The Black Republican

When you are the coach of a fabled collegiate football team, the coach of a pioneering profesional football team, or the head of a civil rights group; performance counts.

In all of these cases it is about wins and loses. For the sports teams it is measured in how the team does on the field of play. For the head of the NCAAP, it is measured in the elections. If you don't turn out the black vote for the Democratic candidate, (and especially if the trend is that the Democrats are losing the black vote in the long run), then you have a choice, quit or be fired.

Either way you wish to interpret the end of Mfume's reign, he is gone, and the NCAAP will be manuvering to find an able replacement who can resurrect the good old days when Democrats could count on the Black community to vote in lockstep. Those days may be gone forever, as it is abundantly clear that Republicans, lead by President Bush, are the ones recognizing the talented, and promoting the capable, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Perhaps someone at the NCAAP will be visionary and the organization will realize that a man like Bill Cosby has more understanding of the details that make advancement happen, than do those who continue to repeat the old rants proclaiming victimization. However, I am not holding my breath until they replace Mfume with a reasoned, forward-looking, individual with an understanding (and the resolve), to point out where people are failing to take the responsibilities, and where they are failing to make choices, which will positively impact their futures. After all, said the cynical middle-aged man, where is the profit in actually helping people?

Remember the first blush response from the Democrats back on November 3rd? "Kerry didn't fight back and play dirty like the Republicans do."

Tell that to Steve Gardner.

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

Just before the holiday, we were happy to learn that The Black Republican was featured in a segment of Pundit Review Radio back on November 20. The radio bloggers said how much they liked our blog and read the post We are all Black Republicans now. You can hear the show through an Audioblog link at Pundit Review.

Everyone here at TBR would like to thank Kevin & Gregg for the kind words and support. It means a lot to me personally that my work is well-regarded in a city renowned for spotting talent. (Sorry, guys - it's just too easy. And you have this to console you now anyway.)

For everyone who is a history fan, especially of the Civil War, here is some welcome news.

Todd S. Purdum appears to have an eye for history, and knows where to go to put that history into perspective. In The New York Times, he compares periods of one-party rule in Washington, trying to divine what might come of the current majority.

What I found most interesting were some quotes from a noted and influential historian - who happens to have been a major political figure in his own right.

But history also suggests a perilous twist on an adage as old as Athens: Whom the Gods would destroy they first give control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. With responsibility for all of government comes accountability for all of government, and the picture is not always pretty.

"There are three pretty obvious patterns," said Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, who should know. "There are majorities which are motivated to do very large things, which resonate with the country - the Homestead Act, land-grant colleges, all of the Progressive reforms, the rise of the New Deal. The other possibility is that you get a majority that doesn't do much bad and doesn't do much good, like lots of state legislatures.

"And third, you can have majorities that get out of touch and either become corrupt or get arrogant and isolated, the way the Democrats after the 1992 election clearly didn't understand the country and threw away their majority."

Certainly, there have been early signs of elephantine hubris, chief among them the House majority's willingness to rewrite its own ethics rules for the sole purpose of assuring that its majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, would not have to step down should he be indicted as a result of any of the inquiries now swirling around him. Only a dominant party would dare do a thing like that. It was the Republicans themselves, after all, who instituted the rule that indicted members could not serve as leaders. They did so a decade ago after supplanting the long-ruling Democrats, whom they derided as ethically sloppy.

"It was a mistake, because it was a public statement that the party would change the rules to benefit one individual," Mr. Gingrich said of the DeLay decision. "That's a mistake, period. Are the rules subordinate to the interests of the powerful, or are the powerful subordinate to the interests of the rules? In a free society, the rules govern."

The Economist has an insightful look into the death of the network news and the rise of the blogosphere with Dropping the Anchorman. Here's one place where they seem to see the deeper story, and don't just deliver platitudes to the emergence of New Media.

For most of the post-war era the American media were dominated by a comfortable liberal consensus. The New York Times was the undisputed king of the print news, while the network anchors lorded it over TV news. That consensus is now under siege. The attacks are partly coming from the cable networks?particularly from conservative Fox News. (Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Rupert Murdoch had spotted a niche market?half the country. Sure enough, Fox is now America's top-rated cable news network.) But old media also face a newer and more unpredictable source of competition?the blogosphere. Bloggers have discovered that all you need to set yourself up as a pundit is a website and an attitude.

The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean's presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans' then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried.

Amazingly, amid all this great analysis of how the blogosphere is strategically affecting the news, there's still just a little bit of that Old Media condescension - or is it an admission of guilty indulgence? - about tactics.

It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.

There is a nice recovery in the end to resume the bow toward New Media, which (I agree) despite a rightward tilt is more an institutional change than an ideological one.

Mr Rather's passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.

I strongly suggest this piece by Frank Devine, The Australian as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jonah Goldberg as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Rupert Murdoch as "Recommended Reading".

Imagine the Principal of your child's school recklessly careens into the school parking lot, ignoring years of driving experience and all manner of prudence, he jumps the curb and slams into the building. Emerging from his car he proclaims that he did nothing wrong, and that his action serves to expose the architect as incompetent for putting the road so close to the building. But days later admits that it is possible that colliding with the school building was possibly a breach of responsible driving, and if it is such a breach he wants to be the one to discover and announce what went wrong. The School Board succumbs to the pressure exerted by an interested citizenship and announces an investigation will be held. Then, in a move which will have scholars debating the cause and effects of such a decision for years to come, the School board announces that they will wait until after the school year ends to announce the findings of the investigation. So, the school year ends, and before the investigation finishes, the Principal comes along and announces that he will step down as Principal, at a near time of his choosing, because he wants to go back to doing what he really loves; driving the school bus.

Oh, and by the way, did you hear that Dan Rather says he is stepping down in March so that he can re-live the past?,

"I have always been and remain a 'hard news' investigative reporter at heart,"

Maybe he can start investigating whether his report supported by forged documents was based on facts?

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "

That is news which he will be hard pressed to make believeable.

I have always believed that this was the greatest, most compassionate, and most generous country this world has ever known, and that Americans are always stronger, faster, smarter and braver than anyone else. I am really not sure how national pride and love of country became so deeply ingrained into my psyche, just as I can't explain why I choke up singing God Bless America.

The only thing I can think is that I gained much of this patriotism by going with my dad to his VFW Post. While dad drank beer and laughed with his buddies, I roamed around the building looking at all the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force (Army Air Corps) patches that decorated the walls. They were wonderfully colorful hand painted works of art, each about 12x18 in size, arranged along the top of the walls like a border, angled down slightly so as to be more viable, and all bearing at least one name... and as my dad's name was under the 11th Airborne patch. I remember spending hours sometimes, just looking at those patches, drinking Frosty root beer, eating Snyders pretzels, and playing songs on the Wurlitzer JukeBox (which were always free 'cause one of the guys showed me how to push the button on the back that gave you free plays!) Sometimes these names, which I learned from my dad and his buddies, were the names of the men that served in that particular unit, had a blue or gold star next to them. These were the same stars the teacher would put on the top of your page when you did a good job, and in my young mind, I assumed that must be what these stars meant as well.

I don't remember exactly when I got the courage to ask what the stars meant. My dad had always admonished me not to ask any of these guys what they did when they were in the military - if they wanted to tell me they could, but never ask. He was very adamant about this, which was unusual since, because he only saw me once a month (my mom and dad were divorced when I was 3 and I lived with my mother), he tended to indulge me, so this admonishment was unusual enough to sink in. I think it was when I saw someone changing the star next to one of the names under the biggest patch in the place - a great big yellow shield, trimmed in black, with a black stripe running diagonally down from the upper left to the lower right, and a black horses head in the upper right corner.

He was changing it from a blue star to a gold star.

So I asked.

The man who was changing the stars told me that a blue star meant that a person was actively serving in the military, and a gold star... well that meant that a person was killed in action, in this case a battle in a place called Vietnam. I was 8 or 9 years old, and this was my first recollection of that war. Later that day my dad reminded me that this was the older boy I had played basketball with the previous summer at this very VFW Post. I remember wishing then that I could remember the boy's face... I couldn't, and I felt bad for that. I remember thinking that this was a boy, not that much older than me, what was he doing in the Army? I had met him, he was a nice kid, and he was dead.

Then I began to notice all the stars around the room.

And I began to realize that all those old guys my dad was drinking beer with, the ones he didn't want me pestering to tell their war stories, they all had their own blue stars up there at one time... and they all were boys once, too.

Glen Beck and the USO have put together a program whereby a person can contribute $15 and provide a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine, serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan theaters, a calling card that will give them 33 minutes of phone time to their family back home. Of that $15, half goes to purchase the calling card and the other half goes to the USO. Those brave men and women - boys and girls really - will not be home for the holidays and, unfortunately, some will only come home draped with a flag. So when you are enjoying the turkey and the fixings this Thanksgiving remember what these men and women have, are, and will be sacrificing. Giving $15 is something everyone can do to show our troops that America is proud and thankful for the terrible and tough job they are doing so well. To donate call 1-877-522-7000 or visit the USO website.

I strongly suggest this piece by John Fund as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Fred Barnes as "Recommended Reading".

In the Wall Street Journal, Jason L. Riley makes the case that President Bush should ignore the cries of "nativists". He opens up with the definition of "spin", according to William Safire's New Political Dictionary. Here's one to counter him: nativism, according to Webster's is: "a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants, or the revival or perpetuation of an indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation."

I think we can safely say that in most cases, "nativist" is a racial pejorative - as it should be. Those who would close off the borders of a country of immigrants to any new immigrants, especially based on any racist arguments, deserve to be referred to with pejoratives. But I know a lot of conservatives who speak about immigration reform starkly in terms of enforcement of existing immigration law. It's hard to argue with the notion that people who violated the law should be invited to stay in the country without paying some penalty.

Yet - and here's where too many conservatives part with me - the President has not proposed that we do any such thing. His program would require those in the country illegally to pay a fine.

Undocumented workers now here will be required to pay a one-time fee to register for the temporary worker program. Those who seek to join the program from abroad, and have complied with our immigration laws, will not have to pay any fee. All participants will be issued a temporary worker card that will allow them to travel back and forth between their home and the United States without fear of being denied re-entry into our country....

Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. Those who make this choice will be allowed to apply in the normal way. They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start. I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America.

I don't think Mr. Riley recognizes enough that President Bush doesn't ignore all those who have questions and concerns about border security, and those who merely misunderstand that he isn't trying to offer amnesty to illegals. As we learned in the recent election, Americans have to know what it is that we're supporting, not just what it is that we're against. Another American sums up the immigration issue this way:

We will be free only so long as the borders of the United States are open to immigration and trade, closed to invasion and corruption, and securely defended by policies maintaining our national sovereignty and traditional identity.

I'm always told (usually by women, often liberals) that men just look at a woman's face and body for their looks and sexual potential, while women look at a man for other things - that, for example, many women find a smart man sexy. "And guys just don't get this."

Following up on my Noonan post yesterday, I realized many people don't think Rice is sexy. Strangely, it's never occurred to me (as evidenced by my comment) that she isn't. I've thought she's at least cute, if not pretty, but racist cartoonists seem to love exaggerating her facial features with buck teeth.

Perhaps more than looks, I'm really captivated by the fact that she's obviously brilliant, politically aware (an understatement), talented in languages and music, appreciative of sports (especially football) and has never succumbed to the pressure that she'd have to be married to have a full life. In short, she's a catch that's uncatchable - and that's damned compelling for me.

So, I guess I've got a question.... Who's being shallow here?

UPDATE: Total War has some thoughts on the attacks on Condi.

I strongly suggest this piece by Bruce Bawer as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Iowahawk as "Recommended Reading".

Earlier in the week, House Republicans decided to alter a rule they adopted in 1993 that bars any member from serving in a leadership position if he or she has been indicted. As the Washington Times points out, this is a perfectly reasonable and rational course of action, given the recent political maneuvers taken by a district attorney in DeLay's home district in Texas.

It's also the wrong course of action.

Republicans captured the House in 1994 running largely on an agenda opposing corruption. Previous Democratic Congresses had a penchant for passing pay raises in the middle of the night, running a bank inside the Capitol that allowed them to bounce checks with impunity, and tax-and-spend their way into huge budget deficits. Newt Gingrich and his stalwarts on the Right promised to renounce all these positions - and more.

No longer would committee chairmen like Dan Rostenkowski rule committees with an iron fist for decades. No longer would Speakers of the House like Jim Wright negotiate sweetheart book deals that allowed them to cash in when unions purchased large orders in bulk, purportedly to distribute them to their members. In fact, it was a too-similar sweetheart book deal that alienated the Republican rank-and-file from Mr. Gingrich, eventually leading to his ouster in 1998. The Crusaders had taken Jerusalem, and they were dedicated to the task of erecting the New Temple.

The sad and ironic thing about crusades is that when they're over, the crusaders, full of vigor and zeal, are usually too filled with adrenaline to return to the rocking chair on the porch and the plow in the field. They cast about looking to set their eyes upon something else they can conquer, and when they find none, they look for someone to conquer. Raping and pillaging usually follow.

And the last two Congresses have proven Republicans are not averse to pillaging when it suits them.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not so naive as to buy into the line coming from the partisan hacks at The New York Times. The House Republicans aren't practicing "Regressive Ethics" and do not "think they have a mandate to eradicate Congressional ethics standards." After all, the Times' democratic friends in Congress don't even have such a rule, and I don't see them clamoring for the Democrats to adopt one anytime soon. It's a case of corruption from the ever-present inside-the-Beltway mentality.

In the end, I agree with John Podhoretz, who says it well in the New York Post: "The message it sends is this: Party, not principle. And that is a terrible message, because when parties sacrifice principle for power, they begin to eat away at their own legitimacy."

Shhhhhhh! Listen up, or you'll miss some classic Peggy Noonan stuff here.

The criticism of Ms. Rice has been fascinating. Her critics need to sit down and have a Coke, as Bob Dole said. A friend said to me yesterday, "She is boring." I thought, really? You can't be boring enough; we've had quite enough excitement.

Another person said, "She's not very feminine." My first thought was: Neither was Colin.

My second thought was: How startling is this conversation? I should probably explain it was held in Manhattan.

"I think she is extremely ladylike in her bearing and manner," I said. "Soft voice, pastel suits, heels, not a hair out of place."

"Yes," my friend said, "but she doesn't give off any sparks of sexuality."

"That's another thing I like about her", I said. We don't want a secretary of state running around giving off sparks of sexuality, do we? We don't want a secretary of state giving off sparks at all. We want a nice, quiet, calming, competent, sophisticated, even-keeled person to do a good, solid, nonshowy job.

And she's going to look damn sexy when she does it.

I strongly suggest this piece by Hugh Hewitt as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Froggy Ruminations as "Recommended Reading".

Predictably, the successes achieved by regular folks in PJs has been noticed by the MainStreamMedia and the liberal left, and unable to compete with something they really don't understand, many of the ignorant have sought to emulate the sleepwear-clad by starting their own blogs (or trashing those that who have already earned a following). Believing that the means of delivering their propaganda was in need of a face-lift, they are latching onto what, no doubt, they see as the latest trend, a new MTV-like venue, a Talk Radio-esque stab at competing on the other guy's turf. Of course, they miss that it is actually their message that needs to get with the times.

Until they figure out that conservatives are not stupid, out of their minds, or mind-numbed Bible thumping robots, they will forever be out of sync with the American mindset. Yes, I did just say that they don't get what America has always been about, not that we haven't been telling them. They just don't want to listen.

So, back to blogging; expect to see advertising for blogs, a new assault on what has been an interest driven medium. These new bloggers will not be satified to write to their weblog and move on to write again. They will be looking to sex up interest so that they can increase their exposure - and remember, on Madison Avenue nobody shows up for work in pajamas. Advertising executives also will not get what is happening, they won't follow the decorum, they won't feel a part of the collective, they won't contribute individual genius, they won't know where, when and how to converse.

For, in a sense, all the blogdom is, is one big conversation, one very big conversation where nobody gets away with any confidence games. Don't try to shine me, don't try to shine the Pajamahdeen. If you are not sure what I mean, I suggest that you ask Dan Rather. If you wish to lie, cheat, fool, bear false witness or propagandize, and you wish to do so within a blog; be afraid, be very afraid. For someone, somewhere, will know the truth, and you will be called out.

Okay, all of that now off my chest, let me share the post that opened this sluice gate.

...but there are many taps to drink from on the Internet - it's up to you to choose the one without coliforms.

What's a socialist to do in that kind of world? How in the name of Allah would an Islamofacist recruit if the Truth was omnipresresent? Why, if you drown out the demagogues, ordinary people would become intellectual demigods! Stalin would not approve.

The article that inspired Mr. Cosh to write on this subject (this time) is less than interesting. I recommend that a dose of anti-biotic be administered before viewing this load of ******* (this is an opportunity for the reader to insert his/her own colorful metaphor).

In the Daily News, Michael Goodwin takes note of the very blackness of the Bush administration - and more importantly, the total absence of notice from the American people.

Against expectation, and without divisive debates over affirmative action and quotas, he has built an extraordinary record of minority appointments to his inner circle. He did it by sneaking them in the front door while everybody was watching.

Condoleezza Rice's nomination yesterday to be secretary of state is the latest and most dramatic example. That she would be the first black woman to hold the post - and that she would succeed Colin Powell, the first black man - is a groundbreaking moment in American racial history. Our original sinners would be shocked.

But we're not, and that, too, takes the breath away. America clearly is ready for a black official to be our representative to the world. And both Powell and Rice are so obviously qualified that it's as though race is not a factor for or against them.

Am I alone in thinking this is absolutely wonderful? That black people can now occupy some of the highest, most powerful offices in America - and nobody says boo about how they got there?

I'm often terrible at predicting things like this, but Tony Blankley may have coined a new nickname for the President's newly-emerging foriegn policy staff.

With the nominations of Condoleezza Rice at State, Porter Goss at CIA, Donald Rumsfeld (or an equally tough replacement) at Defense and Stephen Hadley at NSC, the president has created an all-Patton foreign and defense team. Moreover, he has a team that understands that among the necessary targets of their firepower must be, not only our foreign enemies, but also the slouching, sly, insubordinate bureaucrats under their chain of command.

I strongly suggest this piece by Kate Bradley MacLeod as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I say we send a mop-up team into NBC. (stovepipe hattip: LGF) Just to take away their cameras, of course.

For those who need the short version: Marines go into a mosque in Fallujah, bodies and wounded all over the place from previous action. One "body" moves, and a Marine shoots the guy's brains out. All of it captured on an NBC reporter's tape.

This isn't Abu Ghraib anymore, Toto. Wounded, schmoonded. Do you think this guy has been hanging out in the mosque since Friday prayers? Got lost on the way home and decided to go back to the mosque to get directions from the imam? They're terrorists. In a mosque. Some of these guys have been holding white flags, then firing at us. They're booby trapping dead bodies. They're playing dead, then shooting at us.

Some in the MSM are trying to ressurrect the Ghost of War Crimes Past, saying the wounded were from action the day before and had already been tended to, and were unarmed. If that's the case, I'll apologize.... to the terrorist's mommy.

"I'm sorry ma'am, but your son was such a stupid piece of crap, he was hanging out in a mosque, during a battle, with other terrorists, breaking every law of decency ever recorded. We were forced to shoot everything that moved in there, living or dead, wounded or not, armed or defenseless. We're sorry. Need a tissue?"

Why aren't the Rules of Engagement requiring our troops to shoot every last filthy bastard on sight?

NOT REALLY AN UPDATE UPDATE: I wonder how many NBC reporters were appalled at the use of flamethrowers at Iwo Jima, considering the Rape of Nanking, Pearl Harbor, the Bataan Death March, and the kamikazee attacks on the Pacific Fleet? And ditto the incindiary bombing of Dresden, considering Warsaw, Dachau, and Auschwitz?

I'm just askin'. They were all violations of the rules of war, on both sides. But we all know who started what and when, right? I do.

Who, when, how long will it take, and what will the reaction be? And to think... with the election over, I was a bit concerned that we wouldn't have anything substantive to blog about. Silly me!

...for a "Recommended Toiletries" section, this time from Pat Buchanan. Of course, this isn't exactly fair - most of what Buchanan and the paleos write would end up there.

Dana Priest and Walter Pincus have a different view of the goins-on at the CIA from David Brooks. The new director of the CIA, Porter Goss, is both a fellow Republican and my former congressman, so I'm not exactly unbiased in this fight. Still, it seems to me Brooks has the more accurate perspective on the argument.

Defeated Democratic Senate candidate Bread Carson has written what I believe is the first truly insightful self-analysis of the election from the liberal side of the isle. In The New Republic, he describes how he lost the race - by being tied to a liberal Democratic Party that's trying to force "modernity" down our throats.

For the vast majority of Oklahomans--and, I would suspect, voters in other red states--these transcendent cultural concerns are more important than universal health care or raising the minimum wage or preserving farm subsidies. Pace Thomas Frank, the voters aren't deluded or uneducated. They simply reject the notion that material concerns are more real than spiritual or cultural ones. The political left has always had a hard time understanding this, preferring to believe that the masses are enthralled by a "false consciousness" or Fox News or whatever today's excuse might be. But the truth is quite simple: Most voters in a state like Oklahoma--and I venture to say most other Southern and Midwestern states--reject the general direction of American culture and celebrate the political party that promises to reform or revise it.

How did Schweitzer pull off such a dramatic victory in an election year when Democrats seemed to have lost their capacity to win red states? The answer should give Democrats everywhere some hope and Republicans reason to worry.

The story begins with the man himself. If you look in an encyclopedia under Montana: Self-Image of, you'll find a picture of Brian Schweitzer. He is the grandson of Montana homesteaders and looks the part: He is a burly six-foot-two, always clad in jeans with a gilded silver belt buckle. Schweitzer put himself through college by mopping floors at sororities, got a master's degree from Montana State in, of all things, soil science, and then worked for eight years on irrigation projects in the part of the world that's hardest to irrigate—the Sahara Desert. When he returned to Montana in the late 1980s, he built a farming and ranching business from scratch—no small task at a time when corporate agribusiness was swallowing huge swaths of America's heartland. He is gregarious, tough-talking, and utterly without self-doubt.

But in addition to a winning personality and strong populist convictions, Schweitzer had an innovative, three-part political strategy, one that perfectly fit the current conditions in Montana, but which Democrats across the country could learn from. First, Schweitzer took advantage of public dissatisfaction with two decades of insular one-party rule in the state capital, casting himself as an outsider and a reformer. Second, he rallied small business, usually a solidly GOP constituency, to his side by opposing the deals Republicans had cut in Washington and Helena to favor large or out-of-state corporations over local entrepreneurs. Third, and most interesting of all, Schweitzer figured out how to win over one of the most important, reliably Republican, and symbolically significant groups of voters: hunters and fishermen.

No where in Sirota's piece does he mention the cultural Big Daddy of abortion, and gay rights receives little more than a passing glance. The entire article is merely a case study in campaigning: "Conservative Montana voters had to believe that a Democrat was 'one of them.'" Actually being one of them appears to be of secondary importance to the operative. Hopefully for Montanans, Schweitzer will not merely act the part.

If that's the case, more power to him. A vigorous and honorable opponent is someone that will keep the hustlers and con men of my own party at bay, and keep politics where it should be: a contest of ideas.

UPDATE: Amazingly, the deplorable Frank Rich deftly parries these opinions and makes a strong case for the fact that - despite the right's electoral victories - the hedonists are still winning. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." No, Frank - there's a lot wrong with that.

I'm thinking maybe below "Recommended Reading" we should have a section called, "Recommended Toiletries" - articles you can wipe your ass with. This piece of trash could be the first entry. Jonathan Rauch seems to be trying out his Bill "No Spin" O'Rielly impersonation - downplaying any extra significance to the election and its results.

America has been drifting right for over 20 years now, but without conservatism ever actually achieving dominance in the minds (although perhaps in many hearts) of the American people. In voter identification surveys and voter registrations, Republicans and Democrats are now tied nationally - a significant shift to the right, considering how strongly the Democrats have performed in these measures for the last 40 years. What does Mr. Rauch say about this? "(I)t is, of course, a shift to parity, not to dominance." Tell me Mr. Rauch, when a pendulum is swinging from left to right, and it reaches the midpoint of the swing, is it a sign of "parity"?

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on Mr. Rauch, and there's actually some good that can be gleaned from this. If Republicans aren't trying to solidify the concept of our majority party in the minds of the American people, we're being stagnant and entropic, failing to sieze the moment and solidify our newly-won position. This is a sure sign that our leadership isn't resting on its laurels, and is still hard at work trying to achieve our goals. And the backward spin being played by the MSM while the Democrats are shell-shocked is a sure sign that they know we're marginalizing them even more.

I strongly suggest this piece by Charles Krauthammer as "Recommended Reading".

I've noticed stories before trying to paint bloggers with a wide brush and discredit them, but this seems to be the most egregious yet, and it's getting worse. The New York Slimes tells the tale how "a breathless cycle of hey-check-this-out" are "being proved wrong" by our tall and handsome heroes at the Fourth Estate.

"I love the process of democracy, and I think it's more important than the outcome," said Kathy Dopp, an Internet enthusiast living near Salt Lake City. It was Ms. Dopp's analysis of the vote in Florida (she has a master's degree in mathematics) that set off a flurry of post-election theorizing by disheartened Democrats who were certain, given early surveys of voters leaving the polls that were leaked, showing Senator John Kerry winning handily, that something was amiss....

Within one day, the number of visits to Ms. Dopp's site jumped from 50 to more than 500, according to site logs. On Nov. 4, that number tipped 17,000. Her findings were noted on popular left-leaning Web logs like DailyKos.com and FreePress.org. Last Friday, three Democratic members of Congress - John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, Jerrold Nadler of New York and Robert Wexler of Florida - sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office seeking an investigation of voting machines. A link to Ms. Dopp's site was included in the letter.

But rebuttals to the Florida fraud hypothesis were just as quick. Three political scientists, from Cornell, Harvard and Stanford, pointed out, in an e-mail message to a Web site that carried the news of Ms. Dopp's findings, that many of those Democratic counties in Florida have a long tradition of voting Republican in presidential elections. And while Ms. Dopp says that she and dozens of other researchers will continue to analyze the Florida vote, the suggestion of a link between certain types of voting machines and the vote split in Florida has, at least for now, little concrete support.

John Byrne, editor of an alternative news site, BlueLemur.com, says it is too easy to condemn blogs and freelance Web sites for being inaccurate. The more important point, he said, is that they offer an alternative to a mainstream news media that has become too timid. "Of course you can say blogs are wrong," he said. "Blogs are wrong all the time."

I've been mulling this for over a week now. When Arlen Spector first stepped in his deep pile of manure, I sent an email to our new Senator-elect, Mel Martinez, asking him to oppose the elevation of the senior Senator from Pennsylvania to the chairmanship of the judiciary committee unless he and the president were both assured that Senator Spector would not block pro-life nominees. At this point, I'm inclined to think we've been given that assurance.

Why have I been thinking so hard about this? Because there's something to be said for thinking like a majority party. There's no reason to go dumping parts of our coalition over the side of the boat - there's plenty of room, and plenty of time. We should continue to think incrementally, lest hubris lead us to our downfall. No less a conservative than Hugh Hewitt reminds us of a name from the Democratic Party that we grew to pity, because they did just that to him: Bob Casey.

There is another great role for minority voices within a national party - as a check on excess. The voices of any party's counter-majoritarian caucus are an alarm that sounds whenever ideological excess rears up. Had the late Bob Casey, pro-life Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, not been humbled by Democratic pro-choice absolutists, but instead been allowed to leave a legacy of respected center-left voices among the Democrats, perhaps wiser heads would have prevented the rise of Michael Moore--a rise that actually landed him in the presidential box at the Democratic convention in Boston. A party without a vigorous minority loses the ability to police itself. And then the nuts rush in.

Please join me in tolerance: actively refrain from opposing Arlen Spector's rightful claim to the chairmanship of the judiciary committee.

For those who may have been having problems getting comments to post properly, it should be working now. Once you're registered and logged in, your comments will post immediately. Again, if anyone has a problem, please let me know.

I also have the ability to ban anyone that abuses the privilege, though I don't really plan to use it. (I've only deleted one comment yet that wasn't spam - pretty good for a two-year record.)

When I read Rick's entry last night (Happy Birthday, Rick!), I went to the Fox News site to check out the news. I was so sickened by the official "mourning" splash on the front page I nearly barfed. I decided to look into some of the other news organizations, just to see if they were all doing it. Amazingly enough, ABC played it fairly low-key, while MSNBC was rather businesslike. But it was CNN that posted the most offensive pro-PLO imagery.

That said, I noticed something strange at the CBS site:

What's with the check mark? One can only dream maybe they've finally realized this is one bad guy we need to count as a confirmed "KILL" in the WOT.

Many ABC affiliates around the country have announced that they won't take part in the network's Veterans Day airing of "Saving Private Ryan," saying the acclaimed film's violence and language could draw sanctions from the Federal Communications Commission.

The above is taken from this story. It seems that the American Broadcasting Company has forgotten how to bleep bad words, perhaps they are over-staffed with young people not familiar with the technology, (which reminds me of the bloke who thought he could produce a National Guard document circa 1970's with Microsoft Word). Or, maybe ABC is just chicken; though, frankly, my first instinct is to believe they are making a politcal statement that has more to do with an anti-war stance than it does with responsible programming.

Of course, in our litigious society, there has been recent reason for broadcasting companies to be concerned about what they air.

In a statement on WSB-TV's Web site, the Atlanta station's vice president and general manager, Greg Stone, cited a March ruling in which the FCC said an expletive uttered by rock star Bono during NBC's live airing of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards was both indecent and profane.

And, it seems sensible to expect the FCC to at least respond to a request for an advanced ruling on the film. Bureacracy!

Since this is a film I should have in my collection anyway, I think I will go out and buy a copy now, and watch it without commercial interruption.

MSNBC has just announced that Yasser Arafat has died.

And tomorrow is my birthday, how could he have known?

Additionally: Israel should deny him burial anywhere within the Israeli boundaries. That the Profet Muhammad had the bad timing to die in Jerusalem has been the basis of the entire Islam/Jewish conflict. Had he ascended to heaven somewhere other than the Temple Mount, the world may be much more peaceful today. Now, we don't need another hero of the Islamofacists buried on Israeli soil.

There is a lot of talk these days about where the Democrats went wrong this election; and, what new direction they must take to succeed in the future. Isn't that a bit like putting the cart before the horse? For, if they had established principles and solutions that worked; wouldn't they have a natural following that recognized the sense in their position? Instead, we seem to have a party's controlling body looking for a constituency. And, thusly, the Democratic Party's future is going to be the same old power brokers promising to solve a different set of issues. A self-perpetuating cadre of panderers.

Today's Democratic Party is not only not Zell Miller's "national party", they, the leaders of the party, have formed little more than a political message machine that blows to and fro trying to find a constituency. In that sense, John Kerry was the perfect candidate for them, believe in nothing, promise everything.

I strongly suggest this piece by Christopher Hitchens as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Carlos Watson as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Jose Maria Aznar as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mark Steyn as "Recommended Reading".

Over at The Fourth Turning, they're planning the 2008 Democratic takeover. Mark Steyn is a little doubtful of the possibilities.

I had a bet with myself this week: How soon after election night would it be before the Bush-the-chimp-faced-moron stuff started up again? 48 hours? A week? I was wrong. Bush Derangement Syndrome is moving to a whole new level. On the morning of Nov. 2, the condescending left were convinced that Bush was an idiot. By the evening of Nov. 2, they were convinced that the electorate was. Or as London's Daily Mirror put it in its front page: "How Can 59,054,087 People Be So DUMB?"

Well, they're British lefties: They can do without Americans. Whether an American political party can do without Americans is more doubtful. Nonetheless, MSNBC.com's Eric Alterman was mirroring the Mirror's sentiments: "Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the 'reality-based community' say or believe about anything." Over at Slate, Jane Smiley's analysis was headlined, "The Unteachable Ignorance Of The Red States.'' If you don't want to bother plowing your way through Alterman and Smiley, a placard prominently displayed by a fetching young lad at the post-election anti-Bush rally in San Francisco cut to the chase: "F--- MIDDLE AMERICA."

Almost right, man. It would be more accurate to say that "MIDDLE AMERICA" has "F---ed" you, and it will continue to do so every two years as long as Democrats insist that anyone who disagrees with them is, ipso facto, a simpleton -- or "Neanderthal," as Teresa Heinz Kerry described those unimpressed by her husband's foreign policy. In my time, I've known dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and other members of Britain's House of Lords and none of them had the contempt for the masses one routinely hears from America's coastal elites. And, in fairness to those ermined aristocrats, they could afford Dem-style contempt: A seat in the House of Lords is for life; a Senate seat in South Dakota isn't.

Months back, Chris and I discussed this very possibility... and promptly stopped ourselves because we believed our giddiness was dangerously wishful pre-election thinking. We didn't want to jinx things.

Well Chris, is it OK get giddy now?

Part naysaying, part doomsaying.

All schadenfreude

There are a hundred metaphors for "meltdown" being spun about the Democrats this week, and it sounds like The New York Times is trying to meet all those expectations in a single "analysis" piece. Dean E. Murphy goes so far as to pray for some act of God to strike down the President and usher in a new era of dominance for the donkey party, seemingly out of nothing but wishes from the Fairy Godmother.

This is rediculously pathetic. I really don't expect our friends from the other side, having spent almost sixty of the last seventy years as a monolithic majority, to just give up. But rather than devise policy positions with which to win elections, they are frantically clawing their hair out trying to devise tactics with which to oppose the President.

It's crunch time, folks: the American people are more and more inclined to oppose your point of view. Reform your party or get out of the way - preferably, both.

The St. Petersburg Times profiles Florida's new face in the United States Senate - looking like a Black Republican with an hispanic accent if there ever was one.

And make no mistake, Florida's new senator will never be confused with his predecessor.

Graham opposed the Iraq war. Martinez supports it wholeheartedly.

Graham opposed the Bush tax cuts. Martinez strongly supports them.

Martinez opposes abortion in all instances, except when the mother's life is at risk. He opposes expanded stem cell research, which Connie Mack supports. He eviscerated an opponent, Bill McCollum, for supporting a federal hate-crime law that included provisions to protect gays and lesbians.

If President Bush nominates Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas to be the next chief justice of the United States, he can count on Martinez's vote on the Judiciary Committee (one of his most sought-after committee assignments).

But the election showed that Martinez's ethnicity transcends ideology. He is more a role model than a legislator. He probably will be the Hispanic face of the Republican Party, not just in Florida but all over the country.

I strongly suggest this piece by Michael Reagan as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Nicholas D. Kristof as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Michael Barone as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by The Wall Street Journal as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Mark Steyn as "Recommended Reading".

Sherman moved North.

Michelle is a little annoyed. I'd be annoyed too, but I don't have time - I'm dining on liver today with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

This is what we here at The Black Republican strive for. Right now, Ms. Carter and others like her are voices crying out to those who refuse to hear.

You don't lose your blackness, or reject it, when you vote conservative. You simply believe that liberal policies have failed people too often.

Well, it better be, because I just had to buy an upgrade for Movable Type and it's taken me all morning to install it properly. Unfortunately for you strict Free Speech advocates out there, comments are now moderated for first-timers and registration is required. Sorry to ask that of you, but when I lost a few comments in the past few days in my fever pitch to keep up with the spammers, it became more than a small nuisance again.

Incidentally, the comment registration isn't working quite the way I expected it would, and since I've already got a TypeKey account, I'm not exactly sure yet what you're going to have to go through. I thought I'd seen other MT sites that use TK registration, but it appears ours is built right into the site and you never actually get diverted to TypeKey. If I'm wrong, or you have difficulty getting registered, please email me and tell me what's going on so I can try to fix it, and make it a little easier wherever possible.

Thanks for your understanding and your continued support.

UPDATE: I'm getting there now, and have seen where I went wrong - the individual archive templates need an overhaul to require TypeKey registration. I've got them working but I'm trying to get them decent-looking now, so sorry if they look crappy for a little while.

A rhetorical quiz.

When I ask the question:

Now that they are without the leader they expected they'd be following in the coming days, for he is gone, perhaps to never return, will they promote another man of the same ilk, and will they continue the same tired behavior which has brought only grief to themselves and the foe they wish to eliminate from the face of the Earth; or will they give up their failed strategies of hate and malice, back-biting and blame, fear-mongering and self-rightgeous narcissism, and move to join the world of reason, caring, fairness, and intellectual honesty by allowing themselves to be represented by a man of integrity?

Am I speaking of:

A) The Palestinians

BS) The Senate Democrats

C-BS) The Democratic Party

W) All Of The Above

Wx2) All Of The Above, Plus These Others Which I Will List In The Comments Section

I strongly suggest this piece by Hugh Hewitt as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by William Kristol as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Manchester Union-Leader as "Recommended Reading".

I reread my last post and thought maybe I was going a bit far, letting things get a little too much to my head. Then I read Peggy Noonan compare "the pajama-clad yeomen of America" to The Bard's "happy few" at Agincourt.

"Savor" indeed!

The Democrats said they wanted change. Be careful what you wish for.

As I've long foretold, the antithetical Status Quo Party may very well be forced to watch a resurgence of a Republican Party of old, Black Republicans standing for an older form of liberality than the socialism propounded since the heady days of The Great Society. OpinionJournal.com sings the chorus:

Mr. Bush now has an opportunity to achieve much of what his opponents blocked in the first term. No doubt he will, and should, seek out coalitions of the willing among Democrats--on Social Security private accounts, tort and tax reform, and creating a larger private health-care marketplace, among the other things he campaigned on. But we hope he and the GOP majorities on Capitol Hill don't flinch from large ambitions even if most Democrats rebuff their overtures. The center-right voters who just elected them are expecting progress on their priorities.

One of those is the federal courts, where voters sent a clear signal about the kind of judges they want. Referendums opposing gay marriage went 11 for 11 on Tuesday, winning even in Oregon where the 57% to 43% landslide was the smallest majority among the 11. This is not a message of intolerance toward gays; it is a rebuke to those liberals who insist that courts impose their values on venerable American institutions. Our guess is that the marriage referendums were partly responsible for driving pro-Bush turnout in Ohio, and for making the race as close as it was in Michigan.

I've had some fun this morning, but just as The Gloat Fest will give way to more mature matters tomorrow, I already feel the need to begin pulling back, just a little.

A discussion at Dean's World on the topic of John Kerry's expected concession and how President Bush might frame his victory response caused me to think how history treats situations of a divided country.

There is a natural parallel that guides us how we should act - the victory speech of all victory speeches, in the middle of strife and war, national division and bloody contention, amid a presidential campaign when a popular but controversial President unexpectedly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at the polls. It's lessons are timeless, and many of the themes should strike a cord in our national consciousness, especially since we are still trying to deal with some of the very same issues that caused that conflict.

Fellow countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it-all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865

The Black Republican should speak for us all today.

UPDATE: SlantPoint sounds a slightly more martial tone. I don't disagree, I just think we can be polite while we continue to crush them. There's a need for persistence, but not vitriol - otherwise, we surrender the values we fought so long to retain.

And I suspect vitriol will be coming soon from the other side anyway, so there's no need to rush it.

Among the Black Republicans that will enter the United States Senate in January, one will be the first Cuban-American to get there. Congratulations, Mel Martinez, the new Senator-elect from Florida!

Houston:

Boston: