Yes, we damn well can

Yes, we can. We can put America-centrism behind us. We can celebrate the fact that our new President gave his first TV interview to an Arab network. We can stop dictating and start listening, as President Obama told the Arabs we need to do. Yes, we can. We can listen to “the Arab street” (I hate that term so much, I can’t begin to tell you) and make sure we don’t do anything they interpret as “dictating.” Yes, we can. We can make those who think the only good Jew is a dead Jew think we are weak, pathetic losers who don’t understand power politics. We can embolden those who want to blow up more or our buildings and planes by assuring them that we won’t let the big, bad FBI types listen to their cell phone calls, and if we somehow do manage to arrest them even without surveillance, we won’t let the even badder CIA types be mean to them during interrogation. Yes, we can.

I watched an inane man-on-the-street interview on CNN tonight with a young Saudi couple who thought Obama’s interview was just swell. Plenty of pro-Obama platitudes from both the man and his wife, who was wrapped from head to toe in black cloth with only her eyes showing. The reporter said both husband and wife were young and well-educated, and they both spoke slightly accented but very good English. And yet there she was, wrapped up like a black mummy because as we all know, women showing their noses and ankles is a dangerous abomination in the eyes of God.

It made me think of a post from the Anchoress (with whose opinion on all three outfits I agree 100%) on Michelle Obama’s inauguration outfits. President Obama and all the other leftists who think we should listen more and dictate less have got to know that “the Arab street” thinks the First Lady is a whore for baring her shoulders and ought to be wrapped up in a black sheet like a decent woman — and her mouth shut too, along with all us other brazen American broads who don’t know our place.

Well guess what, Mr. Arab Street? Even if we do listen more and dictate less, and you bastards work up the nerve to try another round of 9/11 on us, the pendulum will swing back the other way, and even the Obama Mamas (who have no interest in trading their low-rise jeans in for burqas) will be calling for less listening and more dictating. We Americans can be pretty complacent and pretty stupid when we don’t feel threatened, and right now most of us feel pretty safe after seven years of George W. Bush keeping us that way. But if things turn ugly, we can find our courage and our brains again. Yes, we can. We damn well can.

Comments 58

  1. MIT Mommy wrote:

    Oh, you always try to pull out the un-diplomatic side of me (which is why I enjoy reading your articles). I certainly would love it if someone was so charismatic and politically savvy that he (or she?) could convince the world we mean well, we do want them to keep their values (as long as it does not oppress others) and still maintain safety. I certainly agree that it is tricky to send that message if it accompanies the habit of oppressing others ourselves. But, sending mixed, wishy-washy, messages is equally harmful.

    Unfortunately, I have also more than once had to explain to my children that, although they are learning to share and consider the feelings of others as early as preschool, many adults have not learned those lessons in the same way.

    But, until people look for their God in their hearts (instead of in particular realestate), we are likely to see many of these problems perpetuated. Really, I would like some leaders of nations to explain that to my six year old while maintaining a mature level of diplomacy. (Are there Nobel Peace Prizes for motherhood?)

    Of course, reducing the ability of the Middle East to perpetuate longstanding problems by reducing their ability to raise money with oil, is one of many first steps. That doesn’t really solve the problem, it merely reduces their ability to make expensive, unfortunate decisions. People would still be hurting each other with cheap weapons.

    Ah, yes, great topic. Must go get my son. This will have to go unproofread, so forgive any oddities.

    Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 12:57 pm
  2. Julia wrote:

    Agree on all points, including the dresses, and MIT Mommy’s point about reducing dependence on oil, which seems much less likely since we elected someone who doesn’t think we should drill for it at home.

    Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 2:34 pm
  3. Disgrunted Female wrote:

    Another good post. I was hoping you’d bring this topic up. When I saw his interview mentioned on Drudge I almost choked on my morning coffee.
    I’m not very eloquent at this hour, so I will simply state this fact: We. Are. Screwed.
    I know, being negative is not a very good “Yes We Can!” attitude to have. *snork*

    Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 4:57 pm
  4. Foxfier wrote:

    DF-
    I pray you’re wrong, I fear you’re right.

    Posted 28 Jan 2009 at 5:31 pm
  5. Rob Kerns wrote:

    Well stated. I was getting weary of hearing about your fun and sun-filled visit to California while I freeze my tail off in Colorado.

    Posted 29 Jan 2009 at 11:31 pm
  6. Dan wrote:

    I think its a bit over the top to pretend that the “Arab Street” is responsible for 9/11. That’s the equivalent of blaming the average New Yorker (or Santa Fean if you prefer) for the invasion of Iraq.

    Without putting words in your mouth your post read to me like you were blaming the entirety of the “Arab Street” for the actions of Al Qaeda. This makes little more sense than blaming the “Caucasian Street” for the actions of Timothy McVeigh.

    I agree that women are oppressed in many parts of the muslim world – but its worth bearing in mind that in much of Europe they’re just as contemptuous of the US’s treatment of homosexuals. The connection of course is that both treatments are based entirely on religion and ignore logic and reason completely.

    Finally, if Bush gets credit for “keeping us safe” for seven years (at the cost of $3 Trillion, 5000 US Military Dead, and 25000 US Military maimed) does it follow that Bush is also responsible for failing to protect us on 9/11?

    Posted 30 Jan 2009 at 4:43 pm
  7. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Rob, if it makes you feel any better, I’m back in Santa Fe wearing heavy jackets again.

    Dan, nice to have you back telling me how wrong I am about everything. I thought maybe you’d found another right wing blogger to re-educate.

    Posted 30 Jan 2009 at 9:59 pm
  8. Dan wrote:

    At one time you told me you enjoyed having debates with me but if that’s no longer the case I’ll be happy to stop posting.

    Posted 30 Jan 2009 at 10:13 pm
  9. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Intended as good-natured banter. I must be losing my touch if people can’t tell.

    Posted 01 Feb 2009 at 5:22 am
  10. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Europe they’re just as contemptuous of the US’s treatment of homosexuals”

    What are you talking about? Women don’t hold political office in the “Arab Street”. Women get stonned to death if they get raped. Homosexuals are a special, protected class in the US.

    Your revisionism is quite laughable given the tremendous status many homosexuals enjoy in the US.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 12:43 am
  11. Dan wrote:

    The degree to which Homosexuals are oppressed in the US is of course less than women are oppressed in much of the Muslim world, but that’s really beside the point.

    Homosexuals do not have all the rights of Heterosexuals in 49 US States. The reasons for withholding those rights are purely religious.

    I think you might want to research which countries do and don’t engage in the more extreme forms of female oppression. Some of those that do aren’t primarily Arab and some of those that don’t are. Arab isn’t a religion.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 3:31 pm
  12. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    “Homosexuals do not have all the rights of Heterosexuals in 49 US States.”

    Le Sigh. I presume you mean the marriage mess.

    Info to you: Marriage is not a Right. Never has been, never will be. It is a Privelege. Get it right.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 4:01 pm
  13. Dan wrote:

    A privilege granted by whom, exactly? God? The government? The tyranny of the majority? On what basis is this privilege granted? To what purpose?

    Under what framework does the US Government grant additional perks to married couples via tax breaks etc than it does to unmarried couples, regardless of orientation?

    Who exactly is it that thinks that allowing homosexuals to marry somehow threatens their heterosexual marriage? Why?

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 5:59 pm
  14. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Homosexuals do not have all the rights of Heterosexuals in 49 US States. The reasons for withholding those rights are purely religious.”

    Sorry Dan, that is just the will of the MAJORITY exrpessing their desire to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

    No where, I repeat no where in the constitution does it give anyone the right to marry.

    It’s just like the “right to privacy”-it doesn’t exist.

    Sorry that once again the facts of life intrude on your delusional world view.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 6:52 pm
  15. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “The degree to which Homosexuals are oppressed in the US is of course less than women are oppressed in much of the Muslim world, but that’s really beside the point.”

    If it’s besides the point, why did you bring it up?

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 6:53 pm
  16. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    “The tyranny of the majority?”

    This is rich. Welcome to the US, Dan. We do things by vote here. If a majority thinks something, chances are it will come to pass. Like Obama becoming president, for example.

    If a majority suddenly decided “Hey, we don’t think there’s anything wrong with prostitution”, then chances are prostitution would become legal, because that majority would vote to repeal the laws prohibiting it. Same thing with any regulation, any law, any priveledge… and heck the way some things in politics are turning now, any Constitutionally-granted right could even be repealed by something as simple as a majority deciding “We don’t agree with this anymore.”

    The reasons that majority votes the way they do are many, varied, and above all unimportant, what is important is that the people have spoken and the majority have said no. You want this to change? Stop railing about the government needing to step in and bend things against the will of the majority of its people – and coming in and placing a mandate that countermands the will of that majority as expressed by their votes in the election is nothing BUT bending them to your will – and start trying to convince the majority to agree to your point of view.

    Will you convince people who are part of that majority and base that choice on their religious beliefs? Unlikely. But there are some who are not religious people who still voted against that. If you can make a good case, they’re likely to change their minds. Will it be enough to shift the majority from our POV to yours? The only way we’ll know is the next time this issue comes up for a vote.

    The only “tyranny” here is your suggestion that the government or other ruling body needs to come in and squash the expressed desire of the majority of its people – as demonstrated by the votes – to make things go your way.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 8:00 pm
  17. Dan wrote:

    The US government was specifically designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority Grue. Without those measures designed in women would have never gotten the vote, nor would any males who weren’t white and land-owning.

    I’m not even sure why you latched on to this particular phrase instead of answering any of my questions.

    Let me ask this another way: it what way does allowing homosexuals to marry hurt anyone else?

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 8:29 pm
  18. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Let me ask this another way: it what way does allowing homosexuals to marry hurt anyone else?”

    It goes against the cultural norms of society. Kind of like full-fledged porn isn’t allowed on TV, although you Dan would make the argument that the rights of the minority, those who want to watch porn during the family hour, are being stomped on by the “Religious majority”.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 10:29 pm
  19. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Well said, Grue. I don’t always like the opinion of the majority, but I accept it, because that’s the democratic process.

    How, may I ask, Dan, does female suffrage negate what Grue said? Women got the vote once most people (or most Congressmen, who represented the people) were of the opinion that they should have it. The 19th A would not have come to pass in 1820 because the majority of the country wasn’t ready for it yet, whereas in 1920 it was.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 11:22 pm
  20. Brigette Russell wrote:

    “The degree to which Homosexuals are oppressed in the US is of course less than women are oppressed in much of the Muslim world, but that’s really beside the point.”

    If it’s besides the point, why did you bring it up?

    Game, set, match.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 11:25 pm
  21. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    How, may I ask, Dan, does female suffrage negate what Grue said? Women got the vote once most people (or most Congressmen, who represented the people) were of the opinion that they should have it. The 19th A would not have come to pass in 1820 because the majority of the country wasn’t ready for it yet, whereas in 1920 it was.
    Same goes for expanding the priveledge to vote to any other category to whom it was previously limited – blacks and non-property owners (though I’m not exactly sure this last was a bright idea).

    And if the majority in the future deems it appropriate – even if people such as myself and Bridgette and other conservatives think it a poor chocie – then that priveledge may be extended to illegal immigrants and/or other currently-restricted groups. The voting age might be adjusted. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

    I’m not even sure why you latched on to this particular phrase instead of answering any of my questions.
    One, I did answer a question. “A privilege granted by whom, exactly?” You then listed several suggestions, I chose the one I thought most appropriate… as well as most ridiculous.

    Two, I post from work. As long as my previous post was, it took a good portion of my lunch hour to write. Were I to take the time to reply to every single question in your post, it would probably consist of several sections of equal length and take at least an hour longer, perhaps more, to complete. Likely you would want links or some other form of support for anything I had to say (or be prepared to rib me for not being able to support my positions should I omit them) so that research would add yet more time to the task. I should like to recieve my paycheck for the week, not to mention future paychecks, and that’s not likely to happen should I be fired. So while I may have time for jumping in with a short comment between slow points or while my software is taking its sweet time loading the files I need, I don’t have time for long discourses such as the previous and this unless I’m in a time where I’m not expected to be focused on my job.

    That said, the reason I had time for this post was because I was supposed to leave my cube ten minutes ago :P See you all tomorrow.

    Posted 02 Feb 2009 at 11:38 pm
  22. Machinist wrote:

    “The tyranny of the majority?”

    While I strongly disagree with Dan I must also point out that the most important difference between a Democracy, a form of government that has failed as badly as socialism and for the same reasons, and a Republic, is the fact that in a democracy the majority rules and people have no rights. In our Republic we have rule of law. As long as I do not break the law then I can not be imprisoned, even if a majority of people want me to be. My rights are birthrights and are not given by the state. The constitution can be changed, but it takes far more than a majority to do so. The founders were in fact very concerned about “The tyranny of the majority?” and sought to protect the minority from it.

    As for Dan’s assertion that gays don’t have the rights to marry, this is silly. Marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man. Gays have the same right to marry as straights and many do. What he is talking about is changing the definition of marriage to suit their convenience. They are no more discriminated against in this respect than those that would want polygamy, incest or marriage with animals, all of which are allowed in other parts of the world. Not changing a definition of marriage that has been fundamental in our culture for thousands of years in order to accommodate every deviance and preference is NOT denying people equal rights. Gays are free to be married in any church that sanctions such unions but they do not have the right to impose their deviance on others.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 12:19 am
  23. Dan wrote:

    Bowden: “It goes against the cultural norms of society. Kind of like full-fledged porn isn’t allowed on TV, although you Dan would make the argument that the rights of the minority, those who want to watch porn during the family hour, are being stomped on by the “Religious majority”.”

    The cultural norms of society which are based entirely on religion.

    I would make the argument that those who want to watch porn during the family hour should be allowed to do so in the privacy of their own home, which does not necessarily mean that it must be broadcast over public airwaves.

    This is actually a perfect analogy- people watching porn in the privacy of their own home does not affect you or yours, just as Homosexuals getting married to each other does not affect you or yours.

    Tangentially I wonder why it is that people rail against Homosexual weddings for “destroying the sanctity of marriage” while ignoring hasty and doomed hetero marriages like those of Britney Spears and Bristol Palin which are certainly a much bigger mockery of the “sanctity of marriage”.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 4:49 pm
  24. Dan wrote:

    Brigette: “How, may I ask, Dan, does female suffrage negate what Grue said? Women got the vote once most people (or most Congressmen, who represented the people) were of the opinion that they should have it.”

    That’s a pretty skewed representation of reality. They actually got the vote not when most “people” were of the opinion that they should have it. They got it when most voting-eligible citizens – which is to say males – decided they should have it.

    Additionally, if they had gone solely by the will of the people (tyranny of the majority) the reconstruction amendments(13th, 14th, and 15th) would certainly not have been passed in the 1870s and probably would not have been until the 1960s. The Southern states had their legislatures replaced by federal fiat following the Civil War and they were certainly not representative of their voting constituency (white males).

    I don’t think I will ever understand why some people (whether they be on the right or left) think its a good idea to legislate personal behavior people which in no way affects others.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:11 pm
  25. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    The cultural norms of society which are based entirely on religion.

    Then work to change them. Build up your majority. Overwhelm the opposition. That’s how it’s done. Until you can get that far, all you’re doing is whining.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:12 pm
  26. Dan wrote:

    The Machinist: “As for Dan’s assertion that gays don’t have the rights to marry, this is silly. Marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man. Gays have the same right to marry as straights and many do. What he is talking about is changing the definition of marriage to suit their convenience.”

    Does this mean you would be supportive of civil or religious unions between homosexuals with full state and federal marriage benefits as long as it goes by another name and therefore does not tread on your definition of the word “Marriage?” The fact is, as long as the government is granting extra perks to people for their decision to engage in a religious union, it is discriminatory to prevent homosexuals from participating. Nobody (well, that I’m aware of anyway) is demanding that the Catholic Church perform gay marriages if they don’t want to. They’re just demanding that the government recognize gay marriages just as they would recognize a secular heterosexual marriage.

    Also, i would point out to you that polygamy/polyandry, bestiality, and incest are illegal, whereas homosexuality is not.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:19 pm
  27. Dan wrote:

    Grue: “Then work to change them. Build up your majority. Overwhelm the opposition. That’s how it’s done. Until you can get that far, all you’re doing is whining.”

    A majority is not necessary. The Constitution already guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone.

    I’d still like to hear an honest answer as to how allowing homosexuals to marry negatively affects anyone else.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:23 pm
  28. Machinist wrote:

    “The cultural norms of society which are based entirely on religion”

    One could say the same about laws against murder, rape, child molestation, theft, etc. Should we descend into anarchy to avoid religious influence?

    There were laws before Christianity but our law and culture are based on Christian doctrine and values. The founders did not want anyone forced to accept any religious beliefs but they did base our system on these values. I am not religious but I agree with the founders that our civilization can not work or survive without a moral framework. If you remove the Christian framework then where is the next step or stopping point as we slip down the slope? How do we decide where to stop? We should have clear answers before cutting the rope we now hang from.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 5:28 pm
  29. Brigette Russell wrote:

    Also, i would point out to you that polygamy/polyandry, bestiality, and incest are illegal, whereas homosexuality is not.

    Marriage between one man and five women is illegal, but a man is perfectly free to cohabitate and copulate with five women, if he can find that many women to agree to such an arrangement, much as two men are free to cohabitate and copulate but not to contract a legal marriage. I see no difference whatsoever. Same thing for incest. As far as I know, an adult brother and sister aren’t breaking any laws by having sexual intercourse, but the state does not permit them to marry. Bestiality and paedophilia are different, of course, since little boys and German shepherds aren’t consenting adults according to the law.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:02 pm
  30. Dan wrote:

    Machinist: “If you remove the Christian framework then where is the next step or stopping point as we slip down the slope? How do we decide where to stop? We should have clear answers before cutting the rope we now hang from.”

    You’re engaging in the slippery slope fallacy but I’ll respond anyway.

    The difference between moral laws and ethical laws is very clear to me. Actions that negatively affect others are ethical issues. Actions that negatively affect your standing with the God of your choice are moral ones. Murder, rape, and child molestation fall under the first category. Homosexual behavior/marriage falls in the latter.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:08 pm
  31. Grue in the Attic wrote:

    You’re engaging in the slippery slope fallacy but I’ll respond anyway.

    From all I’ve seen in my life, and especially from knowing the Law of Entropy, I have seen few statements more foolish than “slippery slope fallacy“.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:22 pm
  32. Dan wrote:

    Brigette:

    Sibling incest is specifically illegal anywhere in the US and Europe, regardless of marital status. Cousin incest is illegal in most jurisdictions as well, also regardless of marital status.

    Polygamy is an interesting case because the original reason for its outlawing is moral in nature – intolerance by mainstream Christianity of the practice. It is of course in theory an agreement between consenting adults. The problem lies in the fact that in many polygamous (usually religious) communities, underage females are brainwashed or forced into marrying adult males, and adolescent males are forced out of the community to prevent them from competing for females. This is actually the exact same societal behavior we see in many mammals in the wild, particularly Gorillas, Chimps, and other primates closely related to Humans.

    These religious communities try to avoid polygamy laws by not registering their multiple marriages with the government, but nevertheless the government will enforce the polygamy ban and these theoretically unmarried groups when it becomes aware of them.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:24 pm
  33. Dan wrote:

    Grue:

    The slippery slope fallacy is using the argument that if one event occurs, then another event must inevitably occur with no supporting evidence.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:27 pm
  34. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Sibling incest is specifically illegal anywhere in the US and Europe, regardless of marital status. Cousin incest is illegal in most jurisdictions as well, also regardless of marital status.”

    You keep bringing up Europe as if that has any bearing on US law. You do it over and over. Tell you what, if you don’t like our religously oppressive government, why not move to Europe and you can live in complete bliss?

    It’s obvious to most here you’re a terribly unhappy person living in this theocracy we’ve established here in the good old USA.

    You remind me of all the liberals in 2004 who “threatend” to flee to Europe if Bush won the election.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 6:53 pm
  35. Dan wrote:

    Bowden why can’t you ever stay civil? I mentioned both the US and Europe.

    The US isn’t a theocracy and never has been, regardless of how much certain people may wish it was.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 7:16 pm
  36. Machinist wrote:

    Dan, The idea of “steps” is not a religious one but the standard in nature at the fundamental level. A star in it’s normal state in in balance with the energy released at the core balancing the pull of gravity. When the fuel is exhausted it collapses to the point that atoms break down and the collapse continues until the electron clouds are pushed together. This is a natural step and if the mass increases the density remains the same until the pressure at the core exceeds the strength of the electrons and they collapse. This collapse proceeds until the neutrons are in contact. This is stable until the mass is increased until the neutrons collapse and at this point science knows no next step in the process. This is why a black hole is a singularity or point source for gravity. The same step effect applies to subatomic particles. They gain and loss energy in discreet amounts or quanta. If you look at human nature and history I think you see the same step effect. Removing all restraint leaves people in chaos and results in a rush to anarchy. Abortion is an illustration of this. Whether you believe in it or not I don’t think you can deny that once the peoples’ ability to regulate it was taken away by the court it rapidly moved to the extreme position that a baby could be killed while a few inches of it’s head were still inside, for no better reason than the convenience of the mother. The American people have repeatedly indicated that this extreme measure is not approved of but there is almost no way to restrain the process. Now we even have Doctors killing babies that are born alive. To claim the founders intended this kind of thing to be protected in the constitution is unreasonable.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 7:48 pm
  37. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “The American people have repeatedly indicated that this extreme measure is not approved of but there is almost no way to restrain the process”

    I beg to differ. The American people knew full well that the Water Walker was in favor of unlimited abortions and they voted for him overwhelmingly in November. Thus, I don’t think the American public are as opposed to abortion as we are led to believe.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 8:20 pm
  38. Machinist wrote:

    I doubt this was the deciding issue, or do you feel the American people felt differently four years earlier when they elected Bush?

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 8:32 pm
  39. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “I doubt this was the deciding issue, or do you feel the American people felt differently four years earlier when they elected Bush?”

    For women, the overriding issue is the “right” to murder this unborn child in the womb.

    It also explains the massive gains the Dems made in all levels of the government.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:15 pm
  40. Machinist wrote:

    Why was this less of an issue when the Republicans were making massive gains in all levels of government? Reporters were writing about giving Clinton oral sex for saving a woman’s right to choose and Republicans took the House, Senate, and White house. I don’t see the connection of abortion to the latest election, at least in terms of it being some kind of mandate.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:41 pm
  41. Machinist wrote:

    I don’t know that this is a defining issue with all women. Certainly many women are less extreme than this. I have mixed feelings myself. I used to be absolutely pro-abortion. My feelings have changed some in regard to later term babies that would be viable, and especially near term and living babies.

    Posted 03 Feb 2009 at 11:45 pm
  42. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “Why was this less of an issue when the Republicans were making massive gains in all levels of government?”

    Remember, Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 so a Republican really hadn’t been popular until 2004 since 1988.

    The only reason the Republicans made gains in 2002 and 2004 was that they were better on the terrorism issue than the Democrats (not a hard thing to do mind you).

    The majority of women, when exit polled, are for keeping the right to murder their unborn if they choose. Any other poll is useless as the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day.

    Thus Republican electoral gains were based mostly on “fear” of another 9-11. Now that the nation hasn’t suffered another attack since then the Americans are now happy to back to their old ways of hedonism and narcissism.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:14 am
  43. Machinist wrote:

    What were the people afraid of when they voted the house and senate to the Republicans in 1994? The congress repeatedly passed a ban on late term abortion and Clinton vetoed it. Why didn’t they vote the republicans out for threatening the right to choose?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 1:42 am
  44. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “What were the people afraid of when they voted the house and senate to the Republicans in 1994?”

    Three words: Assault Weapons Ban.

    That is why the Republicans won in 1994.

    But still, they have failed in the Presidential elections since 1988. That’s twent years where they’ve only won the popular vote once.

    I submit it was due mostly to women wanting to keep their right to kill their children in the womb.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:36 am
  45. Machinist wrote:

    And the Democrats are not in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban now???

    You say the Republicans have failed in the Presidential elections since 1988? In the last twenty years the Democrats have had the White house for eight and you say the Republicans have failed? You have lost me. These words don’t mean what you think they mean or they don’t mean what I think they mean.

    Clinton won the White house with less than 46% of the vote his first time. Was this failure?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 2:59 am
  46. Machinist wrote:

    Twice the Republicans have swept into power in my memory. They did it by taking principled conservative positions and stating them clearly to the American people. Reagan as President and Newt in 1994.
    Twice I’ve seen Democrats take the Whitehouse and Congress and fail because the Presidents could not keep the childish Congressional legislators in check. Obama’s biggest challenge as a leader will be his ability to ride herd on the Dems in the house and Senate. I doubt he has the character.

    It is very hard to see abortion as a deciding issue in the last thirty four years. Your arguments are not making much sense.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 3:09 am
  47. Bowden Russell wrote:

    And the Democrats are not in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban now???

    Well you wouldn’t know it by the campaign they ran. Obama was stridently in support of the Second Amendment, to hear him say it. He went up and down PA saying how he wasn’t “going to take away our firearms.”

    Suckers.

    You say the Republicans have failed in the Presidential elections since 1988? In the last twenty years the Democrats have had the White house for eight and you say the Republicans have failed?

    Let’s review who had the more popular votes:

    ’92: Bill Clinton
    ’96: Bill Clinton
    ’00: Al Gore
    ’04: George Bush
    ’08: Barack Obama, aka “Water Walker”.

    Five Presidential elections, only one of those elections saw the Republican win the popular vote.

    Given that women make up the majority of voters, and an increasing majority at that, you can safely assume that the pro-death candidate Obama will will handily in 2012, barring some nuclear attack on NYC or something.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:42 am
  48. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Twice the Republicans have swept into power in my memory. They did it by taking principled conservative positions and stating them clearly to the American people. Reagan as President and Newt in 1994.

    Reagan yes, Newt, not so much. He talked a good game, but he also increased the size of government, and in my opinion was a failure from a conservative’s perspective.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:43 am
  49. Machinist wrote:

    The contract with America and the coalition between the leadership and the freshman class was Newt. They took control of the House and Senate for the first time in decades and accomplished significant measures such as the balanced budget and welfare reform. They also got rid of the fly blown 55 MPH speed limit. Thank you!! They also blocked many of Clinton’s moves. It fell apart after two years but Newt deserves much credit. He may not have been my choice as conservative leader but he is so much better than what we have and have had.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:53 am
  50. Dan wrote:

    Gingrich’s downfall was actually twofold:

    First, he lost a great deal of face both with the GOP and the electorate as a whole when he was forced to back down from the confrontation with Clinton over the GOP’s “Government Shutdown” stunt. He began it pretending it was a principled stand against big government but then let slip that it was actually revenge against Clinton for making him and Bob Dole sit in the back of Air Force One on the return leg of a trip to Israel, which completely destroyed his credibility as a principled conservative.

    Second, his moral hypocrisy. He spent a great deal of his time in 1996-1998 excoriating Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife while he himself was having an affair the whole time, divorcing his wife in 2000 to marry his lover. This is a large part of the reason he’s failed thus far in his attempts to regain a leadership in the party, though Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain all showed in 2008 that weak moral character isn’t necessarily a roadblock in the GOP anymore, if it ever was.

    I think Bowden’s reasoning on abortion being the deciding factor is flawed. In the last eight election cycles the GOP has consistently tried to make abortion either a major election issue or *the* paramount issue, while the Democrats have downplayed it. This indicates to me that the political analysts that decide campaign strategy in both parties don’t think that being pro-life is necessarily a winning strategy. You’ll note that despite the number of times the McCain camp tried to get the Obama campaign to talk about abortion, the Obama camp did not engage them.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 4:35 pm
  51. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “They also got rid of the fly blown 55 MPH speed limit. Thank you!! They also blocked many of Clinton’s moves. It fell apart after two years but Newt deserves much credit. He may not have been my choice as conservative leader but he is so much better than what we have and have had.”

    Obviously there is much to be said for Newt, both positive and negative. Like you say, and it is about all you can say in the positive about that period of time that the Reps held sway under Clinton: They got rid of the stupid 55 mph speed limit.

    But that is about all. The Republicans, under Newt caved to Bill Clinton in the 1995 budget debate. They gave him essentiall for the rest of his horrid tenure everything he wanted in the budgets not wanting a repeat of ’95.

    They could have impeached him for selling our national security secrets to China for campaign donations (Google “Loral-Clinton-China”). They had him, but instead they fumbled it by going after him for soliciting oral sex from a federal employee. Yes, since Monic worked under Bill Clinton-no pun intended-it was against Federal Code for him to engage in sexual relations with her. But we all know how that worked out.

    Then Newt embarasses the movement by resigning under his own scandal involving a much younger woman while impeachment proceedings are just getting under way!

    All in all, I’d say he was a negative.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:22 pm
  52. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “I think Bowden’s reasoning on abortion being the deciding factor is flawed.”

    Well given the number of times you have to be corrected or admit you were wrong we’ll take that with a grain of salt.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:23 pm
  53. Dan wrote:

    You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:28 pm
  54. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?”

    We tried that route with you and it failed. Remember?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:34 pm
  55. Brigette Russell wrote:

    I actually don’t think abortion is the deciding factor, and started to explain why but decided to save it as a new blog post draft, which I’ll get around to finishing God knows when.

    As I’ve written before, I think my fellow citizens are in large part shallow sheep with short attention spans, and they’re captivated by charismatic personalities (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) and turned off by dull ones (Dole, Kerry, McCain). Whether those charismatic personalities are Left or Right is secondary to many people who actually boast that they vote for the person, not the party. As though that makes them smart or noble. Good Lord. All it makes them is utterly oblivious to the issues.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:44 pm
  56. Brigette Russell wrote:

    You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?

    Didn’t you know I started this blog so Bowden could have a place to vent his anger and frustration with politics and the other insanities of daily life so he could be pleasant and fun at home with the kids and me? It’s worked like a charm, too! :-)

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:54 pm
  57. Dan wrote:

    Its worth noting that while Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are certainly charismatic personalities, all three won office primarily because of the state that their opposite-party predecessor was leaving the economy in. They all offered optimistic messages of renewal while their opponents essentially offered more of the same.

    The really amazing this is that H W Bush managed to go from an 80+% approval rating in late 1990/early 1991 to a sub 45% approval rating in autumn of 1992 – based almost entirely on the economy and Bush’s seeming disinterest in doing anything about it.

    Re: Bowden I’ve seen the attitude he takes here and in comments on other websites and I’m under the impression that he’s an internet tough guy who’s probably perfectly nice in real life, but I don’t really see any point in responding to him anymore so I won’t be. Maybe he can switch to decaf instead.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:10 pm
  58. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Bowden I’ve seen the attitude he takes here and in comments on other websites and I’m under the impression that he’s an internet tough guy who’s probably perfectly nice in real life, but I don’t really see any point in responding to him anymore so I won’t be. Maybe he can switch to decaf instead.

    Oh poor Dan, Bowden doesn’t roll over for his irrational rants which are filled with half-truths and blatant inaccuracies.

    I see you’ve been googling/stalking me on other websites Dan. You, like Victor Jimenez, appear to have way too much time on your hands.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 5:04 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *