Friday, September 6, 2013

Tim Stanley of The Telegraph and Bill Barker of Usually Right agree... Matt Drudge is right!



We also agree that Rand Paul is a good man - potentially a great man... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor (along with that ass John McCain and his "mini-McCain" Lindsey Graham)... suck.


Well, we always knew the Democrat leadership would fall in behind the Prez on Syria – and Nancy Pelosi led the pack.

Speaking yesterday she made the standard humanitarian case for intervention but then added her own cute spin. Nancy told us that she asked her 5-year old grandson if he thought America should go to war. “No!” he replied, so...

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

...she gave him a lesson in the importance of deterring the use of chemical weapons.

(There are two things to take away from that surreal anecdote. A) Nancy discusses foreign policy with 5-year olds. B) They know more about it than her.)

But it turns out that the GOP leadership is supporting Barack Obama, too. Sigh.

DID TIM STEAL THAT "SIGH" FROM YOURS TRULY? I DON'T KNOW, FOLKS...

(*GRIN*)

We might have always expected John McCain (“Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and Lindsey Graham (Republican By Rumor Only) to come out strongly for war, but it’s disappointing to note that John Boehner and Eric Cantor were quick to follow.

I... HATE... JOHN... BOEHNER...

(AND JOHN MCCAIN... AND LINDSEY GRAHAM... AND ERIC CANTOR...)

(*CLENCHED JAW*)

At least these gung-ho Americans are all being honest about the realities of intervention.

While British hawks constantly assert that this is "only about chemical weapons," Obama said as he met with congressional leaders: “We have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition.” So war leading to regime change, then –something that the Republican leadership is apparently very comfortable with.

(So comfortable that John McCain was caught playing an iPhone game during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing into Syria.)

THE OLD BASTARD IS SENILE; I'M CONVINCED OF IT.

(What with Nancy asking 5-year olds their views and John playing 5-year olds’ games, American politics isn’t looking terribly mature right now.)

I WOULD HOWEVER SUPPORT MORE AMERICAN POLITICIANS PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE! (SENATOR MCCAIN... SURELY YOU OWN A PISTOL OR TWO OR THREE...)

In his frustration, conservative guru Matt Drudge posted some angry tweets. First: “It’s now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between parties.” And then (I don’t know if he drinks, but this feels about the fifth beer in), “Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!”

UNFORTUNATELY... DRUDGE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. THEY'RE SCUM - AT LEAST MOST REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. ARE THE DEMS WORSE? YES! SURE! BUT IN THE END... WHEN WE'RE TALKING BETWEEN 90% SCUM AND MAYBE 98% SCUM... DOES IT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

FOLKS... RECALL... THE GOP HOUSE CAUCUS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED BOEHNER SPEAKER AND RE-ELECTED HIM SPEAKER. MOST OF THESE SAME SCUM WERE ALSO SUPPORTERS OF ROMNEY DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES... AND SUPPORTERS OF MCCAIN IN THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY PRIOR TO LAST YEAR'S!

Who indeed? Drudge makes an interesting point that although the Left spent the 2012 election accusing the Republicans of being extremists, since then the GOP leadership has tied itself to a big government consensus on both civil liberties and war.

(*NOD*)

Things are looking uncertain on the question of defunding ObamaCare, too.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

So if the parties are agreed on fundamental questions about state power and constitutional rights, who does offer an alternative?

THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. NOT UNLESS THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS OF THE LIBERTARIAN-LEANING CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUTIONIST MOVEMENT BAND TOGETHER AND CREATE A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH REPUBLICANS LIKE MYSELF CAN "FIRE" INCOMBENT RINO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE BY REPLACING THEM AS CANDIDATES WITH - FOR WANT OF ANOTHER TERM - "TEA PARTY CANDIDATES."

[A]n example of the kind of thing that principled conservatives can do when they put their minds to it was shown by Rand Paul yesterday in his grilling of John Kerry.

Paul asked Kerry if the President would respect Congress’ verdict if it voted intervention down.

Kerry basically replied, “Maybe not”, arguing that it was still within the President’s power to act.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

There were also some fascinating skirmishes over the paradox of Kerry opposing war in Cambodia in the 1970s but backing it in Libya and Syria, climaxing in a spat over whether or not "limited" military action is equivalent to saying, "We're in it, but we don't want to win it."

Paul beat Kerry on almost every point – and not with the force of his somewhat clinical personality. It was because he kept referring to the Constitution and the proper powers of Congress.

While other politicians were falling over themselves to make emotional appeals and invoke conversations with their grandchildren, Paul was sticking to logic and the law. It's refreshing.

GOD... DAMN... RIGHT...!!!

So Drudge is right: the GOP’s leadership is lacking both a moral core and a message at the moment.

FORGET "AT THE MOMENT;" UNFORTUNATELY... WE'RE TALKING THE NORM.

Americans basically face a choice between two strands of big government thinking – one welfare orientated (Dems) and one warfare orientated (Republicans).

ONLY NOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING FOR BOTH GUNS AND BUTTER... FOR WELFARE AND WARFARE!

But there is cause to hope. Although Obama scored a short-term win by throwing the question of war open to Congress and thus exposing the divisions within the GOP, this has also given conservatives the opportunity to debate philosophy and what being a Republican actually means.

AND MEN LIKE RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZ HAVE BEEN DOING SO... BUT THE SAD FACT IS THAT YOUR AVERAGE REPUBLICAN IN ELECTED OFFICE IS CLOSER TO A "BOEHNER REPUBLICAN" THAN A "BARKER REPUBLICAN."

Now they can sort the men of the establishment from the men of conscience (and women – see Sarah Palin’s predictably robust case for staying out of Syria) and maybe throw up a few presidential contenders in the process. The Constitution isn't beaten yet.

No comments: