The Black Republican

This morning, my wife and I are listening to the news and they tell us that Ben & Jerry (yes those 2 bozos) are going to be endorsing Obama with a new flavor. The story we heard couldn't tell us what flavor it would be. She starts with "Well, it couldn't be chocolate. That would be racist. It couldn't contain Oreo cookies, either. That would just be wrong. It couldn't contain fruit, because that might offend the gays." My contribution "couldn't contain nuts because it might offend the crazy. I guess he'll just be selling a big bucket of frozen cream." For some reason, this seems like the perfect metaphor for the Obama campaign; he's all about change, but won't tell us what that change is.

This was the topic of discussion between Chris and I last Friday at lunch. We were both in agreement that she and Bill are so power hungry that we could think of little they wouldn't do to win. But then Chris asked, in the event she does indeed lose the nomination, "Do you think she would go Third-party?"

My gut reaction was that she would do anything - ANYTHING - to become President, so the answer I blurted out was "Of course." But boy did that start my mind - and our discussion - racing off into that area of speculation. How would she do it? Would she and Bill give any consideration to what that would do to the Democrat party? (Of course not!) Where would she try to position herself? Right of Obama but Left of McCain? (That last bit would be hard to do from our conservative perspective.) Perhaps to try to keep McCain off balance she would actually move to the right of him on Immigration? Truth and consistency are nothing to the Clintons, so I could see them trying that.

And while discussing that last topic (Hillary's political positioning for a 3rd party run) it hit me - Hillary and Bloomberg! That would give the Hilldabeast two of the things she would need the most to make a 3rd party run work - money and RINO/Independent support! This hit me like - well the only way I can explain it is when you are playing chess and you all of a sudden see the opening and all the moves your opponent needs to check-mate you! And you have that pit-of-your-gut feeling that shifts from wondering if your opponent has actually seen the same thing you have, or if he (she) is just so good that this was the plan from the start.

What if the Clinton machine actually does have dirt on Obama and just lacks the money resources to effectively exploit it? With Bloomberg's $$$ she could plaster the airwaves with "Obama is a Commie" and "McCain is a Fascist" ads from now until November, all portraying her as the only safe, moderate, known quantity candidate in the race.

What have we always known Bill's favored strategy to be? Triangulation! And wouldn't a 3rd party - positioning Hillary between the Obama far left and the McCain far right (in rhetoric at least) - be the very definition of that?

And what was the one of strategies put forth by Hillary's political mentor, Saul Alinsky to obtain political power? "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." (and for those that would claim the Clintons are not Alinsky disciples, tell me who YOU think of when you read those 13 rules?)

I could be very wrong. I kinda hope I am. Perhaps Hil&Bill can pull this out by cheating the old fashioned way, but if they can't... well, I guess we'll see soon enough.

Just about everywhere I turned last week, I'd heard criticism of this piece by Mark Helprin in The Wall Street Journal. And for good reason - it's a rather testy diatribe against radio talkers, their listeners, and and principled conservatives for "playing recklessly with electoral politics by sabotaging their own party ostensibly for its impurity" and for the (ironically erroneous Dow Jones) notion that they'll make more money under a Democratic presidency. I thought I'd heard all there was to hear, and hadn't bothered to actually read the column until I caught up with James Taranto's Wednesday offering. That's when I noticed this:

Ostracism following tests of "right thinking" is a specialty of the left. Not that it doesn't exist on the right, blooming with great malice especially on the radio. But in light of their prospects, conservatives have no room for it. For by their neglectful forfeit they have lost the battles of culture and education, and to remain other than an occult force they must express their beliefs through politics, from which, after November, they may be for a time excluded.

But the thing that really grabbed me about Helprin's tirade was its praise for political confusionism over the principled views of the right, and how he sees such consistency as "a specialty of the left".

Readers of this site know full well my disgust for the Left. But I have some respect for those so far out on the other end of the spectrum (Joe Biden is a favorite example) that there can be little doubt that their consistent adherence to their own principles identifies a real ideology - sick though it may be. Such "holisticity" is sorely lacking among the great swath of power-hungry Democrats, whose pursuit of electoral gains usually outpaces any coherent idea what should be accomplished with victory. I reserve most of my disdain for them, and for their mirror-image in the Republican Party like Mr. Helprin and his torture-obsessed, unconstitutional, and economically illiterate champion.

There's nothing wrong with pragmatic compromise, Mr. Helprin. But you have to possess some vague idea what you're politicking for, or the discussion devolves into haggling on a price for a product you don't actually want.

Smells like victory.

But the campaign has something of a shellshocked feel, as staffers privately chew over a blowup last week where internal frictions flared into the open. Clinton campaign operatives say it happened as top Clinton advisers gathered in Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters to preview a TV commercial. "Your ad doesn't work," strategist Mark Penn yelled at ad-maker Mandy Grunwald. "The execution is all wrong," he said, according to the operatives.

"Oh, it's always the ad, never the message," Ms. Grunwald fired back, say the operatives. The clash got so heated that political director Guy Cecil left the room, saying, "I'm out of here."

I strongly suggest this piece by Charles Cooper, News.com as "Recommended Reading".

I strongly suggest this piece by Cal Thomas as "Recommended Reading".

It turns out the brand-new American Conservative Party [sic] web site* is determined to be a completely irrelevant blip in the ideological fracturing of the Republican Party. Bill Quick, the blogger organizing the effort, has issued a rather dictatorial edict declaring that social conservatives are not welcome unless they keep their mouths shut on the national level. You can see my farewell to them here.

* As Bill has explained here at TBR, he doesn't really want to form a new political party. He wants to set himself up as the Republican version of Kos, and he's just using the name to catch people looking for somewhere to escape the GOP carnage. I added the gratuitous [sic] because even Barry Goldwater joked about being among "the new liberals of the Republican Party" later in life. If you want to form something called "American Conservatism" and win elections with it, it better be the one defined by the Reagan landslides and not the Goldwater landslide or you'll never get very far.

This is going to be a long nine months.

Every time I see John McCain's name in print, it's like probing a cavity with my tongue. I know it's going to hurt, but I'm not willing to admit that it's real. Couldn't it just be a stray sesame seed from this morning's bagel? One more try and I'm sure I can pry it loose and feel better about it.

It seems even major-league conservative pundits like Mona Charen are experiencing this problem. She begins a column Friday by pointing out that John McCain is trying "to meet conservatives more than halfway." She then proceeds to provide example after example that turn my stomach, and by the end of the column she's probably no closer to resolving the same knot she has in hers.

You know what the worst part of this is? McCain's problem is entirely resolvable. I guess that at least half of all the people who have ever said, "There's no way I could EVER vote for McCain," could be turned into supporters (and without him changing a single policy position) if he would just utter two simple words: "I'm sorry." Okay, he'd have to go a little farther than that: "I've taken you for granted, and been mean-spirited at times when people didn't agree with me. I really do respect your views, and I'm willing to listen to yours. I need to be more open to the possibility that I could be wrong about some of my positions, and I may need to accept the fact that you could be right."

But we all know that's the one thing that will never happen - at least not before November 5th.

I strongly suggest this piece by Larry Elder as "Recommended Reading".

As I've repeatedly made clear, it's my opinion that the two-party system is amazingly resilient, but this should not be construed as an endorsement of the durability of either of the existing parties. Since the 2006 elections I've been fairly certain that the Republicans, by consistently trying to evade responsibility for their failures, and persistently attempting to compromise their way into the hearts of liberals, were the better target in the sights of doom.

Well, a new player is taking the field right now to teach the Republicans something about their own history. I predict with the help of the Internet, small-"C" conservatives will have a new home amazingly quick.

I'd heard about this earlier today, and have already registered at the ACP site. TBR won't be going anywhere, because our namesake's affect on American history, and the principles held by his party throughout the 19th and 20th centuries will endure no matter what my own party affiliation is. And it's not a done deal yet anyway. I'm too big a believer in the two-party system to do anything formal before ACP proves it's bona fides and really starts to compete with one or both of the other two parties.

Besides which, I could be wrong about the Whig precedent. The Republicans could see the ACP as the very real danger it can be to their half of the duopoly, and they could wise up. No matter where we end up, I'm rooting for - and betting on - the eventual victory of conservatism.

UPDATE: Nevermind.

Peter Robinson, blogging at The Corner, mused the other day about how John McCain, now the presumptive Republican nominee, could begin winning over disaffected conservatives.

This reminds me of an idea Clark Judge and I once had as we were musing about George H. W. Bush's second inauguration (which turned out to be Bill Clinton's first inauguration instead). After delivering his inaugural address, we decided, the president could turn, mount the steps to the Capitol, enter the President's Room, seat himself at a desk, and, as cameras flashed, sign half a dozen or so executive orders, delivering on as many campaign promises within an hour of his swearing in. The idea, of course, was to back words with action, and to do so at once.

As I recall, President Bush's son did exactly what you suggest on his first day in office, reversing many Clinton policies. That went a long way toward engendering my respect and support, despite my not being firmly convinced he had been the best conservative to install in the job. It took many years for him to squander that respect, but I suspect a President McCain would rise to the occasion and duplicate the effort.

On the other hand, such a commitment might keep keep me from drowning in my own bile at the ballot box - depending largely on which promises he'd decide to make. Unlike most offended conservatives, it is McCain-Feingold that sticks most deeply in my craw. It really affects my impression of his sincerity on all other issues, that he thinks it his right to preach his opinion because he is elected, while he denies that same right to those who elect him. It's not the relative liberalism of his positions, but the sanctimony with which he delivers those edicts.

PS: On the other hand... maybe I've drowned already.

Perhaps. And here comes another kick.

If you haven't already watched this, take a few moments. You'll need to have a perspective about it in the coming months, and it just doesn't count if you take other people's word for it.

In my opinion, McCain's stilted, monotone speech - especially after Mitt Romney's powerful, eloquent and heartwarming concession before CPAC - will do little if any good with conservatives. Barack Obama's vapid cheerleading for defeat and class warfare will roll over him and leave nothing but a dark stain where the Republican Party had once proudly stood.

Just F**king great! Like my world isn't F'd up enough with the Republican Party nominating a damn "Maverick" liberal asshole, supporters of the wife of the first "Black" President claiming that her opponent - a Black man - isn't Black enough, and that man's supporter claiming In many ways, he really will be the first woman president" - now I find out that Global warming isn't gonna kill us, but Global Cooling will!!

ARGGGGGGGG!!!

"Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling. Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes... The dead rising from the grave. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria."

My wife's morning routine includes a scan of Drudge. She took one look at the above picture and said "That HAS to be Photoshop'd." I love that woman.

I strongly suggest this piece by John at Argghhh! as "Recommended Reading".