sisu

The GOP establishment is the problem

Even as DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only) Dede Scozzafava (above) showed her true colors — after dropping out of the NY District 23 congressional race Saturday — when she "began to quietly and thoughtfully encourage her supporters to vote for Democrat William L. Owens," NYT opinionator Frank Rich showed his true cluelessness when he referred to tea partiers like ourselves as zombie-like members of a "wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama." Dede is not one of our own, Mr. Rich. (AP photo)

With hats off to the Gipper, a new slogan for the ages:

In the present crisis, the GOP establishment is not the solution to our problem; the GOP establishment is the problem.

Just ask any tea partier.

Update: "Kill, or cure? What say you?" teases Dan Riehl with a link. "What doesn't kill us will make us stronger," we reply in the comments. 'Loved this comment from M. Simon of Power and Control:

[Sarah Palin] is one very smart lady. She can read a map.

The foxy lady has outfoxed the old dogs who were supposed to be guarding the GOP henhouse.

Give to strategic small-government candidates, not parties

There's something happening here. The anti-establishment protest song has been turned on its head as Tea Partiers find their voice: "People speaking their minds/Getting so much resistance from behind/What a field-day for the heat/A thousand people in the street/Singing songs and carrying signs …" (Cover image of October 2008 "quickie paperback satire" Terminatrix,  co-authored by top Harper-Collins Editor Adam Bellow (Saul's boy), who most recently worked on Sarah Palin's forthcoming blockbuster autobiography Going Rogue)

"It's quite a revelation. I'd been slowing down party contributions of late. Now I see THE WAY!" we twittered blogfriend Barry Campbell of enrevanche ecstatically this morning in response to his response to an earlier tweet of ours:

We: Give to strategic small-government candidates, not parties!

Barry: Yes. And I agree so fervently that I don't mind the "shouting."

It was a eureka moment as we saw the social-networking sausage taking shape before our eyes. Delicious! It started with Sarah Palin's endorsement last week of Doug Hoffman, the independent conservative candidate challenging ACORN-supporting Republican-Party-sanctioned RINO Dede Scozzafava in the upstate NY District 23 congressional special election. Dismissed by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party establishment, Hoffman has become a beacon of hope for the Army of Davids Tea Partiers, who are getting glimpses of a way out of the desert as he surges ahead in the latest poll. And, of course, Palin's every strategic move is of intense interest — to both diehard fans like us and those who can't stand her — in the blogosphere, the twittersphere, Facebook and on cable TV. The networks and airwaves were abuzz. Based upon Palin's support we sent a little money Hoffman's way, just as we had sent a check to Joe "You lie!" Wilson earlier based upon his speaking truth to power during President Obama's recent address to a joint session of Congress. Today it was dollars for someone else we'd never heard of, conservative VA AG candidate Ken Cuccinelli, based upon a Twitter tip from Erick Erickson of Red State, who looks to a higher authority for his response to "the new counter spin" that would have us once again hold our noses as so many small-government citizens did with John McCain:

To quote Christ, “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matt. 16:26 NIV)

Well. Gotta be off to add a little something to the coffers of "Upstart candidate Marco Rubio," who's "cut in half [Obama-hugger] Governor Charlie Crist's lead in the race to win the Republican nomination for a Florida U.S. Senate seat in 2010" thanks to "popular outrage at his support for the $787 billion federal stimulus package." We encourage our readers to lend support to strategically-targeted, small-government candidates wherever they may find them. And while we're in the mood, we especially urge you to support our dear blogfriend, satirical genius and candidate for Leigh County [PA] Executive, Scott "Live the Freedom" Ott of Scrappleface and the Washington Examiner. Click here to give early and often.

Update: Dan Riehl links:

Just as one should always follow the money, the politicians will follow the money, too. Use it to force the GOP to adopt the policies we want, not simply for spite against the GOP.

As we wrote in the comments, "Absolutely. Not an ounce of spite. Just a way out of the desert."

Obama's sledging strategy of intimidation

"This incident is sure to raise his profile, though for all the wrong reasons," writes a Telegraph sports guy re Sri Lankan left-handed batsman and wicket-keeper Kumar Sangakkara, above, one of five players injured yesterday when Islamist terrorists — delicately termed "gunmen" by the Telegraph — opened fire on their team bus in Lahore, Pakistan. According to Wikipedia, "Sangakkara has won a certain degree of admiration for his clever use of sledging," AKA "mental disintegration." AFP photo.

"Sledging is a term used in cricket to describe the practice whereby some players seek to gain an advantage by insulting or verbally intimidating their opponents":

There is debate in the cricketing world as to whether this constitutes poor sportsmanship or good-humoured banter.The purpose is to try to weaken the opponent's concentration, thereby causing him to make mistakes or underperform. It can be effective because the batsman stands within hearing range of the bowler and certain fielders; and vice-versa.

'Sounds a lot like the current Administration's Alinksyesque, divide-and-conquer, anti-Limbaugh jihad — not to mention the earlier eight-year Soros-seeded anti-Bush campaign and the whirlwind anti-Palin assault last fall. Rush explains the Rahm-Emanuel-choreographed reaction of White House and media allies to the Rush phenomenon in general and his "first televised address to the nation" at CPAC Saturday in particular:

Well, I don't hurt. I am not hurt by any of this. What this is, though, is cruel. It is cruel because it is a game of manipulation emanating from the Oval Office … In that speech were not just illustrations of what's wrong with this administration and liberalism. There were solutions, solution after solution after solution, because conservatism is a solution … None of the things that I said in that speech are being repeated by the Drive-By Media which I knew would be the case, because face-to-face discussions and debates are not going to happen. Instead, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals number 12 has been employed: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Rush relishes being in the crosshairs of his ideological adversary in the White House. The importance of being noticed and all that. Besides, it's good for business. But the real target of Obama's sledging strategy of intimidation is the Republican Party, beginning with the opening shot last January when the President thuggishly warned his critics that "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

“I do think he's an intellectual force, which is why the Republicans pay such attention to him," Rahm Emanuel told CBS News's Bob Schieffer on Sunday in a rare moment of truthfulness before spinning off to repeat the big lie that Rush wants Obama the President of the United States — as opposed to Obama's socialist agenda, the real object of Limbaugh's critique — to fail.

Taunting GOP party leaders who may have been watching Face the Nation on Sunday, the Commander-in-Chief's unctuous, take-no-prisoners hitman Rahm Emanuel volunteered that Rush is “the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party." [We're no Dittohead, but El Rushbo's PAC keynote Saturday was a warm comforter of common sense and wisdom that fell gently on our shoulders, making us glad he's on our side, unlike those fuddy-duddy Northeast Corridor Republicans who, in Charles Krauthammer's words, can't "tell the lion from the lamb."] We were horrified to find ourselves watching LIVE on CNN Saturday night as our own "Energizer-in-Chief," RNC Chair Michael Steele took the bait in response to a dig from Rahm Emanuel fellow traveler D.L. Hughley, host of a relatively new "comedic news show." When Hughley referred to Rush as "the de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele dutifully followed the MSM narrative, dismissing Rush as an "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly." He offered Limbaugh a lame apology next day, but Rush wasn't buying. Meanwhile, Chris Matthews and his fellow bottomfeeders were off and running down the cricket pitch.

"Rush will turn his enemies' thrusts to his advantage," we wrote in the comments to Ann Althouse's post on the subject this morning:

My only concern is that Northeast Corridor Republicans afraid of losing their invitations to the best Beltway parties and independents who aren't paying attention will be taken in by Rahm Emanuel's Alinskyesque maneuvers.

As Glenn Beck said with disgust this evening re Michael Steele's performance, "At least have the balls to stand up and say what you believe. I'm tired of the game playing."

Update: "Obama WH Secret Phone Conferences Bear Fruit With TV Media’s Limbaugh Attack," writes Warner Todd Huston of Stop the ACLU [via Little Green Footballs]:

Back on January 29, we discussed the daily strategy phone call engineered by Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for friendly TV commentators and “reporters.” Politico reported that Emanuel has a daily phone conference call with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, and CNN’s James Carville and Paul Begala …

As soon as the sun rose on the day after Limbaugh’s CPAC appearance, three of the four of the phone call participants attacked Limbaugh with the same talking points. It seems obvious that they coordinated their attack together in the Obama secret strategy session. It is amazing that a president’s staff can have such power over major media figures without a peep being heard from those that only months ago bashed former presidents over a perceived undue, even “dangerous,” control of the media.

What would you expect of a political culture capable of producing former Clinton aide Paul Begala's obscenely insolent "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda Cool."

Update: "Is that cricket?" quips Professor Reynolds. Thank you sir, for all the eyeballs.

Update II: Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings links: "Is Rush Limbaugh Barack Obama's Goldstein?"

Update III: The Anchoress links with her usual comprehensive coverage and a handy list of links to related essays.

Update IV: The story behind the story goes viral on Drudge — center, all caps, above the fold: "Enemies List: White House Plots Limbaugh Coverage":

Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

As Jonah Goldberg wrote in "The Tired War on Rush Limbaugh":

Just because the Democrats’ shtick is old and often dishonest doesn’t mean it’s tactically dumb. Limbaugh and other right-wing talkers are popular with a third of the country. Fairly or not, they turn off moderates and self-described independents (and, for the left, conservative talk radio is the font of all evil). Most politicians would prefer to have 70 percent of the public on their side at the cost of losing 30 percent, even if that requires being less than fair to the 30 percent.

It's the demographics, stupid.

If the shoe fits

Inspired by Sarah Palin's signature bright red Naughty Monkey Double Dare peep-toe pumps with three-and-a-half-inch heels, we ferreted out our own mid-seventies-vintage Elkins rosebud-pink, peep-toe pumps with three-and-a-half-inch heels from the back of a neglected closet where they had languished these many years. All that was old is new again,

"The Governor of Alaska gets our girls-just-wanna-have-fun juices flowing," we blogged three weeks back during the rumor-revved hours and minutes leading up to John McCain's announcement of his VP choice, even as members of the fuddy-duddy community counseled a "safe" pick. Now we're getting some insight into what makes those fuddy-duddies tick. "Clearly, a small but influential number of conservatives — almost exclusively from the New York-Washington axis which we will term the 'Northeast Corridor' — could not comprehend Sarah Palin or what she represents, any more than the liberal-left could," writes J.R. Dunn in The American Thinker:

In fact, the liberals can be said to have had a superior grasp of Palin's impact. They, at least, saw her as a threat.

If this is the choice of the conservative base, one said, "Then we need a new base."

Two points are immediately evident: this rhetoric echoed precisely what the liberal media was saying and at the same time was diametrically opposed to what the rest of the country had to say.

In the same way that liberals view the U.S. a racist, militarist monolith, the Northeast Corridor coterie view it as a cultural wasteland populated by backwoodsmen, halfwits who need to be guided by an enlightened but aloof elite.

We totally agree with reader Wemedge's thoughts in the comments:

This is the first article I've read since the Palin announcement which articulates my disappointment with all the Krauthammers, Noonans, Willses, and Brookses at their rejection of someone who is clearly compelling and fresh.

What most disappointed, as so well put by Mr. Dunn was that "so isolated had the Northeast Corridor conservatives become, so deeply embedded in their Jamesian parallel universe, that they couldn't recognize her clear conservative stance, couldn't recognize her personal courage, couldn't, in the end, be bothered to stand with her when she and her family were victimized by the most repellent political attack of our epoch."

So I came, all by myself to the same conclusion that this article did: they're clueless.

"We sold our Governor a pair of red Double Dare Naughty Monkey shoes a couple of weeks ago," the proprietors of Juneau's Shoefly Inc. wrote Fausta the other day. "She just wore those shoes as John McCain announced Governor Sarah Palin from Alaska as his vice president running mate. Although not everyone agrees with her politics, everyone can agree that she wears 'sexy shoes.'" Fuddy-duddies need not apply. Update: "They look like something Daisy Duck would wear," comments Tuck.

Those Northeast Corridor Conservatives need to get out more, beyond their Pauline Kael bubble, like businessman Jay Randhawa of the San Diego firm that markets the "very edgy, very hip, very street" Naughty Monkey shoes favored by Sarah Palin. "He was surprised to learn that Gov. Palin was introduced as Mr. McCain's vice-presidential choice wearing a red pair of peep-toe pumps with 3 1/2-inch heels," reports the WSJ, but instead of staring in incomprehension, he saw an opportunity:

The shoes, marketed by his company's Naughty Monkey line, generally are geared to women in their early-to-mid-20s who go clubbing, he says.

"The age bracket we target is a little younger. It's a very edgy, very hip, very street brand," adds Mr. Randhawa.

Celebrities like Paris Hilton had been photographed in the brand's shoes, but seldom, if ever, a 40-something politician.

Mr. Randhawa says he realized that Gov. Palin's footwear choice offered the chance to pitch the Naughty Monkey line to a new demographic. The company quickly sent out emails to its retailers with a photo of the Alaska governor wearing the shoes and the slogan "I vote for Naughty Monkey!"

Women in their early-to-mid-20s who go clubbing, 40-something politicians, women d'un certain age who blog. Girls just wanna have fun. Unless you're a fuddy-duddy. Yes you, Peggy Noonan. And you, Miss Hillary:

The organizers of an anti-Iran rally Monday rescinded their invitation to Alaska Governor Sarah Palin after Democrats protested that her presence would turn the event into a political rally, McCain campaign and Jewish community sources said.

The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations created a political tempest by inviting Palin to speak without clearing her invitation with another speaker, Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton promptly dropped out of the event, saying it would be seen as unduly political.

"I guess now we know how deep Hillary's concern for Iranian nukes really is, skin deep," wrote blog buddy Sol of Solomonia in disgust at the disingenuousness of Hillary's posturing:

As soon as she learned that Sarah Palin would be there, she was out the door. Thanks for nothing. I get the feeling she reacted worse to this news than she would have had she heard that Monica would be there making a speech. Nothing, absolutely nothing, trumps cynical selfish partisan politics on Planet Clinton. Not even Iranian nukes.

Or maybe Clinton backed out in fear of her own sensible shoes' being upstaged by Palin's red peep-toe pumps with three-and-a-half-inch heels.

Update: Northeast Corridor regressives progressives liberals weigh in (Bring on the smelling salts.):

"All of my women friends, a week ago Monday, were on the verge of throwing themselves out windows," an author and political activist, Nancy Kricorian of Manhattan, said yesterday. "People were flipping out … Every woman I know was in high hysteria over this. Everyone was just beside themselves with terror that this woman could be our president — our potential next president" …

Even some prominent figures admitted to being overcome by anti-Palin feelings. "I am having Sarah Palin nightmares," an acclaimed playwright and writer, Eve Ensler, wrote on the Huffington Post. She said she was disturbed by the chants about oil and gas drilling during Mrs. Palin's speech to the Republican convention. "I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination," Ms. Ensler wrote.

That's just how Hillary's Pink Offensive made us feel back in the day, but now the shoe's on the other foot. Why can't we all just get along? Our own Dr. Sanity, quoted in the article, has the last word:

A psychiatrist and conservative blogger, Patricia Santy, said the strong emotional reactions are driven by Mrs. Palin's differing with the left-leaning political agenda of many feminists. "Their entire image of themselves is based on the fact that they are paving the way for women. What do they see? Women getting ahead, women being empowered who don't agree with them," Dr. Santy said.

Sorry. We don't have that in your size.

"Targeted by homegrown Democratic demagogues all too willing to tell them what they want to hear"

Stranger in a strange land. It's 22% to 75% red vs. blue here in Chelsea-by-the-Sea, Taxachusetts, identified by neighboroo as a "Democrat Stronghold."

We suspect it has to do with the working-class City of Chelsea's traditional pattern of welcoming generation after generation of politically naive, yearning-to-breathe-free immigrants -- mostly from south of the border and south and east of Constantinople these days -- targeted by homegrown Democratic demagogues all too willing to tell them what they want to hear. It was our own native son, Tip O'Neill, who famously declared that "All politics is local." It's the Taxachusetts way. At least we're in good company, with one of our all-time fave blogmates, New Yorker Barry Campbell's red-vs-blue spread of 16%-to-82% outdoing our own (see map above). Barry's the one -- always at the cutting edge -- who gave us the heads up. Head on over to neighboroo and type in your zip code to see how good or bad it is in your neck of the woods. Some, like Goomp's, are merely Democrat. Others, like Barry's and ours, are Democrat STRONGHOLDS. It almost makes us wonder whether we have been chosen by the Lord to fight the good fight. [There was a blogpost out there somewhere today . . . or maybe it was a "news" report . . . to the effect that some group of Christians -- possibly Catholics -- thought it would be a small band of true believers that would once again lead a benighted humanity out of the desert . . . Unfortunately, we haven't been able to relocate it. If we do, it will be posted here.] Update: Here's the source, a review of Cardinal Ratzinger's and Marcello Pera's Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam. More here.

The latest pre-emptive obituaries for our party of choice from our friends on the left side of the aisle and their useful idiots in the MSM recall these lines from metaphysical poet John Donne's "A Valediction Forbidding Mourning":

As virtuous men pass mildly away, 
And whisper to their souls to go, 
Whilst some of their sad friends do say,
"Now his breath goes," and some say, "No."

Does Karl Rove know something we don't? Some of his sad friends do say "It's micro-targeting," and some say, "No."

"It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies"

The dawn's early light caught our eye this morning as the bulk carrier "Baldock" disengorged a mountain of salt four stories high by way of a conveyor-belt boom swung out from the ship (right above and top below) over the wharf of Eastern Salt across the street.

"I disagree with Roger Simon," writes Arnold Kling provocatively at TCS Daily re Roger's correct but -- according to Kling -- irrelevant assessment of the failings of the current national Democratic leadership. Kling is one of those persons of the right who is planning to stay home November 7 to "send a message." We're going to hold our nose and vote straight Republican ourselves -- Western Civ is at war with the forces of darkness, fergossake, and the Democrats still don't get it -- but nevertheless find much wisdom and food for thought in his analysis:

Not because I think highly of the leaders he disparages. But one way in which libertarians differ from conventional liberals and conservatives is that we place less faith in having good political leaders.

The conventional wisdom is that we would be better off if politically powerful leaders were less mediocre. Instead, my view is that we would be better off if mediocre political leaders were less powerful.

The gray metal structural elements and clear plastic surfaces of the boom put on a dazzling show of purples and oranges, reflecting the sun's first rays.

"Democracy does not lead to particularly good choices," continues Kling:

The belief that the problem with government is the particular individuals in power is dangerous. The myth is that somewhere out there we could find great leaders who could use government to solve all of our problems. Instead, we need to be vigilant against the enlargement of government, by either mediocre or expert leaders.

Throughout the day, workers used bucket loaders (yellow vehicles center and far right) and a clamshell bucket suspended from a towering shore-based crane (upper right) to flatten the peak of the pile to make way for more salt from the "Baldock's" hold. Our camera missed Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment" -- glimpsed out the SUV window as we drove off on errands -- when a biblical pillar of salt was pouring forth from the tip of the boom (center top in image), two bucket loaders were plowing salt left and right away from the peak and the clamshell bucket was doing its thing. Truly an awesome choreographed ballet of the working waterfront.

The media's embarrassing, self-revelatory swoon over the remarkable junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., comes to mind. An interesting fellow, no question, the son -- if we can believe what we read -- of a Kansan atheist anthropologist mother and a Harvard-educated Kenyan Muslim [?] economist father who met and fell in love while matriculating at the University of Hawaii, Obama is a distinguished graduate of Harvard Law School, "dripping with charisma" according to one of the MSM's latest fawning portraits. Oprah wants us to make him president of these United States. We'd love to know more about the fellow but couldn't read or watch (the toe-curling factor). Our fellow Americans of the left exemplify Arnold Kling's "dangerous" faith in a political savior who will lead them out of the desert. A recurrent American theme, but not our cup of tea.

Towards the end of the day, sirens and flashing lights filled the air as the Chelsea Police, Eastern Salt security, Cataldo's ambulance and Chelsea's finest (above carrying a rescue basket stretcher) converged on the wharf across the street. Tuck went over to investigate and learned that a crew member of the "Baldock" had fallen off the rope ladder that was the only access to shore from the mighty ship. Haven't they ever heard of gangways?

"So how do conservatives hold on to power when the population has been trained for two or three generations of Left-tinged rule to reflexively expect 'government to fix it' -- whatever it may be?" writes The Barrister at Maggie's Farm in a tour de force essay that puts its finger on what ails us:

There is only one way: to fill the nation with vigorous, optimistic, freedom-oriented, inspiring, courageous talk about the American way of life and the opportunities available to everyone to go out there and try to build whatever life they envision. Reagan knew how to do that. Bush has not the talent, nor the taste, for dramatic rhetoric -- and neither did his dad.

A wondrous post that must be read in full, not least for the picture of Maggie and Ronnie, deep in conversation, on a brisk walk through the woods at [presumably] Camp David. We LOVED the fact that he quoted our own "The totalitarian impulse runs deep and dark in our species" side by side with the estimable Dr. Sanity's "The politcal left and their totalitarian dreams" and Samizdata's breathtaking C.S. Lewis quotation:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Yes, YOU, Hillary. For why "Republicans deserve to lose [and] what happens if Democrats win," check out Pete DuPont's excellent op ed at Opinion Journal today.

Update:  Pajamas Media links.

The gloating to come

Route 95 heading Down East this morning in leaf-peeping mode. Acer rubrum -- the indicator tree of the Red Maple swamp community -- shows its colors, a range from yellow and orange through brilliant red, depending upon the acidity of the underlying soil. The light fantastic of the sun's early rays  -- low angled from east to west (right to left in the image) -- lends blue-and-pink magic to the everyday migration of late-season travelers.

"Big conservative bloggers suck eggs. They are so YESTERDAY!" asserts our imail correspondent, parrying our latest thrust:

We: You won't want to hear this, but the big conservative bloggers have all but thrown in the towel on the coming elections . . . They think it's going to be a rout . . . Glenn Reynolds gets the gist: "The GOP richly deserves to lose its majority in Congress. I just wish the Democrats deserved to win one." The BCBs think that a million national polls can't be wrong.

She: I'll admit that the Republicans suck too, but COME ON!!!  Throwing in the towel is not an option. Polls are NOTORIOUSLY wrong, all the time. Sadly, the renewed Sandy Berger investigation will grow no legs.

We: No pantlegs.

She: Yes  . . . half the PUBES (as in pubic) are RINO, anyway.

We: It's an old story . . . anyone in power is corrupted by definition, as power corrupts. The thing that horrifies me the most is the gloating to come.

The same blues and pinks of an early-fall sunrise lend mystery to the memorabilia atop our piano the other day.

As we blogged during the last election cycle:

The issues don't change much from decade to decade, and it's fascinating to watch how arguments pro or con a particular point go back and forth between parties depending upon the current occupant of the White House. One thing that has changed between those halcyon pre-chad, pre-9/11 days and our Fahrenheit 911/527's/MoveOn, campaign-finance-reform-loophole era is the tenor of the debate. C-Span rebroadcast Cheney's and Lieberman's oh-so-civilized and -- in Donald Rumsfeld's term -- helpful debate last night. Low key, measured and rational.

Low key, measured and rational debate need not apply this time around:

She: Still, I won't be able to bear the RAT gloating if they retake Congress. They are poor losers and even more ungracious winners.

We: "See? We were right all along" . . . That kind of thing. Not to mention their heads in the sand re the gathering storm. Then, when the nation goes to Hell in a handbasket, it will still be all Bush's fault.

She: That's life.  :-)

We: Get one? We bought our BushHitler tickets.

She: I love my ticket, and shall hang onto it.

We: Yes, hanging chads and all. They are not interested in debate but only in imposing their own world view on the rest of us mouthbreathing slobs. Double standards, thy name is Rat.

It's the totalitarian impulse that runs deep and dark in our species come home to roost.

Catching the Republicans with their cyberpants down

Tiny (left) and Baby, enjoying a lovely early fall weather day in the side yard at Chelsea-by-the-Sea this afternoon, appear to be as unamused with human folly as Queen Victoria and ourselves.

When the silly season heats up -- this year, the October surprise jumped the gun and whipped our friends on the left side of the aisle up into an unstoppable frenzy of payback-time glee starting sometime last week -- we're outta here. Dr. Sanity explains:

Personally I fail to see why a book like Bob Woodward's [State of Denial], which was specifically written and whose release was deliberately timed precisely to maintain control of this "narrative" at a critical time in American politics, should trump either reality or reason when it comes to assessing the status of the overall war on terror or the battlefield of Iraq in that war.

But, of course, what with the inevitable mainstream-media blitz -- 60 Minutes, Larry King Live, NYT front page, etc. --  the latest "polls" show GW's "numbers" tanking. The key question, based upon Woodward's thesis -- that GW & Company have seriously misrepresented how bad things are going in Iraq [demonstrably not so] -- returned a resounding "Yah, that's how I feel, too" from the majority of pollees. Garbage in, garbage out. How deeply sad that the so-called swing voters -- the ones we call the mushy middle -- those inattentive fellow Americans whose votes determine who will become Leader of the Free World -- are so easily swayed by the latest thing they saw on the "nightly news." Doubly sad that the MSM are such willing purveyors of the anti-victory BDS message. Then came the Foley Folly, a sex scandal [Gasp! They still have those? -- ed] -- the first ever featuring imail messages as the smoking gun -- shamelessly demagogued for partisan advantage by the unprincipled left and apparently catching the Republicans with their cyberpants down. Where was Karl Rove, or is this just his latest secret strategery, about to backfire on the Rats? Roger L. Simon has at least two important observations worth cogitating:

1. What interests me in this whole predictable episode -- the seduction of Capitol pages of both genders by members of both parties is as old as, well, the Capitol -- is the ignorance our representatives have of modern communications. Don't they realize by now the Internet is written in indelible ink? Nothing you type online in whatever form ever goes away. It's much more permanent than anything written on paper. (Note to bloggers: forget that at your peril) I suspect many of our politicians don't have a clue about this. They think (Foley probably thought) instant messages rocket across the screen and disappear into cyberspace.

2. A real historian versus a fauxtorian (quoting VDH): "Every source in Cobra II, Fiasco, or State of Denial, may be accurate, but we will never know that, because for a variety of reasons the authors who claim they worked from notes and recordings, chose not to identify the most inflammatory sources by name. It would be as if I [Hanson] wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War and, to support my most controversial points, added footnotes that stated "A manuscript in the Vatican," or "Private letter to author from anonymous Greek shepherd attesting a stone altar in his field."

Private letters to authors from anonymous Beltway leakers are a dime a dozen. As we blogged two years back:

The issues don't change much from decade to decade, and it's fascinating to watch how arguments pro or con a particular point go back and forth between parties depending upon the current occupant of the White House. One thing that has changed between those halcyon pre-chad, pre-9/11 days and our Fahrenheit 911/527's/MoveOn, campaign-finance-reform-loophole era is the tenor of the debate. C-Span rebroadcast Cheney's and Lieberman's oh-so-civilized and -- in Donald Rumsfeld's term -- helpful debate last night. Low key, measured and rational.

Joey's our boy.

Update: For more low key, measured and rational discourse, check out this week's Carnival of the Cats -- #132 -- at Pets Garden Blog.

Update II:  Friday Ark at Modulator now boarding.

"That could be a problem"

"A 19th Century saying, 'the cat shuts its eyes when it steals cream,' suggests a cat denying it is doing wrong, though this isn't likely to be through guilt. Cats often half-close their eyes when they are enjoying something -- including an illicit lick of cream," writes Sarah Hartwell in "Enough to make a cat laugh: Catty sayings." Tiny illustrates the phenomenon above, as she enjoys a spot of cream, her appetite having returned in full force as the Clavamox drops seem to be having the desired effect. Recent revelations inside the Beltway suggest cats aren't the only ones who may shut their eyes when they are stealing.

"Mr. Abramoff and his pals are stock Beltway characters," says an Opinion Journal editorial re the latest shocking, shocking Washington scandal to make Chris Matthews's day. As expected, our national representatives are rounding up the usual suspects:

This week's plea agreement by "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new "lobbying reform" that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability.

Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.

Don't we wish. Opinion Journal continues:

This isn't to say we agree with the media hype that the Abramoff scandal is of "historic proportions." That's true only if your "history" starts around 1994, after Jim Wright sold his "book" in bulk to the Teamsters, after Tony Coelho of "Honest Graft" fame, after Abscam, the Keating Five,Clark Clifford and BCCI, and any number of other famous episodes of Capitol Hill sleaze.

That some Republicans are just as corruptible as some Democrats won't surprise students of human nature. But it is an insult to the conservative voters who elected this class of Republicans and expected better.

One danger now is that, rather than change their own behavior, Republicans will think they can hide behind the political cover of "lobbying reform." While this has various guises, most proposals amount to putting further restrictions not on Congress but on "the right of the people . . . to petition the government," as the Constitution puts it explicitly.

Be sure to read the whole thing and then click over to the New York Times, which is sounding uncharacteristically fair and balanced this morning, having paired op eds by self-professed "frustrated" Clinton reform adviser and speechwriter Michael Waldman and National Review's ever skeptical Byron York, who comments that "When it comes to lobbying in this post-Abramoff world, everyone's a reformer -- and that could be a problem." Waldman, of course, while acknowledging Clintonian abuses -- big donors in the Lincoln Bedroom, for one -- not unreasonably locates the lion's share of responsibility for the latest scandal among the ranks of the party currently in power:

Mr. Abramoff was central to the Republicans' so-called K Street Project, in which the Congressional majority sought to create a political machine tying Republican politicians to business lobbyists. A century ago muckrakers educated the public about such networks; perhaps today's bloggers can play a similar role.

Finally, the reform moment will arrive when politicians, in their own self-interest, press for change. There are hopeful signs. Democrats, finally shedding their incumbent mindsets after a decade in the minority, have now made political reform a central plank. Republicans are far more implicated in the current scandal, which may give their rank and file new reasons to turn to Senator McCain for leadership.

Ah, yes. Senator McCain of the Keating Five, the perennial "reformer" working aciduously to abridge the right of us little people to have our say. Where Waldman sees "hopeful signs," we are inclined to agree with Byron York that when everyone's a reformer, "that could be a problem."

We were encouraged by a WSJ (subscription only) report that House Speaker Dennis Hastert "may try to demonstrate reform credentials with revised ethics rules":

Under consideration are new penalties for lobbyists and lawmakers; to skewer Democrats, some suggest adding curbs on outside groups that blossomed after McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law. If Ohio Rep. Ney is indicted, he'll be asked to step aside as House Administration Committee chairman.

Time to MoveOn? Michael Barone in his own WSJ piece (subscription only, but we're guessing it will become available free at Opinion Journal tomorrow) puts things in perspective:

Mr. Abramoff's guilty pleas have both parties scampering to offer up lobbying reform; as fervent a Republican as he was, he made sure his clients gave money to Democrats too. His testimony could end the careers of some members of Congress and could threaten the Republicans' House majority. But there will be no end to lobbying: It is protected by the Constitution, and people will always seek to affect the decisions of a government that can have such great impact on them.

As they/we should.

Update:  Check out the Friday Ark at Modulator for animals enjoying themselves with eyes wide open.

Base motives

Unimpressed with Republican elites' bickering over the Miers nomination, Baby and Tiny demonstrate proper modus operandi of a majoritarian governing party by joiniing forces against an intruding puddy.

"Principles are a fine thing, but a narrow, partisan definition of principle has led the Republicans to a dead end," writes David Ignatius in a Wall Street Journal Commentary (subscription only).  Excerpts:

The bickering over the Miers nomination epitomizes the right's refusal to assume the role of a majoritarian governing party . . . Mr. Bush and the Republicans had a chance after 2004 to become the country's natural governing party.

Mr. Bush squandered this opportunity by falling into the trap that has snared the modern GOP -- of playing to the base rather than to the nation. The Republicans behave as if the country agrees with them on issues, when that demonstrably isn't so. The country doesn't agree about Social Security, doesn't agree about the ethical issues that were dramatized by the torment of Terri Schiavo, doesn't agree about abortion.

Like the Democrats in their years of decline, they are screaming at each other -- not realizing how far they have drifted from the mid-channel markers that have always led to open waters and defined success in American politics.

'Reminds us of something Dr. Sanity said in her normblog profile last June in answer to Norman Geras's question "Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you've ever changed your mind?":

Abortion. When I was younger I thought the Roe vs Wade Supreme Court decision was essential to establish women's rights over their own bodies. I now think that women's rights would have inevitably come about anyway and believe that this court decision has been the root cause of the horrible animosity and hatred in our country. This is a personal decision, and the issues involved in it cannot be mandated by a court. Likewise, the issue of gay marriage. These sorts of decisions should be left to the state and/or local level to determine, in order to optimize individual choice and conscience.

Intruder Orange Blossom glares back at Tiny and Baby, reluctantly backing down after considerable triangulation -- Baby seemed to think she was kind of a cutie, but Tiny would have none of it -- acknowledging that the Chelsea Grays are in firm control of the sideyard agenda.

That's what comes of legislating from the bench. It calls to mind Austin Bramwell's cautionary essay for conservatives -- blogged here a couple of months back-- on the rise and fall of the liberal project:

Liberalism came of age in the New Deal, which finally succeeded in replacing representative government with a European-style administrative state, staffed by the nation’s ablest, most idealistic men. After World War II, when the national mood no longer favored reform, liberals turned to an even more elite institution—the Supreme Court—to continue remaking American society. For a generation, liberalism so dominated American life that, while conservatives saw conservatism as the taste of a saving remnant, liberals became convinced that their ideology expressed the natural sentiments of the American people.

Intellectual sclerosis, however, soon set in . . . As Nixon put it, the Democrats became the party of acid, amnesty, and abortion. They have been losing power ever since.

Let's hope the Republicans don't get caught up in a Pauline Kael bubble the way the Democrats did just before Nixon's landslide, waking up one morning to find Supreme Court Justice Harriet Miers being sworn in and shaking their heads in disbelief, asking themselves "How can that be? No one I know voted for her"?