Once I found out that Jeff Greene was running against Meek, I also sent him the same questions that I sent to Meek. Surprise, surprise, I didn’t get a response from Greene’s campaign either. Here’s what I asked them:

What is to stop other nations from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? US News states “Other firms that have, to varying degrees, partnered with the Cuban oil company in the hunt for oil either on or offshore hail from Venezuela, Malaysia, Vietnam, China, Canada, andBrazil.” It makes more sense for the US to be obtaining this oil than it does for other countries to obtain it and then sell it to us. Either way, the environmental results may be the same. If a Cuban oil rig blows up near Florida, is the Cuban government going to clean it up? How are you planning to pressure them to get them to clean it up? What you people SHOULD be pushing for is greater security and safety on these rigs. This is our energy and we should be using it.

Neither of them has a response to these questions. If they’re not going to respond to questions during the campaign, what makes me think they’re going to respond to my questions after they get elected?

I thought of that book today when I got this story in an email from a less-distant cousin of mine. Though it’s a far cry from the feature-length analysis done by O’Connor 40 years ago, it does give us a glimse of that unique perspective seen by men of God ministering to men of war.

When my customary check of Snopes.com didn’t turn up anything, I googled it and found it was actually a blog post. So, rather than forward the email, I figured I’d add a post about it since I haven’t put anything up for awhile. Enjoy!

Thanks for stopping by and giving us an update, Butch. I took a look and you do indeed seem to have tightened up the ship over there. While your platform still seems to suggest that the party will not delve into social conservatism, the supplemental FAQs clarify the idea that the national platform remains agnostic on social issues specifically so that the state parties can exercise their 10th Amendment rights – thereby putting the questions where they’ve always belonged. This was very similar to the stance I took back in 2008, begging and pleading with Bill that he not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I wish you and the ACP good luck and the best of success, but there’s one remaining issue I have with ACP, and it’s significant. I’ve always believed in the two-party system, and only considered joining in the hope that ACP was trying to replace the Republicans.

I think third parties will always fail. But it’s not because, as your new platform suggests, the other two parties are using their power and money to stop you. It’s because the nation is built to have two parties, and this system fits best with both our style of government and our national character. When one party or the other strays too far from the mainstream, the political gravity forces it to adapt, naturally. When one party takes a firm stand on an important issue, the other party adapts to oppose it. And when this equilibrium falls too far out of whack and the parties don’t adapt, well then one survives, one dies, and a new party takes it’s place.

You’ve got a great attitude about starting your party from the ground up, and with your new platform I think you’ll have an impact (either directly or indirectly). But the only way you’ll survive and flourish long-term is to drive one of the two parties out of business and become part of the duopoly. As long as your masthead promises to fight the two-party system itself rather than fight the parties currently making up that duopoly, you’re going to fail.

You can see the effect happening right now, with the Republican election wins in VA, NJ and MA. Are those Republicans conservative enough? Probably not for me, but since I don’t live in those states, it may be a case of “good enough”. Everyone is saying the GOP is on the rise, and it’s very apparent that Republicans are benefiting from Tea Party energy and conservative values. You’re going to have your work cut out for you to convince the American people to give up the tried and tested for a bunch of political neophytes.

Fellow Catholic Bill Bennett apparently sees the situation in a similar way. I actually think Bennett’s critique of Beck’s speech at CPAC was too mild, but it will suffice. We aren’t going to make progress in the war against progressivism/liberalism/socialism/marxism (whatever they’re calling themselves this week) by painting all of politics with such a broad brush. We’re going to win by finding a way to inject the enthusiasm of the Tea Parties and the practical methodology of conservative think-tanks into the body of an organization that’s capable of: 1) fighting in the political trenches and 2) winning at the ballot box.

Theoretically, Beck and his pals could call for disbanding the Republican Party and rebuild from scratch. But while that might satisfy some people’s desire to punish Republicans for betraying the conservative faith, starting from scratch isn’t going to satisfy the two conditions I mentioned. In fact, it now appears that the Republican Party is not in such bad shape that they’re going to Whig out on us. (Though in the past few years, that’s been a danger, as I’ve preached.) Without the Republicans falling apart, you’re not going to have the chance to build a new second party. Besides, it’s just plain easier to take over the party standing there already. Heck, in some cases, Republicans are begging to be taken over.

Rick Santelli.

In what has become the focal point of the frustrations of those people who have seen the Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor of this great Republic trampled under the hooves of the socialist lurch to the left under the Obama administration (aided unfortunately by some in the Republican Party, as well as a couple of former BROTY winners), Santelli gave the Tea Party movement a voice – and a name.

Following his “rant”, the Tea Party movement took shape in protests on April 15, July 4, and September 12, and aided in the election of three Republicans to formerly Democrat-held offices: Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, Governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell, and the most recent and most shocking victory, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Scott Brown.

Though they are associated with a name from the Founding era, Santelli and the Tea Parties he suggested have revived interest in and study of the Constitution and the Union that Lincoln sought to preserve.  In response, we can do no less than “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought… have thus far so nobly advanced.”

So, the final verdict: Avatar is entertaining, but not a masterpiece of plot or characterization. In fact, the plot and characters are pretty dull. It has perhaps three leftist lines which may make individuals carrying some weird guilt over the colonization of the Americas upset. Otherwise, it’s gorgeous, loud, and shit blows up. Did I mention the Smurf sex?

But as you might expect, conservative commenters aren’t convinced they should throw their money away. Gabe responds to one:

The filmmaker himself has admitted to the leftist slant so your criticism of others who noticed that seems a little silly.

I didn’t say there wasn’t “leftist slant.” I said it wasn’t the OUTRAGEOUSLY OUTRAGEOUS leftism that some oversensitive folks are claiming.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at December 20, 2009 02:16 AM (Mi2wf)

As I’ve said countless times before, the best part of Ace is the comments – especially the socks – and one commenter stands above the others by putting the debate in the proper perspective.

Look, you people focus way too much on some of this political stuff.

Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Posted by: Leni Riefenstahl at December 20, 2009 03:06 AM (Vo2Ef)

Thanks. I think I’ll just watch this Avatar a few times and wait for Cameron’s version to show up on Netflix.

The leadership of the Whig Party, including Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, took advantage of the death of President Zachary Taylor to push through the Compromise of 1850. While generally popular, many people understood the compromise to be a capitulation by the Whigs to many demands of southern Democrats, including a strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Law. Northern abolitionists felt betrayed, causing their waning support for the Whigs to build into a rout for the them in the election of 1852. Emboldened by their victory, the Democrats passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, breaking decades worth of compromise on the slavery issue. Abolitionists and other defectors from the Whigs could not stand it anymore, and fled to form the Republican Party. Once the collapse of the Whigs became final, the United States still had a two-party system, but the name, strength, and ideology of one of the parties had been completely supplanted by another.

For the past few years, the incoherent message coming from the Republican establishment has made an all-too-familiar sound of “Me Too”. Big-government heath care may be associated with the Democrats today, but its greatest victory so far was a huge prescription drug benefit passed by a Republican president who wanted to be known as “a compassionate conservative”. Campaign finance reform that put a stranglehold on private speech and promoted funding limits was once just a Democratic dream, but it came true once it was championed by a Republican senator who identifies with progressivism. And just days ago, a pro-abortion, pro-group-rights Republican candidate pulled out of a race only to endorse her Democrat opponent over a conservative challenger.

That Democrat may have won his race against the upstart from the New York Conservative Party, but with the light of dawn that may well be the cap of the bad news for Democrats, and the beginning of the end for the “Me Too” Republican Party. Conservative Republicans won races for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, and after the revolt in NY23 (funded and supported by conservatives across the country) the national party has been put on notice that conservatives are done supporting liberals just for the sake of party unity. The loss of NY23 may be a disappointment for some, but a victory for the Conservative Party there might have sent the wrong message to conservatives – encouraging them to defect from a Republican Party far stronger than the Whigs were when the Republicans began their move to assume second-party status.

The Republican Party can still be the conservative party for America, but time is running out. The Republican establishment has to understand that the party itself needs a center to rally around, and the tendency of our recent leadership to bend to the left isn’t going to expand the Big Tent, it’s going to bring it crashing down.

I honestly have no desire to push people away who would may agree with me on some issues and help me win elections. But I also have no desire to hide who am and what I believe in order to sucker people into agreeing with me and helping me win elections.

Ronald Reagan believed in building the biggest tent and winning every election, and yet was an exceptional conservative who never hid who and what he was, and to this day defines the standard all conservatives should follow.

Am I a purist, or am I sellout to the big tent? With reservations, I think I can answer Yes on both counts. But of those who disagree with me on either point, I will at the same time vigorously oppose their philosophy and eagerly seek their support in getting the best possible (usually Republican) candidate elected. There is no contradiction.