Foolhardy

In a time where Democrats in office manage to exaggerate and lie with high frequency, Republicans should be able to breath a sigh of relief, knowing that they just have to avoid saying something stupid to avoid such scruity.

Time for a frustrated groan.

New York Assemblyman Willis Stephens, a Republican, called his constituents "idiots" in an e-mail message. I certainly don't believe that all, most, or even significantly many politicians (Republicans or Democrats) speak of the voters in such terms, but with an attack hound in the MSM (which was strangely absent in the recent past and before that even), a no-name Republican from New York has now become an "example" of the rest of the GOP. Once again, what he says does not incriminate all other Republicans, but perception is the most powerful tool of the MSM, and making Stephens into a bad guy, by default, makes the rest of the Republicans into bad guys.

I will not excuse Assemblyman Stephen's comments. They were foolhardy and daft, and the voters in his district should let him know when the next primary rolls around. But for the media to make this a national headline, without doing so for offenses coming from partisans on the other bench (especially those in the national spotlight), is irresponsible.

I just hope, in the future, Republicans will watch their mouths and not make any statements that they cannot back up, even (and especially) if they think that their statement could never be seen or heard by anyone but the eyes and ears it was intended for.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

President Bush's Speech Tonight

A solid speech, though no big surprises. Expect the same rhetoric from pundits of both sides as usual. Here is the transcript for anyone who missed it.

Boot Sout Out

Oh,
the joys
of irony.

Looks like Justice David Souter, the deciding vote in the Kelo vs City of New London case (on emminent domain) could be staring face to face with his own decision. While I'm unsure of how successful this attempt will be, I find it highly doubtful that Justice Souter will be able to ignore this.

Adding to the confusion...

It's decisions like this that make me hope that the rumors are true.

Another gNat to deal with this summer

Being a Baltimore Orioles fan and a conservative, it keeps getting harder and harder to like the Washington Nationals.

Weird Science

I don't know about the rest of you, but I am a little wary over the subjects described here and here. Of course, trying to play god seems to be the fad these days.

0+0+0+0+0=One big fat zero

The Salt Lick has a great (and funny) post regarding Democratic candidate for governor Tim Kaine. With a party that imagines itself as visionary and imaginative, many seem to be stuck in a rut and a number have enough trouble even taking a stand on a single subject. I have heard Tim Kaine speak once, and even questioned him on his stance on abortion. Sure enough, he gave just the response that The Salt Lick predicts; He is religiously against it, but will enforce its ruling.

I expect my leaders to enforce the law, no matter what it is; feeling the need to reinforce it by stating so in a campaign only serves the purpose of bringing a sense of skepticism towards his "feelings" and "opinions". If he really holds such a fundamental position against it, shouldn't Tim Kaine encourage change?

Lawmakers see the truth.

Guantanamo Bay is not as bad as reported as many feared, as many politicians (a number of them for closing the facility) appear to have little to complain about in terms of the treatment of prisoners.

New link

Virginia blogs continue to grow tighter together. CrimLaw has taken note of this blog. CrimLaw is far different from many of the other blogs I've linked to. The focus is more on law than politics, much as the name implies. Ken Lammers likes to keep his posts short and sweet, letting his links speak for themselves. With my friend Lighthorse Harry joining the JAG soon, this blog will be of particular interest to me. CrimLaw has become quite well known, and it appears that Ken Lammers work has been very deserving of such attention.

CrimLaw will now be added in the Allies section on the sidebar (I know it doesn't fully fit with the other categories, but I've created enough of those for now). Give it a look; perhaps there are some posts there that won't build a political divide (as I'm sure my blog does quite frequently).

Update on Karl Rove

Senator Durbin recently made a completely inaccurate accusation and was forced to apologize. Democrats believe that Karl Rove did the same, and are demanding an apology from him.

They will have to wait a whole lot longer than two days.

Michelle Malkin posts to many conservative bloggers responding to Rove's comments. There appears to be a lot of unity on this. Republican congressional leaders and the White House also back up Karl Rove. Instapundit gives a look at the comments from both sides, including an interesting post from Begging to Differ blogger Tom.

Rather than demand an apology, the Democrats may be better off trying to answer Rove's accusation. Don't think you are weak on terror? Put your money where your mouth is. Certainly, if they are in such strong support of the global war on terror, they should have little trouble pointing out examples. And I don't mean in the days following 9/11; there was strong unity then (that may never have been seen before and probably won't ever be seen again) and any politician would also recognize that arguing against military action could potentially be political suicide (with few exceptions, former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich among them).

I would suggest not getting Howard Dean or Dick Durbin to reply to that.

Karl Rove vs. Dick Durbin

I have a request, because I know you strive to be fair in your blogging. Would you please provide a post detailing exactly why Dick Durbin's comments were offensive while Karl Rove's were not? - Elliot

As I mentioned in my previous post, the left has been very busy today bashing Karl Rove for his comments made recently in New York. Here is some of what he stated.

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.

Rove said the Democratic party made the mistake of calling for "moderation and restraint" after the terrorist attacks. - cnews

Now, what is not offensive about this? Well, for me to compare this to Durbin's comments, I would have to act like Durbin. That is, Durbin went to the extreme, comparing our troops to Nazis or members of the Soviet gulag; Rove said that the Democrats were indecisive and weak. Harsh? Perhaps, but hardly personal attacks.

Steve Holland of Reuters also made a very interesting observation.

Rove's remarks were reminiscent of some of President Bush's speeches from his re-election campaign last year but seemed to go further in saying liberals had offered therapy for the attackers.

Hmm, so, if I am to understand this, Rove basically said the same thing that President Bush did a year ago. But there is far less outrage at his comments, which he repeated at many different events. If this is so offensive, how did it elude Democrats last year? I certainly won't say that Democrats gave President Bush a pass (because I certainly wouldn't believe it), so I'm left pondering this as well.

Of course, this still leaves the important factor of how truthful his comments are. No matter how offensive or inoffensive one's words are, truth is the only redeeming factor of any opinion.

Well, Rove has been quickly backed up by RNC Chair Ken Mehlman. Mr. Mehlman responded to the calls for an apology by mentioning many times that the Democrats did just what Rove blamed them of. These included comments by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Joe Biden, and Sen. Howard Dean, all questioning the War on Terror in the wake of 9/11 or in the years following. It is also interesting to note that the White House is not apologizing for Rove's comments, as they state that the Democrats have shown little initiative or innovation concerning the War on Terror.

So, is this offensive? I guess that is all a matter of opinion. Perhaps some were offended by Karl Rove's seemingly blunt comments. But unlike Dick Durbin's comments, they were backed up by the facts. So, Elliot, I will not call into question your intelligence; I know for a fact that you are very intelligent. And it is because of this that I know you understand the difference between Durbin and Rove.

Sources:
U.S. Newswire
Reuters
cnews

HELL NO!

The SCOTUS has made an epic decision today, but no one in their right mind would see this as a well-thought out decision. The Washington Post reports that local governments may now seize property for local economic growth.

Cities may bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development, a divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday, giving local governments broad power to seize private property to generate tax revenue.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the decision bowed to the rich and powerful at the expense of middle-class Americans.

The 5-4 decision means that homeowners will have more limited rights. Still, legal experts said they didn't expect a rush to claim homes.

Emminent domain was created for great need, not a little extra cash. This decision goes against the very right to own property. And the response from the right has been huge so far.

Michelle Malkin
The Volokh Conspiracy
The Vodka Pundit
Right Wing News
Commonwealth Conservative

So, where is the left right now? They should be up in arms. This greatly threatens many of those whom they claim to support, in particular, the poor. Why the poor? They usually live in lower income regions (obviously) which can drag down the rest of its locale. So, now, a local government could conceivably seize all this property and kick those in poverty out of their homes. Shouldn't liberals be up in arms over this decision?

Nope. Instead, all the left can do is focus on Karl Rove's (correct) criticisms of liberals in their handling of the 9/11 attacks.

Well, fine then. I'm sure we will hear their responses soon (probably in a couple days after they finally stop frothing at the mouth over Rove). Right now, the rest of us need to stand up and tell the Supreme Court that their decision does not have the support of the people, that it is flat out wrong.

Contact your senator, write to a blog, do anything you can to let your voice be heard. Tell the Supreme Court that they cannot legislate to us; they may not be directly elected by Americans, but they still have to answer to us.

Apparently, D goes much better with 3 K's than an R does

(Note: I, in no way, endorse the actions of the KKK. Their spite and hatred show a true intolerance. The title is just to address the double standard that seemingly allows Democrats a free pass where Republicans in a similar situation would be crucified.)

It can be hard keeping up with all the blogs I am associated with and those that I enjoy reading, but everytime I do, I stumble across some good posts that may go unacknowledged save for a few comments at the end of the post. Dr. Hartline recently posted one of those.

He posts a short but poignant piece covering the hypocrisy surrounding Robert Byrd's association with the KKK. There is no doubt that Byrd was an out and out racist, and while Democrats love to point to Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat days, Byrd has done little in the way of apologizing. Yet, for some reason, he is let off the hook. Hmm. I agree with you Dr. Hartline, this is too much.

Update on Senator Dick

John Behan comments on Dick Durbin's "apology" I agree fully with John; Dick's apology is pathetic, and hardly convincing. Durbin is lucky that he is only three years into his term; these comments may well be forgotten by November 2008.

Mainstream=Moderate

Of course, you know what this means. Fox News has an opinion piece (written by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos) covering the meaning of "mainstream". I have generally been more accepting of that phrase, as it usually covers a collective body, rather than specifying one's partisan leanings (or claimed lack of).

Still, even this Red Stater can learn something new.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia said the mainstream is a desirable place because it represents commonality or normalcy.

"Usually people are attracted to 'mainstream.' Virtually everyone wants to think they are within the mainstream," Sabato said.

Now, let's look at the Dictionary use of the word.

Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.

Hmm, those two definitions sound identical. This probably should have been self-evident, as the MSM has little meaning these days but a liberal, elitist propoganda machine.

Of course, with winning lines like this,

I tend to use 'moderate' rather than mainstream. ... To me, it has some meaning. ... It may be someone who is pro-choice on abortion, but against partial birth abortion

it is hard to find either term appealing in usage.

It is far past time for people to stop trying to make themselves sound like "centrists"; it is time to be honest. If members of the blogosphere can reveal their true feelings (even as biased as they may be), then certainly journalists can avoid insulting the intelligence of millions of people.

Reliable, even under pressure.

President Bush is living up to his first four and a half years in the Oval Office; you know exactly where he stands, and he won't change simply because his ideas are taboo with the media and other politicians. And yet,
Democrats
don't
get it.

John McCain - The Democrat's Republican

While doing my normal rounds of blogs, I came across Daisy Cutter. The first post that I saw was one about a new association called Blogs for McCain's Opponent. I was immediately interested, as I have seen McCain's actions as contrary to the interests of the Republican party (breaking Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment many times, saying he wants unity while really just giving the Democrats what they want, and getting involved in bills only so he can have his name connected to them). After contacting DC at Daisy Cutter, he quickly accepted me into this association. So, I am pleased to welcome all visiting via the Blogs for McCain's Opponent. The association has been added to the sidebar under the new Associations/Aggregators category. And if you have a blog, drop a line to DC; I'm sure he will be glad to add you on. A good conservative should be running for president in 2008 and senator of Arizona in 2010, and our efforts may play a big role in ensuring that it happens.

gu·lag, also Gu·lag: A forced labor camp or prison, especially for political dissidents.

Senator Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois has recently made a name for himself by calling Gitmo a gulag and calling the very men and women who defend our freedom "Nazis".

How accurate is this? Let's analyze a few examples.

Obviously, we start with the Soviet gulag. According to Wikipedia, the original gulag killed more than 1.6 million (officially) from 1930 through 1956, and, sadly, they may have been the lucky ones. Conditions were harsh, and those who lived suffered. Hard physical labor was forced, such as mining and logging. Bad nutrition led to problems like scurvy and complete emaciation. No doubt, conditions actually were much worse than a single article could describe.

So, what could fall under the term "gulag"? Surely, the Holocaust brought about by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party; perhaps the largest mass murder ever, the Holocaust killed more than six million Jews from 1939 to 1945. One could also make the argument that a number of nations could have fallen under the "gulag" category. North Korea spends much of its money on its military, allowing the people to starve. The people of Iraq had few, if any freedoms, often killed if speaking out against the Ba'ath party. And in Sudan, the "ethnic cleansing" occurring there brings about memories of Kosovo (I would speak out against the hypocrisy of many liberals in supporting strong, firm action in Sudan but not Iraq, but that might be best saved for a later post).

Now, the all important question; is Guantanamo Bay a "gulag"? Absolutely not. The number of deaths at Gitmo? Zero. Prison guards who "desecrated" the Koran? Five. Now, this is a bit of a shame. It fuels the (poor) argument that the War on Terror is an war on Islam. It fuels hatred towards "The Great Satan". It also fuels (again, poor) arguments that Gitmo should be closed. But one part is greatly neglected; there have been fifteen seperate incidents that would qualify as desecrations of the Koran (based on the opinions of the detainees) by prisoners in Gitmo. So, either Islam has different rules for handling the Koran based on one's faith (highly doubtful), or the detainees know how the American media works and are using it to their advantage.

Well, maybe the soldiers at Guantanamo Bay are just being plain cruel to the detainees? Nope. The caves of Afghanistan leave much to be desired. They are dark, damp, and cramped. Sustinence comes from whatever sources possible, which are usually few. The terrorists can carry few personal belongings as they have to move constantly. That certainly sounds like a lot of suffering.

Then, American soldiers come. Knowing that they are generally humane, the terrorists surrender and are sent to Gitmo. There, they get standard heating and air conditioning. A meal is always waiting for them, and it is usually better than what many people around the world get. Want a Koran? No problem, a new one is easy to get. Need some entertainment? Books, games, and television are available.

The prisoners cannot be made perfectly comfortable though. Give them comfort and there will be no reason for them to release any information. Bring them to America and they will get lawyers and Miranda rights, making it near impossible to get information that could save lives. Send them to another foreign military prison and it will become "the new Gitmo". Release them and they will return to their terrorist organizations. While at the prison, tough, psychological tactics must be used to gather information. What many people forget is that terrorists, as prisoners, lose many rights because they have threatened the most basic right of others, their lives. The detainees don't deserve our sympathy; by every right, they may deserve the atrocities described by the prisoners. But Americans do not sink that low, and only do enough to protect our interests.

Closing Guantanamo Bay would be a terrible mistake, as it would strengthen the resolve of the terrorists and place more lives at risk. Guantanamo Bay is not a gulag, but it very well may be the key to keeping this nation, nay, the entire world, safe.

(Hat tip to Dictionary.com for the definition for the title)

UPDATE 6/17/05 6 AM: Michelle Malkin covers the treason of Dick Durbin. Its a good read.

Around the Horn

Many blogs and news outlets abuzz today, I'll touch briefly on a few.

- My call for the Lt. Gov. to go to the Democrats this year could be very off. Knowing little about Leslie Byrne, I made a prediction that Kilgore will win with Ms. Byrne to be his second, but it seems that a number of liberals are concerned that she can't win (which doesn't help when them with Tim Kaine not generating a lot of excitement either) as reported by John Behan. Could this be a hint for what comes in November?

- There are some twisted people out there. John Hawkins notes how some at Democratic Underground are taking great pleasure at humiliating Republicans, then bashing them behind their backs. My biggest question: what kind of idiot goes around telling people that he hoped that they voted a certain way?

- If you thought the last bullet was sad, then you will no doubt find this absolutely disgusting. I won't go into details here, but let's just say that it only makes me more pro-life (though one would wonder if I could go any further in that direction).

- On a lighter note, I was amazed what a Google search turned up. The Bodo's on the Corner was originally slated to open on the Corner within a year of this article; it fell a day shy of a decade after it was published.

- Back to the serious, apparently, 9/11 is not important enough to have a focus on it. With the plans for the new World Trade Center, people want the memorial to include other atrocities that have occurred. While I am sympathetic to those hurt by the ignorant and the despotic, this memorial should be dedicated to the 3000 lives lost on that ironically warm and sunny day. Sissy Willis of sisu (of Cotillion) writes a very good piece defending the need for a focused memorial. She also points to a new blog which will fight for this, Take Back The Memorial.

This image will remain in the sidebar until the changes take effect.

- And finally, on the topic of the Michael Jackson case, I understand that the jury had to follow strict court rules in making its decision, but it was entirely inappropriate for the jurors to call into question the motive of the mother. Yes, she was selfish (and greatly harmed the prosecution's arguments by being demanding and pushy), but if her claims were true, then the jury did a great disservice to justice.

Though, seeing some of the wackos outside the courtroom, I wonder if Michael Jackson is the one we really need to fear in this case. (Note: I suggest a PG-13 rating for this link).

With all the faulty comparisons made between Republicans and Hitler...

is there any surprise that the media would put up a picture of President Bush that will be used in the future to portray him as a despot? I can hear the liberals, already defending the media over this. But photographers take dozens, if not hundreds, of shots at events like this. Certainly, they could've have picked one that didn't hold a similar, but coincidental, pose to Hitler.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

And the Republican candidates for Virginia in '05 are...

It appears that my endorsements made it through. This is not a surprise (and not because of egotism) as these candidates were the more conservative or better known candidates. For Governor, former AG Jerry Kilgore (R) will challenge Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine (D) and Russ Potts (I). For Lieutenant Governor, Bill Bolling (R) will take on Leslie Byrne (D). For Attorney General, Bob McDonnell (R) will take on Creigh Deeds (D).

Early prediction: Russ Potts will show himself to be more liberal than conservative, hurting Tim Kaine and ensuring a win for Jerry Kilgore. Pushing a balance in Richmond, swing voters will give Leslie Byrne the win for the number two spot. And again, the red staters of Virginia will trust a conservative to hold criminal accountable, giving the AG spot to Bob McDonnell.

Of course, the Red Stater will be hard at work helping to make sure that this red state sees a clean sweep.

And the blogroll grows...

Apparently, I have neglected the "Next Blog>>" link at the top right of each of the Blogger blogs. This doesn't seem to be holding true for others. Two more blogs can be added to roll.

The first is Our Way of Life. After reading a few posts, I can say with confidence that this is an excellent blog that could go far. Zach (no relation to Old Zach) focuses on illegal immigration, and recognizes why it includes the word "illegal". Still a relatively new blog, but it reads as though it were very seasoned. Go ahead and immigrate on over, that is certainly not illegal.

The second is a personal blog (which, once again, brings about the need for a new section, this one covering only Personal blogs; political blogs that double as personal blogs will maintain their positions in the Allies and Blue Staters lists) by Paper Merc called the paper mercenary. Certainly proves my first point. This blog is very different from others I have linked to so far. It has been around for about six months, and covers the everyday life of Paper Merc. Probably not appropriate for kids under 13 (who probably should not have too much free roam on the internet to begin with, but that is another story), as there is some language and drunk posting (John Hawkins says not to post mad, I would suggest adding "or drunk" to that suggestion). Still, it is a fairly interesting read, certainly giving some insight into the lives of many college students (though I suspect many readers of this blog are fairly familiar with that anyway).

Also, I'm updating the This Blog's Purpose link. Just for fair warning, I will retain the rights to publish any e-mail sent to me. This is not a privelege that I would abuse, but a right I believe I am reserved (and no, there has been no event that lead to this decision, it is just a change I have been meaning to add). So, watch your e-mails, because they can be used against you!

My endorsements for the 2005 Virginia Republican Primary

I know I just posted the little bit about the direction of this blog, but being from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, this topic is of the utmost importance.

Like many other Virginia bloggers, I have been racking my brain for weeks over who to vote for in tomorrow's primary. This was a very difficult decision, coming down to a near last-minute decision. I can honestly say I would vote for any of these candidates, but these are the three that I believe should be in office.

Attorney General: Bob McDonnell. This pick was the hardest one. In the end, I have to say that I was not pleased with Steve Baril's negative tactics (though I will argue that McDonnell needs to better counter the attacks than by staving off the subjects).

Lieutenant Governor: Bill Bolling. I know I just said that I distrust negative politics, but Connaughton also can't claim innocence in his political tactics either. Also, Sean Connaughton got an endorsement from the Daily Press; if the media believes that bringing in a less conservative candidate is the only way that "Republicans will be sending a message that they're serious about campaigning and governing on a responsible approach to balanced government", then looking other options is the far wiser move.

Governor: I guess this is the easy one to guess. While George Fitch has made a valiant effort and appears to be a great conservative, I have to go with Jerry Kilgore. He also holds these qualities; his advantage comes from simple name recognition. I think Fitch would have made an excellent candidate for Lieutenant Governor or Attorney General, but Kaine holds an immediate advantage on Fitch, meaning an uphill battle the whole way. With Jerry Kilgore running, the name recognition factor is taken out completely.

Note that this is only my endorsements for tomorrow. Should any of the races fall for the opponent, I will put my full support behind that candidate. Because, as the late Ronald Reagan once said, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

Charlottesville Blog list

Waldo Jaquith has just started a new blog aggregator from his local news blog, cvillenews.com. Waldo was kind enough to add me to the list, one which includes a number of political blogs (such as Drunk on Democracy; geez, I've been linking a lot of non-conservative blogs recently), as well as a variety of other topics including podcasting and weight loss. Give it a look, Waldo will likely be adding some more blogs, and linking to it from cvillenews.com, so it should grow fast (hopefully, I won't be the only conservative blogger on there for too long!).

A new section in the sidebar will be created for blog aggregators at some point in the future, which will include this link. For the time being, the current link on this post will be it as Waldo is also holding off from posting it to cvillenews.com. If I get an indication otherwise, it will be added sooner.

This Blog's Purpose

During three months of exploring this blog and over 110 posts (as of 6/10/05), I have been trying to come up with a more specific direction to take this blog. While I don't want to restrict its scope by limiting it to only a couple topics, giving it more of a focus will allow this blog to have its own character. Commonwealth Conservative and Sic Semper Tyrannis both focus on Virginia politics, Academic Bias focuses on the anti-conservative sentiment on college campuses, and The Abysmal Kingdom of Mike (remember, reading the opposition means you can understand them better!) connects art and liberal tenets.

Well, this blog, originally thought up as a conservative blog with no direction, has naturally found a focus (thankfully, it is closely related to the name of the blog). The Red Stater is a blog that, like stated in the title box at the top, aims to show the disconnect between liberal elites (including politicians, the MSM, and fanatics like Michael Moore) and the rest of America. Though it irritates me to no end that some people consider themselves "moderate" (What is a moderate? One moderate could disagree on every political topic with another), America as a whole shows a trend more towards the center (actually, slightly right-of-center, but hardly partisan to one side or the other). While I am very much a conservative, I will analyze specific instances where liberals isolate all but the most Democratic members of the country, much as I have done since March of this year.

I will also gear this blog towards anyone. There are some very intelligently written blogs (such as The Jaded JD), but these are not always easily read, particularly when they cover items that many people are not familiar with. I do not intend to criticize these blogs, as they serve a specific purpose. I aim to make this blog accessible (though not necessarily agreeable) to everyone.

I do hope to continue to grow, and I would also like to cover other topics, from time to time, but these are not my primary goals at the moment. I will not ignore those who have spent time at this blog, and I certainly don't want to deviate so far off of this purpose that this becomes something completely different.

This post will be given a permanant link with on the sidebar (About This Blog will be changed to About CR UVa, as that will be more accurate), so that it will remain easily accessible.

UPDATE 6/13/05 10:40 PM: Just for fair warning, I will retain the rights to publish any e-mail sent to me. This is not a privelege that I would abuse, but a right I believe I am reserved. So, watch your e-mails, because they can be used against you!

Howard Dean: At least he's consistent

A year ago, most people thought that Howard Dean would be nothing more than a small bookmark in the history of the Democratic Party, noted by his fanatical scream after losing the Iowa Primary in 2004. But with his rise to the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean now may leave a bigger mark in future textbooks, and it seems unlikely that it will be a positive one.

Howard Dean was hailed as the man to save the Democrats after taking a hard loss, but it was no secret that those on the right were just as ecstatic; conservatives must be psychics. While energizing the base, he has failed to gain moderate voters, driven away some contributers, and even fallen far behind the GOP in terms of raising funds. Of course, there are Howard Dean's many "enlightened" musings, which include "[most Republicans] never made an honest living in their lives" and "t's pretty much a white Christian party".

So, how do Republicans respond? Conservatives have every right to be outraged at the idiotic things that have come out of Howard Dean's mouth. He has libeled the entire party and hypocritically placed stereotypes there as well. If RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman said such things about the Democrats, they would be up in arms ready to fight such terrible charges.

Ken Mehlman responded by greeting the Republican Jewish Coalition with the following.

Good afternoon, my fellow white Christians.

The first response is a joke. Mehlman criticizes Dean for using such a tactic and states that Howard Dean should not wait to get a response in kind. This is the appropriate (and truthful) answer, one that will be attractive both to strong conservatives and moderates. With a lot of momentum from 2005, and no slowing in sight, Howard Dean remaining the chair of the DNC could greatly aid the Republican party in the 2006 mid-term elections.

And somehow, I think the Democrats sense this as well.

Another reason to miss C'ville

The legend will finally be coming to an end.

The Bodo's, located on The Corner, will finally open after more than a decade.

Sorry John, looks like you graduated a bit too early.

Quick rundown

There is a ton going on, so I'm going to run through a few of the more important topics.

- Liberals calling Bush an idiot sounds silly when one remembers that President Bush beat the Democrats in two elections. However, it has just become far harder to argue. John Behan at Commonwealth Conservative and John Hawkins of Right Wing News both cover this finding. It is interesting to find that John Kerry got generally low grades, comparable to President Bush's (a point lower in fact). Makes it a bit harder to argue that the president is "dumb" (though John posts a picture of John Kerry, and it is hard to fight the argument that he is pretty ugly).

- Michelle Malkin covers eco-terrorism. Groups like ALF and ELF not only cause the same sort of damage as Neo-Nazis and gangs, but actually find apologists in a number of liberals, a bit frightening.

- Simple foolishness from some Chinese citizens. Inflicting injury on one's self for a benefit seems counterintuitive, or out of the problems of anorexia and bulimia. However, this makes eating disorders look like a scraped knee.

- Today's Day By Day runs in the same vein as my post from yesterday, and is pretty funny (though all of Chris Muir's work is).

- Only 88 days left until the beginning of the UVa football season, here is the schedule.

Missing Grounds

Fortunately, the summer is moving fast. I'll be back in Charlottesville soon, I just have to keep telling myself that.

And I thought Howard Dean wouldn't shut up.

Hillary Clinton claims that "There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda" than that of George W. Bush. Senator Clinton has quite a short memory span, doesn't she? But I digress.

Like Howard Dean in recent weeks, Clinton put her foot in her mouth and (hypocritically) went on a bash-fest of the Republicans. While uniting the Democratic base, she also angers and motivates many Republicans. These attacks also serve to isolate self-described moderates. Clinton has tried to make herself out to be more moderate, possibly for a 2008 White House run, but her nature will keep bringing her back to her liberal leanings, and this will make it impossible for another Clinton to get in the White House, unless, of course, Chelsea decides to run in 2024.

One year.

Today marks the one year anniversary of the death of Ronald Wilson Reagan. Reagan was and is a role model for the modern conservative, and was a great loss. The Gipper, coming from Hollywood (which ran far left even then) found that he disagreed with his peers there. Communism had captured LA, but not Reagan. In the following decades, he would become the governor of California, then take the presidency with unprecedented popularity. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, the economy greatly improved in the 1980's and the Cold War was won by the United States (if the Cold War had led to a real war, the lives of billions could have been placed at risk). We miss you Ron; thank you for everything.

Republicans, line up on the right. Democrats, line up at center.

I can't say that I agree with the Virginia Centrist too often (I personally question the meaning of "moderate" in particular), but his recent post is very accurate. Virginia Centrist notes that Democrats do best in elections where the candidate is perceived as a moderate, but Republicans can win with (and generally seem to be more successful running) conservatives.

He also notes that Mickey Kaus says the same thing. I hope that this is fairly obvious to most Republicans, because I really do not like the prospect of a John McCain presidency.

Is that a face in your food?

Just a hint towards my protestant side: what is up with this recent surge of people seeing Catholic symbols in everyday things? I can understand that people sometimes see things in their food; however, how do they know that they are seeing Jesus in their pasta or Mary on the wall? Last I heard, they've both been dead for 2000 years and Polaroids were not in existence then. I do believe in miracles, but I think these people are trying to hard to find some.

Also to note, whatever they think of these events, this should not be taken to far.

Apparently, Republicans=Hitler

Michelle Malkin posts on the ever increasing number of people comparing conservatives to Adolf Hitler. Beautiful Atrocities has a list that she points out of such comparisons.

Point of common sense: The activists and politicians calling conservatives Hitler are hardly endearing anyone to their point of view. Instead of making Republicans sound like extremists, those making the accusations do instead. But go right ahead; if you want to call a conservative Hitler with little more than a vague example to back it up, I will certainly be glad to rationally explain the opposing viewpoint to those people who recognize how ridiculous the "Hitler" claims are.

19- and 20-year olds in the military in Wisconsin could be of legal drinking age soon

Interesting bill coming through Wisconsin.

I've always been of the opinion that the drinking age should never have been raised to 18 (if you have not attended a college since the age was raised to 21, you'll see that the law is often broken). I personally believe that a lower drinking age would greatly reduce the number of deaths by alcohol (whether high BAC or in an accident), but that is just me. With children trying alcohol at ever dropping ages, it hardly seems likely that a lower legal age would increase intake by minors as well. Of course, we could also use the argument that standard military gear, a car, and even a single vote could be far more dangerous than a drink, but I believe that a good education when it comes to having a drink should come from home. A parent teaching their child to respect alcohol could be very effective.

Perhaps Evan would be interested in this...

Fox News reports on a Brooklyn College professor who has made some outrageous claims on members of organized religion. Certainly Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other religions are imperfect, and there are certainly members of each group who believe in extreme tactics in spreading their beliefs, but calling "religious adherents...an ugly, violent lot" generalizes many people into a group of villians.

Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about this situation. Professor Shortell has the right to say the things he did, and forcing him from his job for saying something insulting violates his Constitutional rights. What this does call for is a watchdog approach for Shortell. His students need to be aware of instances where Shortell acts intolerantly towards students of faith, and report them (I would advise against egging the professor on, it might prove devastating to one's grades and might not be effective).

Still, in this "tolerant" society, it is amazing what isn't tolerated.