The Black Republican

I've sung this tune before, but the time is right to bang the drum again. Let me tell you a story...

There once was a political party that was fighting the Democrats over a series of issues. But the Democrats played the political game better, and kept insisting on compromises that favored their positions. Trying to get along and seem "bipartisan", the political party agreed to these compromises time and again, to the point that eventually their leadership, including the incumbent President, decided to give in and support the Democratic position on these issues altogether. Left without a platform to run on, the political party nominated a war hero to be their presidential candidate, hoping his popularity and personal integrity would be enough to win.

I know this all sounds familiar, but of course since the primaries aren't over, I'm not talking about today.

The political party was the Whig Party, not the Republicans.
They were arguing over states' rights, nullification, and slavery, not immigration, campaign finance, global warming and stem cell research.
The incumbent President was Millard Fillmore, not George W. Bush.
The war hero was Winfield Scott. He lost in a landslide.
And so will John McCain, I predict, if he gets the nomination - which seems all but certain at this point.

Following the election of 1852, without a platform significantly different from the Democrats, the Whig Party fell apart. Some of its members joined the Democrats, others formed a new party with a platform opposing the Democrats on the issues the Whigs compromised over, especially slavery. Thus was the Republican Party born, and the political rise of The Black Republican began. And to such an end as the Whigs experienced I expect the Republicans to come to in the coming years.

UPDATE: Hugh mentions the W-word himself, though more as a warning than pronouncing a doom.

But like any good prognosticator, I'll hedge somewhat.

The Republicans of today have one great advantage over the Whig precedent, and that advantage might prove my prediction wrong. Unlike Winfield Scott, who opposed slavery despite the Whig platform supporting it, John McCain supports the major issue of the war in Iraq. And despite intense pressure, the Republicans never quite got around to adopting the cut-and-run strategy of the Democrats. Although McCain has compromised over the "torture" debate, he is seen as strong on our overall war against Islamic terrorists, while Democrats generally try to deny that there's even a war on. If enough people think McCain's positions on these military and security issues is better than the Democratic alternative, and if he picks up more moderate and independent voters than he loses from disgruntled conservatives sitting out the election, he could pull out a slim victory.

But at this point, it looks like I'll be one of those disgruntled conservatives sitting out the election.

I compromised for George W. Bush in 2004, despite the fact that he did not veto McCain-Feingold, and despite him adopting global warming rhetoric. At the time, I thought "immigration reform" was possible without amnesty. And I've always thought the stem-cell compromise he decided on - while not perfect and still inhumane - was the best we could hope for without causing a huge fight we couldn't win. Moreover, on each of these issues, I believe the President was doing what he thought was right, and only on immigration reform do I question his motives.

John McCain has been a leader in opposition to my position in all these issues but stem-cell research, and there he has waffled, avoided discussion, and dissembled. I think everything he does is driven by ego, and I most certainly question his motives. I do not think I will be able to sacrifice my principles enough to pull the lever for McCain, only to see his support for the troops undermined by his plans to give terrorists open borders and Constitutional rights, which they can in turn use to escape justice and harm American civilians inside the the United States. If we are going to neuter the sacrifice of our brave soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, by allowing the enemy to avoid the fight overseas and evade capture here, we might as well take the Democratic approach and bring them home to die along with the rest of us.

And for that, we could just as well elect the real Democrat. The Hobson's Choice from here to the Republican convention will turn into Catch-22 in November, and I'd just as soon take the part my namesake took when he left the Whig party. If it's good enough for Abraham Lincoln, it's good enough for me.

Dave Price over at Dean's World is right, this is what happens when the Socialists are put in charge of things best left to the private sector. And something similar to the British NHS and Canada Health Act are what Hillary, Obama and Edwards (and, I hate to say, maybe even some Republicans) are all proposing for this country - Nationalized healthcare.

Ace has it right, that if any of these people come to power I guess what we will end up with is some sort of combination of Nationalized and Socialized healthcare system - sort of a National Socialist healthcare system...

So you can celebrate, too, the American Thinker was kind enough to let us know that Sunday is the anniversary of the outing of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If I weren't on a diet, I'd celebrate a bit more.

As close friends know, there are some subjects that I have a strange affinity for. When it comes to Presidential history and the Founders, my personal favorite - despite this blog and its topic - has always been John Adams. I've memorized most of the play 1776, and despite having no acting skill whatsoever, an intense fear of the stage, and only a fair voice, would jump at any opportunity to play the lead if I had the chance. David McCullough's biography of the man is a cherished gift.

So... as they say at AoSHQ, I'll be in my bunk.

That's the phrase that Tom Brokaw used to describe the American sheeple searching for answers to all their problems, and pronouncing "the end of dogma", which has been in effect "since 1980". A certain icon of conservatism was elected President of the United States that year, so we can draw some deductions which dogma he's referring to. Conversely, we suppose that the MSM's mouthpiece thinks the liberalism of Hillary and Barack isn't itself prone to dogma.

Yah, whatever Tom. Aren't you supposed to be retired? Why don't you go play golf or something equally harmless? Meanwhile we sheeple have some work to do looking for more fonts of dogmatism.

Today, M.L. King Jr. Day, is also traditionally the day when we here at The Black Republican start thinking forward to another birthday, that of our 16th President, the founding President of our party, and the namesake for this blog. As has been our habit, on that day we will present to some great American our award for The Black Republican of the Year - honoring him or her for dedication to efforts emblematic of our principles. For those unfamiliar with the award, it need not be given to someone of a given race, color, or national origin, or even of a given political party or ideology. The idea is not to pick our favorite pundit, politician, or personality, but to honor someone who has motivated the nation and its political discourse in some positive way that we can tie back to those ideas we think important.

Sometimes when I have announced nominations open for the award, I have offered suggestions of my own, but this year (thanks to overwork) I will simply ask for suggestions in the comments. As I come up with ideas of my own, I'll post them there.

How many of you have read or heard about the New York Times series of articles and multimedia about veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have committed killings, or been charged with them, after coming home? The title of articles is "War Torn: Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles" and, since it is in the New York Times, I'm sure it's being considered for a Pulitzer.

Well, as... disturbing... as the first article in that series is, we now have news that another group of veterans is even more prone to violence and pose an even greater risk to the public than Iraq and Afghanistan war vets.

This is a MUST READ for all of you who care about children, and puppies, and flowers, and butterflies, and...

Hat tip to Ace for posting about this, and a huge, double Stovepipe hat tip to Iowahawk for speaking truth to power!

UPDATE: Iowahawk brings us a Public Service Message to assist us in rooting out these criminals!

I strongly suggest this piece by TCS Daily as "Recommended Reading".

The best campaign question.

Ever!

Update: The gentleman that asked the question is Paul Johnson of Walton, Kentucky.

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

This deserves more than recommended reading. Be sure to read this article by Erick Erickson over at Human Events.

Fred quote of the day:

"Securing the border is popular for a lot of candidates to talk about these days. They’ve changed their positions. I embrace change, but some of these guys are wearing out the road to Damascus.”

Go, Fred, go.

I strongly suggest this piece by Victor Davis Hanson as "Recommended Reading".

I won't link to the original source, but K-Lo at The Corner does.

Take note friends - here is the cesspool of the wacko Left, taking a mild - and generally indisputable - remark by their "patron saint", twisting it in the fires of their lair under Orodruin, and turning around to beat him with it. With friends like this, Obama won't need a Republican opponent in November to lose.

(And take note - these are the people who dare not even speak about She Who Shall Not Be Named - they're suggesting defection to Edwards.)

What's really interesting is that here is a black man praising the optimism of Ronald Reagan, and NOT pointing out the age-old rant about The Southern Strategy. (Something, I should note, that was concocted by Nixon, not Reagan.) One has to wonder how many of the commenters agreeing with Hamsher are also white liberals, and how many of them are clueless of the fact that they are, yet again, presuming to push a seemingly capable black leader out of the picture because he's too stupid to see the brilliance of their superior wisdom.

I strongly suggest this piece by David Thompson as "Recommended Reading".

Wow!

In early December the case of the "Jena Six"--the six African-American high school students in Louisiana accused of viciously beating a white classmate in 2006--collapsed dramatically with a felony guilty plea by one of the defendants. As something that was going to trigger "America's next great civil rights movement" (to quote National Public Radio) and grassroots protests against the "new Jim Crow" and the systematic discrimination against blacks in the criminal justice system, this was quite a letdown. The Jena Six were supposed to be the new Scottsboro Boys, the nine black youths railroaded to death sentences by all-white juries in 1930s Alabama on charges of raping two white women.

But the fact remains that the Jena Six case climbed to its rickety position as a national symbol of racial injustice largely because a lot of people, some professional activists and many members of the press, wanted it to do so.

Funny how those same brave race rats managed to run onto the ship with a screaming chorus so loud that was heard all across the country, but we didn't hear a word from the MSM about how fast the charges of racial prejudice in Jena from the the race-baiters "professional activists" Rev. Jessie and Rev. Al (and this Pastor Bean) fell apart. I thought this was going to be protested and made headline news for months. Isn't that what we were told? What happened to "no Justice, No Peace"? Where are the headlines now? Where are the protests? More importantly, why were you in Jena when you thought these boys had been wronged, but are nowhere to be found now that there are real lives and real racial tensions that need to be healed? How can any of you call yourselves Reverends when it seems that all you do is divide and never seem to have the desire or ability to unite. Or is there just no money in that?

I guess it didn't help that the center of the whole contrivance admitted that he is actually guilty, did it?

And to the media, where were the stories about how the citizens of Jena - both black and white - sought to come together, before this whole thing blew up, to resolve this issue themselves with civility and decorum? Seems that just didn't fit the narative you had already written, did it?

Don't you people think you owe the people of Jena an apology at least? Or do you think you have done no wrong here?

I am so sick of the efforts by these race-baiters and their MSM sycophants to foment division and anger between members of different races and religions. I wish you folks would just get a life, and dissuade yourselves from the notion that you are part of the solution, because you are not! You are, in fact, the biggest part of the problem, and actually are standing in the way of progress. If it weren't for the national media and these "professional activists" feeding the monster, us ordinary folk would have let racism die the starvation death it so richly deserves years ago.

And, to help our friends in the Main Stream Media (MSM) - because they seem to lack certain skills and have such a problem researching things themselves:

con·triv·ance - 1. The act of contriving. 2. The state of being contrived. Something contrived, as a mechanical device or a clever plan.

ci·vil·i·ty - 1. courtesy; politeness. 2. a polite action or expression: an exchange of civilities.

de·co·rum - 1. dignified propriety of behavior, speech, dress, etc. 2. the quality or state of being decorous; orderliness; regularity. 3. Usually, decorums. an observance or requirement of polite society.

syc·o·phant - A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

fo·ment - To instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of: to foment trouble; to foment discontent.

dis·suade - To deter (a person) from a course of action or a purpose by persuasion or exhortation: dissuaded my friend from pursuing such a rash scheme.

Since we've been outed, I'd like to come clean and personally apologize to all African-Americans for the complete charade of the Obama campaign. It was not our intention to actually elevate a black man to the Presidency, we were just in it for the raw political power we could seize when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would finally be silenced.

There was nothing personal involved, it was all strictly (political) business. We're sorry, and we promise it will never happen again.

Found an interesting in-depth piece on the Wayne Dumond case. Mr. Huckabee, when asked about the case, points out that the parole board in question was appointed by previous Arkansas governors. According to this article, Huckabee had, in fact reappointed one of the board members, Railey Steele, prior to the Dumond vote.

The timeline is interesting: On August 29, 1996, the board denied the parole of Dumond by a 4-1 vote. On September 10, 1996, the board voted 5-0 against recommending clemency and executice pardon. Ten days later Huckabee announced his intention to commute Dumond's sentence at which point public outcry ensued. On October 31, 1996, there was an "executive" (closed door) meeting between Huckabee and the parole board (no recordings or transcripts exist of this meeting). In January, 1997, the board voted 4-1 for Dumond's release.

One has to ask, why was there such a turn around in the board's opinion? Could it have been as a result of the "executive" (closed door) meeting? Could jobs have been at stake? Parole "board jobs are known to some degree [to be] political patronage, and they’re not the most difficult jobs for the pay” ($70,000+ per year). “And then there’s the most obvious: If the governor likes you, you might get to keep your job.”

Read the whole article and decide for yourself, does Mr. Huckabee have the blood of that young lady (her name is Carol Ann Shields, Mike) on his hands?

I strongly suggest this piece by Paul Mirengoff as "Recommended Reading".

If you are a patriotic American who loves this country and is disgusted and frustrated with the leftward direction she has been pulled for the past six decades, I can see how you might be tempted to follow a man who wraps himself in the Constitution and preaches lower taxes, smaller government, border security and immigration reform, and is not afraid to state that Jesus Christ is his personal Savior, that he seek His guidance in all that he does, and states categorically that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. I mean, on the surface, what red-blooded American wouldn't get behind such a man?

But this is shaping up as an important chapter in our nation's history, and when dealing with history you really cannot afford to be bedazzled by the marketing glitz of Souza marches and patriotic balloons. You need to get past the public relations spin, get past the cover that has the Constitution emblazoned on it (or, for that matter, a picture of the World Trade Center on 9/11, or Jesus on the Cross, or the Hanoi Hilton, or the Winter Olympics, or an episode of Law & Order) and crack open the book to see what is written on the pages.

To us conservatives, the guys with the WTC on 9/11, Jesus on the Cross, and the Hanoi Hilton on their campaign books have to many liberal chapters for our tastes. To others, the guy with the Law & Order campaign book is just not exciting enough to read and the guy with the Winter Olympics cover is just a bit to slick and 'marketed'. But no matter what minor objections there may be after reading these books, most people would be willing to accept any one of them.

The guy with the Constitution covered campaign book, however, has dozens of great chapters. So many that you might be willing to read just those chapters and conclude that this is the one for you. But what happens when a friend tells you about a really, really bad chapter in this book, a chapter hidden by the author and either ignored by or not spoken of by other readers. A chapter so bad, in fact, that no matter how much you might agree with all the others, no matter how great the book had been up to that point, this one chapter either proves that all those other chapters are unimportant in comparison, or that, as the author himself claims, he did not write this chapter at all (even though it appears with his approval and with his name on it) proving him not only to be a fraud but clueless about how to write history.

Would you ignore your friend's suggestion to read that chapter yourself and go ahead and buy the book anyway, or would you have the courage to admit that you have been duped by a charlatan and choose another author? Or could it be that you don't want to read it because you are afraid that you might secretly agree with what is written in that chapter?

Either way, you have some soul searching to do. Read it and run the risk of being dispirited about the book and it's author, or not read it and hope that in four years none of the issues addressed in that chapter ever arise. Or perhaps, after reading it, you will need to accept that you believe some, most, or all of what is written - and then ask yourself if you are actually the fair, tolerant, patriotic person you always believed yourself to be.

Tough choice. You either need to courage to read on, or the courage to ignore what could be damning realities. Your choice. The key here is that nasty word "courage."

It's quite an irony that Ron Paul has actually used this Sinclair Lewis quote to criticize a competitor:

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."

I happen to agree with that statement, but Ron Paul using that quote seems to me to be a quite extraordinary example of Psychological Projection. Well Mr. Paul, I call your Sinclair Lewis and raise you a Friedrich Nietzsche:

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you."

This is not to say that some of the other authors vying to have our permission to write the next chapter in American history have not also have written or said things that are as yet undiscovered. We should be diligent to look for every nugget that can give us insight as to what history our next President will write. No candidate will get a pass on things that may be unearthed, nor should they. But we also cannot ignore the 10% of vileness in a man just because we agree with 90% of his other views. After all, Germany in 1939 was - in the eyes of the Germans - almost a perfect place.

Ed. Note: The folks at HotAir pile on...

For all of you iPhone Phreaks...

Hat tip to Laura W. at Ace

Late, but, better late than never.

Imagine for a moment that Mr. Huckabee is talking about something other than smoking, what if he were talking about banning something else, anything else. For the sake of argument, let's ban the consumption of alcohol in public places. There would be no more drunk drivers. Look at the number of lives that would be saved.

Now that we have alcohol taken care of, let's ban something else. Oh, I know, candy, ALL candy. Candy causes obesity and tooth decay. This one even saves our teeth!

After we get done with "threats to our health," we'll need to go after those horrible Mormons. After all, they "believe that Christ is the brother of Satan." We can't have anyone in "our" country believing such a thing.

Before you cast your vote, remember this very poignant poem by Pastor Martin Niemoller:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

"And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

"And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

"And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up. "

Again over at Ace of Spades HQ, contributor DrewM. posts a video along with a quote from President Clinton. As Drew puts it, I have to "give the devil his due": I agree with Bill Clinton.

Now that that's out of the way, I have a very special invitation waiting at the jump - something else that I'll only say once.

Everyone, but most especially the supporters of Ron Paul, need to see the video Drew posted and take its lesson to heart:

Where are you Doug? This is the endgame for the path you're going down, so if you want to defend and promote Ron Paul, now is the time. Come back here and tell me that you repudiate this guy and the corrupt piece of garbage he's selling. If you don't, you're just as bad as he is - in fact, you're worse, because at least that moron had the guts to spew his crap at Bill Clinton. You've been talking a lot about the Founders lately, but where would we be if they had not sacrificed themselves in a manner like Harold Russell did? Ask Russell if it was worth it. Ask a veteran of today's conflict if his sacrifices are worth it.

You've been all wide-eyed and idealistic, as you've begun to awaken to the truths you think you've found, and the realization that you've got to do something about it. And though I think you're ending up at the wrong conclusions, I do think you're headed in the right direction, starting with the fact that you've got to stand up for your part of the franchise.

So if I'm wrong, if the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan have been in vain like the loss of Harold Russell's arms, come here and explain it to me. The punched-out lunch counter patron says, "Just look at the facts." Give us some of those facts, Doug. Explain it to us how hiding under a rock would have done any more good in 2001 as it would have done in 1941.

I left a comment at a thread on Ace of Spades when another commenter suggested Fred Thompson would be the "ideal" running mate. When I was done, I realized I may have hit on a point that needs to be disseminated more widely, so if you'll forgive the vanity I'll quote myself here.

Fred's my guy, but I'm growing more convinced by the day that he'd be utterly useless as a running mate, and when commenters at blogs suggest it my teeth start to grate. As an elected VP, he wouldn't make enough noise to draw media attention away from other news (if you need a distraction), and as a running mate his quiet digs at other people would make him totally ineffectual as an attack dog. Fred's definitely a "top or nothing" candidate.

Besides (as I said in another thread a few days ago), you can't really "balance the ticket" with Fred, since he's the meat and potatoes the base needs. Picking Fred only highlights the fact that the top of the ticket is someone outside the mainstream of the party. And let's all face it - that's what we've got with every other candidate. None of these guys comes from the base, so why should we believe they can lead the base?

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

Take a moment and read the fascinating tale of how an Iowa caucus works.

No, really. I know that sounds like I just said, "The fascinating tale about how paint dries!" but the story really is amazing and fun (at least for those of us who hate Hillary).