Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Truth in Advertizing

Captain Ed of the Captain's Quarters presents the evidence:
Conservatives support George Bush because of his leadership and his willingness to fight enemies of the US wherever they are, rather than the appeasement and limp, ineffective sanctions in which previous administrations of both parties indulged. We also support him and the GOP because we understand that the Democrats would be much worse on all counts, especially the Democrats we see today.

If Dionne laments the decline of the Rockefeller Republicans, what about the near-extinction of the Scoop Jackson Democrats? Joe Lieberman is a pariah in his own party for acknowledging that terrorists have declared war on the US and we have to defend ourselves. Sam Nunn retired. Who was the last real expert from the Democrats on military affairs? Even Bill Clinton had to pick a Republican to run the Department of Defense to have any credibility. Instead of moving towards the center, the Democrats have run for the leftmost fringe in politics, chasing after the money that MoveOn and George Soros provides. Now we have leaders such as Russ Feingold, who proposes to censure or impeach a president during wartime for intercepting messages from suspected agents of the enemy attempting to communicate with people inside the country, a program that many liberal legal scholars consider within his authority and similar to actions taken by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter during peacetime.

When Hillary Clinton is considered the conservative Democratic candidate for president, then the Democrats have moved so far to the left that lamenting the loss of moderation in the GOP looks more like projection.

Dionne's point about the increasing migration of conservatives to the GOP and mine about the leftward migration of the Democrats describes a transition in American politics that has been a long time in coming. In this age of mass communication, we have finally begun to change the political parties from sheer electoral machines to actual ideological havens. It provides a manner for American voters to clearly understand what their vote supports in national terms in a way that perhaps didn't exist thirty years ago. That may not be a bad idea. (Emphasis mine)
It's certainly better for the voters to know precisely who or what they're voting for. Every enraged howl from Howard Dean or sputtering scream from Al Gore demonstrates what the left side of the aisle typically orders these days. The same can be said for the Delays and the Frists on the right.

The trouble is: who's representing Joe and Jane sixpack? Who stands for the everymen?

Who's looking to represent middle America?

Whoa! Listen to those crickets chirp.

Those willing to import Sweden's tax code on behalf of every Utopian cause that comes their way, take this simple test. Drive to my fine place of employment every day. See how long you car lasts. Exactly why should I trust a government that increases it's grasp on my salary when I don't even have decent, pot-hole free highways to drive upon? I thought Federal Highway funds make it to the state. And when someone can explain to me how small towns in Wisconsin are deemed more credible threats for terrorists than post 9-11 NYC, please let me know. Then I may accept the ridiculous percentage of Homeland Security funds small towns in the midwest received, and NYC's relative paupicity of needed funds.

As for the Darwinian-Jungle-society enthusiasts, ask yourself this question. Exactly how many days would you like your elderly parents to go without food so they can afford life-sustaining medications? Hard-working men and women that raised their families now face existential crises simply because they can't afford the cost of their own medicines. Is trying to provide some means for them to do so such an outrageous reach by the government for the people?

It beats spending $200 million on a bridge to an Alaskan island town--with a population of 50 that enjoy a ferry service!

The extremists in both parties--though definately more so in the Democrats for the moment--accrue more financial and public relations power every day. The voters more clearly can see the true colors of the candidates. The trouble is that the candidates don't look too pretty in any of them.