The Smallest Minority

How Divided ARE We?

In Democrat Meltdown below I state that the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” will go nuts when/if George Bush wins re-election, but what exactly does that mean? How deeply divided are we as a nation? How angry are the two sides?

Apparently the answer is “pretty deep, and damned angry.” And there’s more to it, it seems to me. There’s a significant contingent of the Left that is self-delusional. Here’s just one example from Blog for Arizona the ex-Dean, now Kerry/Edwards blog for my state. It’s a commentary post on Bush’s acceptance speech. Here it is in its entirety:

43 Minutes of Sheer Wisdom

That is how Bush characterized his own nomination speech hours before delivering it to the nation. Ughh. More like 43 minutes of excuses for poor performance and appeals to overlook all his failures and hope that he can measure up in the future. Even as his own Secretary of State is admitting the Administration’s grand failures (as if it weren’t obvious), Bush speaks of spreading Democracy and justice across the Middle East. Even in the face of rising poverty, the worst job creation record since Hoover, and falling median wages, Bush is claiming victory for his economic program, i.e. tax cuts, and demanding we go further with that failed experiment. Like the spoiled ne’er-do-well he is, he boldly asked the nation to judge his first term, not on what he did, but what he says he intended, and what he says he hopes for in the future.

The short commercial that the The Daily Show created for Bush, “Because he says so” perfectly sums up Bush’s assertion over substance approach to governance. When you combine this sheer contempt for Americans’ intelligence with the personal animosity displayed by Cheney and, especially, Zell Miller, we may be seeing the begining of Bush’s final, and long-overdue political melt-down. In the end, the only wisdom conveyed by Bush last night is that of not electing him, or anyone associated with his Administration, to a position of leadership in America ever again.

Really? Powell acknowledges “the administration’s grand failures”? He said they underestimated the strength of the insurgency. Obviously the author has never heard the truism “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” And that is ONE admission, not plural. So far on the Foreign Policy front, that’s the only error I’ve seen, and I can accept it because of the uncertainty of war. Next, “the face of rising poverty“? What planet is this guy on? And “Bush’s final, and long-overdue political melt-down“? That’s one example of self-delusion.

Certainly we can go trade blog pieces, op-ed columns, and “straight-news” reports (that might as well be op-ed columns) for days, each “proving” the other’s position – but that’s the point. This country is more divided than I’ve ever seen it. People who are normally restrained – on both sides – are literally fighting mad.

Take, for example, this Chicago Tribune piece, Republican Nazis? by Charlie Madigan. Excerpt:

Union Square was packed with protesters, thousands of them, everything from gay guys urging the nation to ban marriage between Republicans to sad war vets carrying cardboard coffins to chipper women pretending they were convention delegates from the state of despair, debt, occupation, on and on.



And in one tiny spot amid the cacophony of protest stood a skinny woman and her skinny friend selling black Tee shirts. They carried a swastika on the front and the legend “Vote Republican.”



If you cut right down to the dark heart of what has been unleashed in this mean-spirited presidential contest, that’s what you find, someone who thinks that voting Republican makes you a modern-day Nazi. It better not get any more toxic than this, or Canada is going to start looking magnetically attractive to a lot of peace-loving people.

Then there’s the over-the-top attack by “poet” Molly Birnbaum (that you won’t hear on ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.):

“Imagine a way to erase that night four years ago when you (President Bush) savagely raped every pandemic woman over and over with each vote you got, a thrust with each state you stole,” Birnbaum said from the podium.

On the other hand, the militants – on both sides – are waiting anxiously for the battle to start. Denizens of the left are counciling rebellion on their message boards if/when Bush wins. Many on the right wing boards are chanting “bring it on.”

Trust me, there’s a bunch of people out there eager for it.

Da Goddess reports, for example, that at a recent protest, one protester smashed a car windshield of a counter-protester with his bare hands. Someone in Huntington Alabama fired a shot into GOP headquarters there. NYC got off lightly, I think, only because of the massive police presence. And massive arrests. However, there is evidence of blatant violation of freedom of speech going on in this campaign, and it appears to be one-sided. For example, the case of lawyer/protester Frank Van den Bosch who won $12,000 in a lawsuit for illegal arrest. All he was doing was holding a protest sign at a small-town Bush appearance. Sorry, folks, but arresting him is wrong. Of course the “Police State” found in favor of him, and awarded him $12k, but on the other hand, he’s a lawyer. Joe and Jane Bushater might not get the same judgement. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune had a recent op-ed on just this topic. If you believe in what America stands for, this should trouble you. And if you’re a protester, this must anger you.

Yet it’s blindingly obvious that if the Left were in charge, they’d be possibly more blatant in shutting down the voice of the opposition, and it’s even more apparent that the Left – in charge of the dead-tree and broadcast media – is doing its damnedest to make sure Mainstream America hears only what they want it to hear. (And it’s failing to control the information flow.)

I’m beginning to get an understanding of what Americans in the North felt like after the start of the Civil War when Lincoln was violating the Constitution in his effort to save the Union. You begin to ask the question, “Is it worth it?” Will we be the same nation, or at least one worthy of the name, of our history, when we come out the other side?

And then I look at the greatest division between us – the recognition of what’s going on in the world around us. The Left is still protesting “No Blood for Oil” – though we’re not stealing any. They’re still protesting our “illegal” invasion of Iraq, though it was resumption of the previous Gulf War, at a minimum justified by Saddam’s violations of the cease-fire agreement. (Yes, that’s a very simplistic explanation, but this essay is more than long enough as it is.) If you want to see self-delusion, you need only look at the news from Russia, and the reaction of the Left (more appeasement.) Or the old-media coverage of the RNC, and the reaction of the Left.

We are engaged in World War IV against an enemy that we cannot negotiate with, that we cannot defeat economically – as we did the Soviet Union – that we will not bring to a desk on the deck of a battleship for the signing of surrender terms. They want us converted, enslaved, or dead. Instapundit linked yesterday to David Kaspar’s viciously satirical Liberal Guide to Better Understanding Freedom Fighters, then Leftist blogger Matt Yglesias illustrated that Kaspar’s satire, wasn’t. (And yes, Matt, I clicked the link and read the whole post. “The situation, clearly, can only be resolved by Russian concessions on the underlying political issue in Chechnya” is precisely what you wrote.)

Part of this country recognizes the threat. A large part of the country doesn’t. Most, because they just don’t look, but a significant portion because they refuse to. That’s cognitive dissonance. “It doesn’t work, but we can’t be wrong, so keep doing the same thing over and over only harder.”

We were last divided as a country like this over the Vietnam war. One Presidential candidate is running – apparently exclusively – on his four months of combat service in that war, holding that service up as “defending the nation.” Yet he himself came back from Vietnam and stated that Vietnam held no threat to the United States. He dismissed the threat of the spread of Communism, which, during the decades of World War III – the Cold War – we defeated even with our loss in Vietnam. Does he, too, see the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism as the non-threat the Left believed Communism to be? The Left in the 60’s wanted to embrace communism as the savior of mankind, but that didn’t work. Do they now want to embrace Islam as that savior? Or do they believe appeasement will keep the radicals content?

I don’t believe that the Right (for want of a better term) has all the answers. I don’t think our leadership walks on water or is infallible, or even isn’t corrupt. I don’t think, honestly, that you can reach national levels of power and not be corrupt or corrupted by it. The difference seems to be that the Right believes that commerce is a good, not an evil. That free people make better trading partners than those under tyrannical thumbs. That trade is better than war, but that war is sometimes necessary, where the Left thinks we all ought to just “share.” Which brings me to a quote from Thomas Sowell:

The left takes its vision seriously — more seriously than it takes the rights of other people. They want to be our shepherds. But that requires us to be sheep.

That’s what Wahabist Islam wants of us as well. They want us to be sheep. Sheep who obey their god. Or sheep to be slaughtered.

I am hopeful that the moonbat left represents only a tiny minority of the population, but honestly, it’s difficult to tell.

I think we’re going to find out in November.

No Guns in Schools!

Tell that to the Russians, whose Commandos raided a school occupied by eighteen or more Islamic terrorists (and yes, that’s what “Chechen Rebel” means.) Of course the UN condemned the hostage-taking (but then I’m sure the UN condemned the slaughter of refugees at the UN-run camp in Burundi, too.)

As Instapundit noted this morning,

That could be happening here, and sooner or later it will if we don’t win this war first.

It would be a good idea if America woke up to the philosophical difference between “violent and predatory” vs. “violent but protective.” We need to become a nation of dangerous victims again.

Edited to add, from a CNN report:

“The bandits opened fierce fire on the running adults and children. In order to save the lives of the hostages, return fire was opened on the bandits. Local people who were armed also then opened fire on the bandits. This did not allow the special forces to do their work effectively.” — Regional FSB security service chief Valery Andreyev

Somehow I don’t think the “local people” gave much of a shit.

Edited again to add: Laughing Wolf in the comments points to this page at Logic&Sanity.com for a comprehensive compilation of information on the situation in Russia. Really outstanding stuff, most of it translated from Russian news services.

Damn, I love the blogosphere.

Blogs Across America

I hosted Seldom Sober last night in his trek across the Continental U.S. from the People’s Republic of California to the People’s Republic of New York City (out of the fire into the frying pan?) He arrived from his stay at Da Goddess‘s about 4:30 in the afternoon, whereupon I took him on a whirlwind tour of Casa Minority, and then we loaded up and went to the indoor pistol range for a little blasting, a Mexican restaurant for dinner, and a little postprandial discussion before bed. He stayed up late and blogged about it. A good time was had by all. Vay con dios, amigo. Good luck in the Big Apple.

New Member of the Blogroll

By comparison to many, my blogroll is ridiculously short. There’s a reason for that. A lot of bloggers will have dozens of links, but I only put up the ones I read on a regular basis – at least once a week, and more likely three or four times a week. A few I’ll check several times a day.

Technorati says I’ve got something like 187 unique links, so I suppose that means there’s at least fifty bloggers out there who have me on their rolls, and it’s going to be pretty obvious that I haven’t reciprocated with many of them (especially the guy who has me listed as “some gun nut.”) I hope no one is offended by that, but the fact is I don’t really have the time to read everyone I want to as often as I’d like, and my list reflects those that I have decided I will spend my time reading on a regular basis.

I just added new blogger VariFrank. Frank has been blogging about three weeks now. He’s attracted the attention of VodkaPundit, and not one but two Instalanches. On top of that, he’s drawn death threats from readers of DemocraticUnderground.com.

Now that’s a resumé!

Now I have to figure out how much more sleep I can do without so that I can hit his blog regularly.

Back in October of last year, Steven Den Beste predicted that the upcoming election would be a solid defeat for the Democrats, and he’s proving prophetic.

So 2004 will be the nadir for the Democrats. Barring extraordinary events, in 2004 the Democrats will crash and burn, and then many in the Democratic party will finally start asking whether the “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” is actually a liability rather than an asset, something to be isolated and frozen out instead of pandered to. Given that they, like the religious right, have nowhere else to go, it’s not even clear that the Democrats actually need to pander to them. If that happens, the Democrats may again become viable in the US.

At that time I wrote a response piece where I disagreed with Steven on just that one point:

Yes, indeed, the Religious-Right were marginalized by the Republicans – and they had nowhere to go. They certainly weren’t going to vote Libertarian, and Ross Perot’s Reform Party was stillborn, though the miscarriage did cost Bush 41 re-election. But the (to be less charitable) “Barking Moonbat Wing” of the Democratic Party does have the Greens to move to. And the moonbat wing is, apparently, not insigificant given their representation in the current “Deep Space Nine” array of presidential hopefuls. The best the Religious-Right ever managed was Pat “Idiotarian” Robertson. According to this recent Gallup poll on media bias:

(A)bout 4 in 10 Americans today identify themselves as conservatives and about the same number identify as moderates, while less than 20% identify as liberals.

And that “less than 20%” is apparently in control of the Democratic Party, something I don’t think you can really say about the Religious Right. They were pandered to, but never had their hands on the reins. The Moonbats apparently do, and most aren’t going to be “marginalized,” I think. They’ll leave first, and remain fervently active.

I’ll be the first to admit I may be wrong, but the thing that has changed as far as I can see is the militance of the far-left. They don’t care about being “ideologically pure losers.” They just condemn the conservatives and the moderates for being “ignorant sheep” and soldier on in their efforts to save us from ourselves like good socialists should. Evidence for this militance? Increasing eco-terrorism for one thing. Earth First!ers setting fire to SUV dealerships and luxury homes under construction, PETA activists raiding labs and fur farms, protesters actively advocating soldiers killing their officers – and forums praising such action.

The Information Age has allowed everybody to politically organize, and nowhere is this more apparent than at the fringes, and yes, I realize that I represent one of those fringes. They no longer feel alone and helpless. Gun control activist are acting in our own self-interest (I believe preserving the Constitution is self-preservation, anyway). The liberals are crusaders out to save us from ourselves, and they will never rest until they do. (Scratched that last out because there’s always one more crusade for the true believer.) For the Religious Right, being politically marginalized just made them resigned to wait for the Second Coming. For the Moonbat Left being marginalized will just make them more fervent. Crusading is their religion.

So, I don’t think the Democrats will quite reach their nadir in 2004. I think it will occur after the more moderate forces of the Democratic Party attempt to marginalize the moonbat wing – and the moonbat wing, in large part, leaves. When that happens, the Greens will gain strength – and may actually manage to elect a representative or two, especially in areas such as San Francisco where they have a strong following. The Green Party will certainly further harm the Democratic Party – until the Democrats complete the second step and sell themselves to the electorate to the point where they can draw more from that 40% of the population that identifies itself as moderate. That will be a few years after 2004, I think, and it’s going to be a definite two-step process.

Well, the militant moonbats are out in force in NYC right now. Their bretheren around the country are frothing at the mouth.

Rodger Schultz points out an example of the “Party of Hate” here. James Lileks talks of “Sudden Bush Hatred Fatigue Syndrome”. Instapundit points to a NY Daily News piece on the implosion of the Kerry campaign. Power Line shows moonbat spokesman Al Franken coming (further) unhinged in the presence of his enemies. And then there’s the über-moonbats at DemocraticUnderground.com, like, oh, say “Tyler Durden:”

I want no Republican “friends”….associates, aquaintances or relatives.

Period.

I don’t want to discuss politics with some Republican asshole. I don’t want to have drinks with one, share an office with one, have sex with one, or even stop on the side of a road in the rain to help one change a tire.

Fuck them. Fuck them all. I hate them for destroying the nation where I was born. I hate them for making me feel unwelcome in the community where my home is. I hate them for their selfishness which has made a mockery of the democratic process, And I hate them for the death that they deal to the helpless in the name of money.

I repeat; Fuck them all. At this point, I would not cross the street to pick one of them up out of a body of water where they were drowning: GOOD. One less of them to vote for the scum that they support and the filth that they do to the rest of us.

The camel’s back is broken, folks. Don’t think it’s going to heal soon.

(The link is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2293502&mesg_id=2293502 and is intentionally left cold. Cut and paste if you want to read it from the original source. Please do, and read the – as of the time of this writing – 69 responses as well.) Or read this one, by “Hobo:”

All right I finally reached my breaking point. I vowed to myself I will not watch any of the Repuke hate fest. So Last night I listened to some world music on the CD player, checking in here from time to time to see some reports. Then I saw the thread about the Purple Hearts on the Band Aids.

I need to know how the fuck can any person who served in the military or the family of military personnel even consider supporting a Repuke for any elected position in this country?

To me this little “gag” is offensive, it is like spitting on the cross. Vietnam Vets, they are laughing at your service to your country. Widows, they are laughing at the sacrifice your loved ones made. Mothers they are laughing at the death of your child.

Finally, They are laughing at my mom, whose son made the ultimate sacrifice. The flag from the coffin and the medals of my long lost brother still hang in my parents home. I detest all of those scum who last night decided it would be funny to wear those “gags” You, you fucking holier than thou, smug, religion hijacking, assholes can, and I know you will, rot in a special place in hell.

Plus, all you Free Republic George W Bush ass licker fuck wads out reading this, I say to you, You want a piece of me? You had better come with more than just one or two of you. Come and get me! I have been very tolerant of any repubes in my office, or general discussions I have had, not any more the gloves are off.

To all the chicken hawks out there, you know who you are, can go, in the words of the lead chicken hawk, fuck yourselves.

The link for that one is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104×2289224 and it has 18 replies. There’s more, but those are representative of the sentiment.

IndyMedia is reporting on the actions of the protesters in NYC. Here’s a taste of what they consider “freedom of speech:”

(S)everal hundred people gathered outside of Fox News at 47th st. and 6th ave. to hold a Fox “shut-up-a-thon,” where they berated the news agency for its crimes against the television-watchers of the world.

And, just so we understand they’re socialists, there’s this:

The “Men in Black Bloc” also caused a ruckus uptown at Sotheby’s where Johnny Cash memorabilia was being auctioned off to Republicans. Their demand was “No Cash for the Rich!”

How cute. There’s more reports available on IndyMedia too.

The Command Post reported on March 8 that Kerry is ready to “pre-challenge” the election results. The original Yahoo! story is no longer available, but I believe it was this piece that’s been archived at GOPUSA.com. (That’s an interesting illustration of the motivation behind Hugh Hewitt’s latest book, If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat.)

So, here’s my prediction: When Bush wins the election with enough margin to prevent cheating on the part of the Dems, there are going to be riots. There will also be domestic terrorism by the moonbats.

The “Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party” has no place to go? They’ve been stirred up past the point of no return. They’re going to go completely nuts.

Kerry’s Combat “V”

A lot of people are making serious accusations about John Kerry’s DD-214 showing that one of his awards is a Silver Star with Combat “V”, since the Navy doesn’t award the “V” with the Silver Star – ever. Captain’s Quarters blog notes, for example, that “John Lehman denies ever signing the modified citation Kerry’s site has prominently displayed for months, and states categorically that he didn’t write the additional language describing the engagement.” FrontPageMag has two pretty comprehensive pieces on it. Much glee has been take in in a quote by Kerry over the suicide of Admiral Mike Boorda, in 1996. Then Chief of Naval Operations, his wearing of two small Combat “V” clips on medals to which he was not entitled was questioned, and shortly before a planned news conference he committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. (From NRO):

What did John Kerry have to say at the time about the matter? Let us consult the Boston Herald of May 18, 1996:

Veterans said yesterday that although they would take offense at someone falsely wearing a “V” combat pin, they couldn’t see how this could drive Navy Adm. Jeremy Michael Boorda to suicide.

“Is it wrong? Yes, it is very wrong. Sufficient to question his leadership position? The answer is yes, which he clearly understood,” said Sen. John Kerry, a Navy combat veteran who served in Vietnam.

Citing uncertainty of whether Boorda deliberately wore the pins improperly, Kerry added: “If he made a mistake, in my judgment it wasn’t worth his life, so I’m very sad about it.”

And let us consult the Boston Globe for the same day:

“The military is a rigorous culture that places a high premium on battlefield accomplishment,” said Sen. John F. Kerry, who received numerous decorations, including a Bronze Star with a “V” pin, as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam.

“In a sense, there’s nothing that says more about your career than when you fought, where you fought and how you fought,” Kerry said.

“If you wind up being less than what you’re pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you.”

Of Boorda and his apparent violation, Kerry said: “When you are the chief of them all, it has to weigh even more heavily.”

My take on the matter? I’m more interested in why there are three different versions of the award (none of which mention a Combat “V”) than what appears to me to be a typo that Kerry didn’t bother to correct. And Lehman? Does he remember everything he signed? Doubtful.

But I’d like to know why Kerry isn’t being asked about this by the press.

What Bush Actually Said

Of course by now you know that the Left is spinning Bush’s comments from the Matt Lauer interview as hard as they can, but here’s what he actually said (via Michelle Malkin’s blog):

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you’ll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”



President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let’s put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that’s necessary. I’m telling you it’s necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we’re doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that’s really kind of an interesting debate. You know there’s some who say well, ‘You know certain people can’t self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it’s necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”

President Bush: “Twenty-two.”

Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they’re going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids – your grandchildren – be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”

President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it’s less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can’t tell you. I don’t have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can’t win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children. I’ll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, ‘Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

Will the mainstream media report the entire conversation, or will they just endlessly repeat the line highlighted in red?