American Heritage Dictionary, the word “apoplexy” is defined as follows: Sudden loss of muscular control with diminution or loss of sensation and consciousness, resulting from rupture or blocking of a blood vessel in the brain. And all this time, I thought if I looked up “left wing democrat,” I’d find that definition. Who knew it was, actually, apoplexy?
Now I ask you folks, is the left apoplectic over the nomination of the honorable Mr. Alito? I mean I have to say that I am absolutely giddy over the left-wing hysteria on this one. Senator Schumer, in my opinion, ought to
have his own reality TV show. He is actually becoming fun to watch. Boys and girls, can you say, “nervous breakdown”?
— Jim L.
East Sandwich, Massachusetts
Saw your post, but while you say Devorah Adler works for Howard Dean and that she worked in the Clinton White House, you fail to point out what she does today. She’s the recently appointed Director of Research for the DNC, not some low-level flunkie. She should know better.
HT to RedState for finding the names.
BTW, if Adler worked Health Care issues at the Clinton White House, then she had direct, ongoing contact with Hillary Clinton as she was the architect of Pres. Clinton’s failed Health Care overhaul. Will Sen. Clinton disavow such tactics?
— Chris Wildermuth
The Dems are really not wanting this fight any more than the last court appointment. They just have to bluff for the fringe. This last statement is what got them in deep doo doo when it came to the last presidential elections and they will be following that playbook until a new generation of Dem leaders are chosen. What a sorry group the Dems have to follow now. Gamesmanship has taken over earnest rebuttals.
Re: Doug Bandow’s The Religious Politics of Jim Wallis:
There is much wrong with Mr. Wallis’s views, as presented by Mr. Bandow.
The God of Christianity is the very author of freedom, as demonstrated in the opening chapters of Genesis wherein God allows mankind the choice of following or rejecting Him. In these same opening chapters God tells man that it is by the sweat of his brow that he will work to sustain himself. If that is not a Biblical refutation of the welfare state I don’t know what would be. Given this, what gives Mr. Wallis the right to decree to the rest of humankind to what degree of taxation we should be subjected? Is it his inspired wisdom? Is it because he has special knowledge of how to use our money for the purposes of his choosing?
(Incidentally it could be argued that God is the author of the flat tax, which He set at 10% (Leviticus 27:30). Perhaps it is rather nervy of mankind to presume to tax using any other method or to any amount greater, but I digress.)
Mr. Wallis refers to tax cuts for the rich and in so doing attempts to frame the debate in his favor. But what if one argued that the lack of a requirement for Mr. Wallis to donate a pint of blood per week is a donor’s break for the healthy? In fact, make that two pints per week. The point is that Mr. Wallis’s blood is his own, not mine to “redistribute.” Why then isn’t Mr. Wallis’s property also his own, not mine to redistribute? He does believe in ownership of personal property, doesn’t he? Otherwise how would he reconcile the commandment against stealing?
Mr. Wallis twists the exhortation to “be not afraid” to mean that we should be not intelligent. With chutzpah of the highest order he seems to suggest that conservatives’ actions are based on fear while his insight is based on, presumably, wisdom. But using his “logic” a person could hire a known sex offender to baby-sit his children and be not afraid that any harm would come of it. It’s downright offensive to the sensibilities.
Mr. Wallis claims to believe that abortion is wrong yet opposes the movement that fights to end it. He also seems to give lip service to ending suffering while writing against ending a tyrannical mechanism causing it. These are Clintonian attempts to have one’s cake and eat it too. Or worse, they are examples of the type of Pharisaical false piety that Jimmy Carter perfected to an art form.
Despite his claims to the contrary Mr. Wallis’s views are simply Liberalism wearing an ecumenical collar, the same type of thing that can be found in most churches across the country. Hum-drum stuff, really.
— R. Trotter
Re: John Tabin’s Celebrating Alito:
From what Mr. Tabin has pointed out and what AmSpec itself is saying, along with the blogs, one can see where the left is basically off balance in opposing this nomination. While I can understand Alito’s legal opinions, it is a little disturbing to see him sway back and forth like he has. Given the complexity of the law though, I guess that is the way it is when you’re sitting on the bench applying (and not legislating) laws. That I have no problem with. It looks to me that once this man is confirmed, we will have another battle on our hands to ensure that we have a Congress which is going to legislate according to the Constitution also, so this battle is just one more phase of recapturing the republic from the clutches of those who would dictate by judicial fiat and mob mentality. How refreshing to actually have a chance to really turn things around. I shudder to think if we had just laid back and let the Miers nomination go through, “trusting Bush,” then found out all we had was a political hack on the bench who was happy with the status quo. It’s too bad my senators are Leahy and Jeffords because I have no representation in Congress since he will not listen to those constituents slightly to the right of him. Fortunately, our voices can be heard through publications such as this. Rally around the Constitution, my friends, for if it is a fight we’re having, let’s have at it.
— Pete Chagnon
Re: Paul Chesser’s Evangelical Setback:
Seems to me Mr. Chesser has things a little backwards. The upshot of the Miers fiasco is that a good many “evangelicals” have discovered that the denizens of the self-described conservative base, whether neocons, NR-cons, or Wallcons, are not their allies and do not necessarily have their best interests at heart. One would hope that evangelicals have more important things on their minds than obtaining approval from Kristol and Krauthammer, or from someone like George Will, who identifies the Constitution as his sacred text. Nor should they be so naive as to confuse originalism or any political concept with what is just and good. They voted for the President precisely because they trust his heart, and they were inclined to support the Miers nomination for the same reason. The notion that good judgment comes from intellect per se is not Biblical, as is shown by Solomon’s request; and if the paragon of conservative constitutional law is Robert Bork, then evangelicals might want to look elsewhere for their friends.
— Jay Trott
Re: Clinton W. Taylor’s Joe Wilson in a Bind:
So, tell me: When Scooter Libby gets off because there was no outing of Plame but gets indicted for allegedly lying to the FBI, where is the indictment of Harry Reid for leaking information about a sitting U.S. judge, besmirching his reputation? What? No special prosecutor? Does the ruling pig class have special privileges? Orwell, I guess they do.
— Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
Re: George Neumayr’s Kangaroo Court:
Hanna Rosin wrote, “I need look no further than myself for counter-evidence: weak ankles, diabetes, high probability of future death. If there is a designer, she doesn’t seem so intelligent.”
Well, as she writes, so it is; she herself is a rather poor example of intelligently designed, but, never mind. She has totally missed the point. Only the existence of a merciful God would account for the fact that such a defective specimen does exist. God’s world, you see, allows for this. Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest and the process of natural selection favoring as it does, well formed, non-defective specimens, does not favor the survival of such as she. Good Lord, whatever were you thinking!
— Joseph B. Cohen
RELIGIOUS LEFT RALLIES
Re: Patrick Hynes’s Christian Republicans:
Obviously Mr. Hynes’s self–credited knowledgebase is limited by myopia! The religious un-right have not always been a base fixture of the GOP as he might like to believe. In fact, this heinous group was allowed to take over the GOP by your hero Reagan, and his raw quest for the Presidency. They were then referred to as the ‘silent majority’; too bad they didn’t stay silent. To be religious is fine, to direct your life per your religion is fine; what is not fine is to allow “your” religion to rule me by government fiat. I am a lifelong Republican, the religious un-right was not a fixture of the GOP prior to Reagan’s ascendancy; you should not print articles that are untrue.
— Gary Blume
If the historic norm makes Christian Republicans the largest voting bloc, how many voters are there in the powerful voting bloc of Socialist Insecurity/Mediscare beneficiaries?
— Harry Thompson
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.