I’ve been pondering a new phrase: pro-reality. I can use it to support opinions that may not line up perfectly with who would become my political base. Or really, I can use it to justify just about any position. It’s a great little tool.

For example, let’s say, “I’m pro-gay marriage.” At this point in time, many Americans are opposed to gay marriage. Now, people will immediately want to discard any other opinions I have simply because they disagree with me on this one issue. Ah, but not so fast, “I’m pro-reality.” Wait, they must be thinking, this is an intriguing turn of phrase and not part of any of the talking points I’ve been trained to ignore. “People don’t choose to be homosexual. It’s biological. So, we’re always going to have homosexual couples.” Yeah, that’s true. That’s right. That’s reality. “We have to deal with this reality.” Exactly what I was thinking! This guy makes sense. I wonder what he’ll say next. “I’m simply in favor of marriage for homosexual couples in order to give them to same legal rights as other married couples have. If one partner dies, we want the other partner to be able to inherit his or her things. It’s unfair any other way.” Hm, yes. That’s true. But I’m still not completely convinced that’s why we should allow gay marriage. “But I understand that some people are against gay marriage.” Hey, this guy understands my position and doesn’t think I’m a bigot. Maybe I will listen to the rest of what he has to say. “That’s why I’m also okay with civil unions.” (That’s the compromise qualifier. There’s also the implied “pro-reality” argument within the last two statements.) “See, all I want is for same-sex couples, a reality we have to deal with, to have the same legal rights as other couples.” That’s good. He doesn’t want to redefine marriage. He doesn’t want to tear down society. “I’m in favor of legal benefits for same-sex couples. I don’t want to redefine marriage. I have no hidden agenda. This is my agenda, and I think it’s fair, and I think it’s consistent with reality.” Oh, so this guy isn’t completely crazy simply because of his position he uttered at the start. I guess it’s okay to support him even though I disagree with him on one issue. In fact, I may be starting to agree with him on the civil unions thing.

I don’t think this was the best example, but you can see the power of the pro-reality argument. When you say you’re pro-reality, you control the facts. Thus, the audience automatically must agree with your premises. Then, you build a logically tight argument that allows for compromise (compromise being an essential component of being pro-reality), and there’s pretty much no conceivable way an opponent can disagree. No, I take that back, they can disagree, but there’s no conceivable way an opponent can paint you as a radical. And see, the way I lay out my argument, there’s no slippery slope for bestiality or polygamy. I was talking about couples. I was talking about reality.

I must add that this is my true position for gay marriage, and I hope I didn’t offend anyone by trying to simulate an opponent’s thoughts. I meant it to be humorous. However, I must add one thing to my argument. I am pro-gay marriage because I think it’s easier to give the legal benefits same-sex couples deserve through marriage, instead of trying to construct the all-new status of “civil union.” But like I said, I’m pro-reality, so I’m not automatically anti-civil union, as long as it provides legal benefits that same-sex couples should have.

I’m not sure exactly how South Dakota’s law banning abortion gets challenged, but if it goes to federal courts, those courts are bound by precedent. They’ll find the law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court most likely won’t listen to it. Issue solved, no new battle lines drawn.

This from the Balitmore Sun: “Cindy Sheehan… was arrested yesterday along with three other women during a demonstration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The march to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations by about a dozen U.S. and Iraqi anti-war activists followed a news conference at U.N. headquarters… Police said the women were charged with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest” [emphasis mine].

A dozen people? That’s all Cindy Sheehan could muster? It’s laughable that the Democrats thought she would reinvigorate their party. All she gets now is a buried little tidbit in the paper.

In related news, Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness.

In case you don’t know your history, the Hartford Convention took place right about the end of the War of 1812 in which America fought Great Britain to a standstill. Anyway, the Hartford Convention was the death of the Federalist party. I suggest you go look it up.

What I’m saying right now isn’t that there is one occuring right now. I’m saying we might be looking at something very similar in the future.

Let’s first look at the possibility that there may be such an event. We have the Republican “Contract With America” in 1994 that led to Republican power today. The Democrats want to imitate that. They want a strong national image, an alternative to the Republicans that they’ve been searching for. They have “said that they were planning to offer their own version by summer.“

I’m saying we could be looking not at a new Contract With America, but a new Hartford Convention. Could. Not will be. It’s not assured by any means or even highly likely. Still, I can’t help shaking this feeling. If you want to know why, read on…

First off, the Democrats are bungling, inept, and have some questionable choices for leadership. (Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean come quickly to mind.) First, they were going to turn Sheehan into a revolution. Then, it was Katrina. Now what? Face it, going into the 2004 election, we had a president who by most historical indicators, probably should’ve lost, but the Democrats managed to lose it anyway. I’m sorry for the harsh words if you’re a Democrat, but you must realize that your party is on the ropes.

If the radical left manages to control the message in the future Democratic Contract With America, we will see the suicide of the Democratic party. Why? It won’t be because they introduce things like gay marriage, abortion anytime anywhere, or national health care. It’s because they are out of the American mainstream regarding security and the Iraq War. The Federalists died after Andrew Jackson won in New Orleans. If the Democrats call for a timetable for retreat, it will be the end of the Democratic party, mark my words.

Alright, maybe it’s not a guaranteed suicide. But I think the Democrats must be very careful because this could spell the end of their party, especially if they extend any proposals that would weaken our nation’s security.

Especially too… if we capture Osama bin Laden right after they release their message. Hm…

The Democrats keep screwing up and screwing up, despite all that’s happening to Bush and the Republican Party. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that. All I’m saying is, one big screw up, and the party could go kablooey. Think about it for a second. Think about the conditions that could coincide with the Democratic message. Think about how much the Dems have screwed up recently. Think about it very carefully, and you will realize that although it is not likely, there is still a very real possibility.

[EDIT: Replaced “whackjobs in control” with “some questionable choices for leadership.” Also replaced “nutjobs” with “radical left.”]

So, Congress finally grows a spine. They’re challenging the Bush administration. They want to stop a deal that will allow Dubai Ports World to manage US ports, which are currently being managed by another foreign company, P&O, a British company.

The truth is, there’s nothing to worry about because of this port deal. Stopping it isn’t going to make us any more secure than we already are (or aren’t). Any information terrorists could gain is already out in the open. The personnel? Paper pushers. American unions still do the loading and unloading. Security is still provided by the Coast Guard, and the US is still managing the security aspects of the port. So, the pundits can stop their posturing.

However, I can’t say, “All is well, Bush is great, Congress bad.” I’ve wanted Congress to grow a spine for a while, but they picked the wrong issue. Still, the Bush administration needs to be more open. Bush can’t just tell us, “Yeah, we had our people look at it. It’s cool. The American people can ignore the issue now.” The case for transparency is made here, U.S. Ports Raise Proxy Problem, by Bruce Schneier. Bruce Schneier is an expert on security and wrote a book called “Sensible Security,” which I highly recommend. In essence, from the article, I gleaned that the secrecy reduces our trust in the government, which erodes the government’s ability to provide effect security for us.

Congress can go through it’s dog and pony show because that’s what they’re elected for. Yet, I have concerns about their ability to represent us. The Dems are raising a big stink about this to outflank Bush on national security. And guess what? It’s fucking working. More trust Dems in Congress than Bush on national security. The Republicans are left to scramble. However, it’s unfortunate that this is happening because these Congressmen are raising a big stink over something they probably know nothing about. Like I said, it’s just political posturing — from both sides of the aisle. We need Bush to be more transparent, but I don’t think Congress really cares. They only care about the midterm elections. (And their prospects for ’08 too.)

One more thing: This deal is a good thing. First off, breaking off the deal will reduce our security. Despite its faults, the United Arab Emirates is an ally in the War on Terror. Think of the insult it is for this to happen. Think of the UAE men who won’t be getting those jobs. Moreover, having a proper middle class is key to sustaining a democracy. We need to encourage economic growth in Arab countries in order to foster a middle class — one who will clamor for freedom.

From the New York Times, At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized [registration required]:

“At first, the agitation was limited to Denmark. Ahmed Akkari, 28, a Lebanese-born Dane, acts as spokesman for the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, an umbrella group of 27 Danish Muslim organizations to press the Danish government into action over the cartoons.

“Mr. Akkari said the group had worked for more than two months in Denmark without eliciting any response. ‘We collected 17,000 signatures and delivered them to the office of the prime minister, we saw the minister of culture, we talked to the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, we took many steps within Denmark, but could get no action,’ Mr. Akkari said, referring to the newspaper that published the cartoons. He added that the prime minister’s office had not even responded to the petition.”

Here we have a fundamental misunderstanding about the way government should work. We have a group called the “European Committee for Honoring the Prophet.” It should more properly be called the “European Committee for Policing People’s Thoughts So We Don’t Get Offended (Honoring the Prophet Chapter).” I exaggerate. It is perfectly legitimate to have a group like this. What is not right, as I stressed yesterday, is that group attempting to pressure the government to stifle the free press. It’s not the government being unresponsive to the people; it’s as if Christian groups attempted to force the US government to apologize over something the New York Times wrote.

It is rather unfortunate that European newspapers published the comics. It was a bad move. The Islamofascists try to say that this is a concerted attack by the West against Islam. We must do well to remember that it is not.

In fact, after mulling over it for a while, one of the better responses the Bush administration could have released could’ve said something like, “We recognize that a Danish paper published offensive images. However, the US government has no authority to issue an apology over something an independent paper printed. The offensive comics were created by individuals. They do not represent the West anymore than suicide bombers represent Islam.”

I think I made it longer than it needed to be but basically it says what I want it to say. It notes the offensiveness of the comics, but it doesn’t concede the freedom of the press.

Before I finish up this entry, I must reinforce the label of Islamofascism. These leaders who whip up outrage against the Western governments because of the comics are for the most part fascists. They are saying people cannot be trusted with free speech because they may defame Islam. Unfortunately, people saying offensive things is a part of free speech. However, you have the power to ignore them. What you can’t do is get the government to shut them up. That’s fascism. That’s wrong.

In case you haven’t heard, a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons, which portrayed Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam. (If you have heard, skip to the next paragraph. I just don’t want to leave anyone behind.) These cartoons didn’t portray Muhammed in a very positive light, including one image that had the Prophet wearing a turban shaped like a bomb. The cartoons have provoked protest in the parts of the Muslim world. Some of these protests have taken the form of violence, including the firebombing of embassies. Some European newspapers published the cartoons in solidarity with the Danish paper, reasoning that they were making a stand for free speech. Only one major American newspaper has published any of the cartoons.

There are many different angles people take on the cartoon issue. They use it as an opportunity to attack liberals, conservatives, Muslims, the West, and Morgan Freeman. In the West, we say protesting is okay, but it’s not okay to resort to violence. Debating about the violence line in protesting is not what we should be doing.

That’s why it’s so laughable when people try to play the analogy game. They say things along the lines of, “A Christian wouldn’t firebomb an embassy over someone making a painting of the Virgin Mary out of elephant dung.” Yet, it’s not true to say the West is immune to violent protests. I just heard recently a story about people throwing rocks at Neo-Nazis staging a demonstration. Granted, this isn’t on the same scale, but it’s not about the scale. It’s not about the line of violence being crossed.

Here’s the problem: An independent newspaper prints offensive cartoons, and the Islamofascists riot against Western governments. The press is free. It’s perfectly fine to protest the paper. It’s not okay to tell the government to impose religious sensitivity laws.

That’s why they’re Islamofascists. They want to impose fascism. They want the government to impose their beliefs on other people. That’s what’s not okay.

It’s also perfectly fine for American papers to decide not to print the 12 cartoons. In fact, it’s good that they’re sensitive to Muslims. What would not be okay is if the American government told the newspapers not to print the comics.

I’m not going to call anyone a hypocrite. I’m not going to go off on any tangents. (It’s rather hard to confine myself to this topic, but I feel it is too important to stray towards anything else.) I’m not going to make a judgment about the West or Islam. The role of government is the issue. The peoples of every nation have the right to a free press, period. I don’t care if you’re Muslim, Christian, Neo-Nazi, or just an offended average Joe: Leave the government out if you have a dispute with the press.

With that said, I will delve into specifics tomorrow.

If you know your opponent’s bluffing, why try to scare him away from the table? If he bets big into you, why would you raise and make him suspicious? Or even worse, why would you fold and walk away from the table?

Is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad enough of a madman? When the chips are down, would he really attack Israel with a nuclear weapon? If there’s an explicit (or implicit), “You use a nuke, and we destroy your whole country,” threat from the US, the answer is no.

That’s called the stick.

However, unlike what some neocons may think, stick diplomacy isn’t very useful. You also need some carrots.

Play along with Iran’s game. You want peaceful nuclear energy? Fine. Face it, according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we gotta let Iran do what it says it’s proposing. So, we will.

The best way to make sure Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons is to keep a close eye on their nuclear program. It’s that old adage: keep your friends close, and Keep your enemy closer. I like that article very much. We’ll let Iran develop their peaceful nuclear energy program, which actually will help the people of Iran. I think if we do it right, we can make it even harder for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

Of course, it’s a dangerous game, letting them enrich uranium. However, we must face the reality of the situation. No amount of carrots will deter Iran from pursuing this program. Using a stick at this stage in the game is just overkill. It makes no sense for the US to attack now, and China and Russia certainly will veto anything in the UN.

Now, let me unite the diverse strands of these strings of musings. We let Iran develop peaceful nuclear energy. We must because of international law, and there seems to be no way to deter them. However, as they do this, we must keep a very watchful eye. We give Iran carrots, economic incentives, in order to get them to agree to certain safeguards. Moreoever, what we do in Iran can provide valuable experience for future nuclear non-proliferation efforts. It may also give valuable skills which may transfer to the commercial sector in the future.

Ever looming throughout this process is the stick. Since we’re involved in the process, we can figure out if Iran is doing anything wrong. If it is, then maybe we can get the UN involved. China and Russia aren’t really in a great political situation at that point if there’s proof to the rest of the international community of misconduct on Iran’s part. (Notice that at this point in the game, Iran isn’t really doing anything illegal.)

Even if the UN doesn’t jump on the boat, there’s still the safeguard of the US military. An attack now would stretch the all-volunteer US army to its breaking point. Later on? Later on, we might have viable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our boys will have come home. This approach gives US forces time to recuperate.

One side note, the US military could take out Iran right now, even as we are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. We defeated Germany and Japan at the same time. We occupied both countries at the same time. However, it would require a draft. The all-volunteer army could not do it. Whether or not we could politically get that done is another question all-together and beyond the scope of this entry.

After that side note, there’s not much else left to mention, except the BIG stick. That says even if Iran manages to get a nuke, if they use it, they are assured of destruction, while only hurting Israel, not outright destroying it.

At this point in the game, Iran holds nothing. We can extract much more value from the game by calling, especially politically, instead of trying to outmuscle or appease them. In the meantime, we put ourselves in a situation where we get to peak at their cards. Not a bad arrangement, as long as we remember to use both carrots and sticks as we continue to deal with Iran.

Riddle me this, Batman. Why is oil-rich Iran insisting that it needs to enrich uranium in order to develop nuclear power?

Before you answer this, let’s take a trip into recent history and have you solve a few other mini-riddles.

America has invaded Iraq, a country which Bush named as part of his Axis of Evil. Iran has also been named as a member of the Axis of Evil, but has not been invaded. Mini-riddle number 1: What would be the best way to deter a US invasion? Hint: North Korea is in the Axis of Evil and hasn’t been invaded.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, has denied that the Holocaust ever happened, and has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Mini-riddle number 2: What would be the best way to wipe Israel off the map? Hint: How did the US make Japan surrender, during WWII, without invading?

The answer to both mini-riddles: nuclear weapons. Now, let’s go back to the main riddle. When you put two and two together, I think it’s obvious that Iran wants nuclear weapons.

However, the real riddle is: Will the international community let Iran get away with it? The likely answer to that is almost too scary to contemplate. I don’t know about you, but every day, I’m on the edge of my seat.

I was really sad to here that Harriet was withdrawing. So, I got to thinking about who should be picked next. I think Bush should pick Oprah! She’s really good on TV and she gives really good advice. But it would be sad if her TV show was gone. Maybe she can do both jobs?? Anyways, shes a woman and AFrican american, so I think people will be happy. I hope she’s a close personal freind of Bush! What do you think?

The Harriet Miers’s Blog!!! is one of the most hilarious things I’ve read in a long time. Normally, I can contain myself when I read things online, but this honestly made me laugh out loud.

That being said, obviously, Harriet Miers isn’t this dumb. She’s gotta have some credentials to get where she’s been. Still, she’s not Supreme Court material. I wouldn’t even call her a B+ pick. She’s a C, at best. C for crony, that is, har har.

Anyway, give the blog a look: It’s too hilarious no matter what you think.

Just kidding! I don’t know how he can save it, but I know how he can boost his approval ratings… I mean, something he can attempt in the future:

VETO! Please, show us that you care about domestic issues too. You gave up on Social Security.

Hopefully, Iraq will approve its constitution and have elections. I mean that not for the good of Bush’s approval ratings, but for the good of the world.

Two pieces of breaking news that are related:

• Chinese, Russian Troops Join War Games
• Roberts calls for assassination of Chavez

Not only do we have to deal with Islamofascism, but Communism is coming back too.

This from the second news article: “Chavez has irritated U.S. officials with his leftist policies, his fiery rhetoric against American ‘imperialism’ and his increasingly close ties to anti-U.S. regimes in Cuba and Iran.”

Cuba = Communism. Iran = Islamofascism. What happens when Communism and Islamofascism joins forces? Who will fight for democracy? Only the US, it seems.

Also this from the second news article: “[Chavez] praised President Fidel Castro’s system as a ‘revolutionary democracy.'” Is this guy delusional or what?

This wouldn’t be a problem if it wasn’t for nuclear weapons. We wouldn’t have had to invade Iraq if we weren’t afraid of “weapons of mass destruction.” Let’s face it, WMD is a horrible way of putting it. We’re talking about nuclear weapons. That’s the problem we must solve. We wouldn’t have the problems we’re having in North Korea if it wasn’t for nukes. We wouldn’t have the problems in Iran if it weren’t for nukes.

I completely disagree with her, but I’m thankful we live in America, and she can do what she is doing.

Imagine a woman in Iraq whose son disappeared. Do you think she could have camped outside Saddam’s palace and demanded a meeting? Do you think the media would have covered it? She would’ve been killed, on the spot.

That’s why I’m thankful we live in America.

That’s what her son died for. I don’t know if Ms. Sheehan thinks it’s worth it, or not, but the dream for Iraq is to make it a place where other mothers can do what she is doing right now.

Even if you don’t think we should’ve been there in the first place, we can’t pull out now. Even if you don’t think democracy was one of the reasons we invaded, it must be now. We must have faith in our soldiers and especially the Iraqi people, even if you don’t have faith in Bush and his administration.

Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly makes a post listing possible answers to the question, “What is wrong with Democrats today?”

I believe commenter craigie has the right answer: “What’s wrong with Democrats is that you don’t see any conservative bloggers asking what’s wrong with Republicans.”

That is too funny.

Of course, there are people on the right who criticize the right. However, this is normal debate on certain issues and personalities. Republicans don’t assume there is an inherent flaw in their party ideology/branding. Or worse, in the American people.

The Democratic Party’s weak point is the War on Terror. Stress terror, not populism. Populism is dead.

I have to admit that despite all I’ve read in the newspapers and online, I don’t know anything about this guy John Roberts. So, I’m not going to give an opinion on him.

I am, however, still going to say a few things. First off, I’ve read a lot, and I think it’s ridiculous that I don’t know anything about him. I mean, he’s supposed to be a reliable conservative, but I don’t know where he stands on anything. All I know is that he was a lawyer just representing the views of his clients… interpret what has happened in the way that puts this nominee in the best light.

I want someone on the court who will limit the government’s powers. I want someone who doesn’t think the 10th amendment is worth diddlysquat. Before, I wanted Kerry to win because I was afraid who Bush’s nominees would be. I listen to Scalia and hear the wall between church and state being torn down. Our laws should be based on the Constitution, not one judge’s narrow views of Christianity. However, I’m willing to let the Ten Commandments stand in courtrooms if it means pushing back the trend of giving the federal government way too much power.

I want a judge who’s not a strict constructionist, but someone who will respect the governmental principles upon which this country was founded. Like federalism.

Principles that deal with government, I must emphasize. It’s not up to the court to impose morals or religion upon this country. The court’s only moral duty is to protect the rights of the every citizen, whether they are of the minority or majority.

Will John Roberts do any of that? I don’t know. I should trust my president and my senate to judge this for me. But I don’t.

I put this on a Post-It note recently:

“We live in a world where changing your mind makes you a liar.”

I was inspired by a commercial on Fox News. I think it was Sean Hannity (I don’t like that guy) blabbing about some politician, it might’ve been Ted Kennedy. He had two video clips, which probably contradict each other. Of course, in one of the clips, the politican looks much younger. Hannity asks the viewer, “Has [so-and-so] changed his mind?”

I make no judgment on the politician or Hannity. However, Hannity asks the question as if changing your mind is a bad thing — as if changing your mind is equivalent to hypocrisy.

Perhaps he asks it sarcastically. Perhaps he asks it in earnest. Still, we live in the age of “gotcha’s.”

With the current information glut, people can glean politician’s responses to everything. They can cull quotes from video, audio, and text, looking for the tiniest incongruity.

Portraying Kerry as a flip-flopper worked so well that now we have to try it out on all our enemies. No longer can anyone change his or her mind due to evidence. Any change in position is seen as political expedience.

However, you can’t blame it on any one group. You can’t blame it just on the right-wingers. Politicians do change their mind because of political expedience. Yet, you can’t blame it on the politicans for their enemies taking this overboard. You can’t blame the people or the media for perpetuating it.

Moreover, there’s no easy fix. How can you tell when a change of heart is genuine? Should we not expect our leaders to have well thought out opinions?

The second question can be partially answered. The world changes too quickly for anyone, even our leaders, to be perfectly consistent on everything. Sometimes, world events force us to change our opinions. 9/11, for example. Sometimes, new information comes out that forces us to reevaluate our positions. Geocentrism was just as valid as heliocentrism until evidence piled up against the former. We shouldn’t have unrealistic expectations of our leaders, or potential leaders.

I think that’s what the information age has brought us to: We have unrealistic expectations. The information glut has become our new false idol. It gives us false confidence, making us think we know more than we really do just because we can use Google. “If I can find this out in a few seconds, why don’t you already know it?” we seem to wonder.

Information is not an immobile god. It changes itself; it evolves. If the information changes, then I think we should accept that people can change.

The next time someone tries to play “gotcha” with politicians, don’t buy into it. Don’t perpetuate a culture where changing your mind is equivalent to lying. It will not stay in politics and seep into every facet of our lives.

Haha, okay, not every facet, but be wary.

Hey Bush, remember when you were debating John Kerry? Remember how both of you said you had plans to cut the deficit in half?

Does anyone remember how I said I didn’t believe either of them would cut the deficit in half?

Yeah, well, Bush, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt with Iraq and our faulty intelligence, but on this issue, I still think you’re a liar.

Oh well, it’s not like reducing the deficit is any kind of big issue or anything, especially not to fiscal conservatives…

Just thought of that phrase, the “Reasonable Right”. Is it catchy? I like it. That’s one meme I’d like to spread. I knew there was a better phrase than the condescending “Raging RINOs – Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed (on the Party Kool Aid)”.

Hm… as if calling those who disagree with me unreasonable is not condescending. Well, at least it’s less snarky.

Oh, and one point I’d like to make. “Reasonable Right” is not meant to be a club name. It’s kind of a catch-all different people can use to refer to themselves when they think people they normally agree with are overreacting.

Lloyd told me about a piece of news he’d found out about via Sullivan, and then, I chanced upon this entry, which refers to this great piece, The Framing Wars.

In it, I found this to be quite funny:

“I can describe, and I’ve always been able to describe, what Republicans stand for in eight words, and the eight words are lower taxes, less government, strong defense and family values,” Dorgan, who runs the Democratic Policy Committee in the Senate, told me recently. “We Democrats, if you ask us about one piece of that, we can meander for 5 or 10 minutes in order to describe who we are and what we stand for. And frankly, it just doesn’t compete very well. I’m not talking about the policies. I’m talking about the language.”

Maybe there’s something wrong besides language, perhaps.

Well, the author of the article sums it up better than I ever could, in the concluding paragraph:

“What all these middling generalities suggest, perhaps, is that Democrats are still unwilling to put their more concrete convictions about the country into words, either because they don’t know what those convictions are or because they lack confidence in the notion that voters can be persuaded to embrace them. Either way, this is where the power of language meets its outer limit. The right words can frame an argument, but they will never stand in its place.”

populism: n. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.

In more than three words: Populism as a political force is dead. Actually, let me clarify: A populist cannot win a presidential campaign.

Durbin not being lauded and populism’s death are symptoms of the same disease. They’re attacking the wrong people. Terrorism is a greater threat than the so-called privileged elite. Terrorists are beheading people on television while no one has died at Guantanamo. Defeating terror is more important than defeating the Republicans.

So, while Democrats try to figure out why people vote for the Republican party when its supposedly not in their best economic interests, maybe they should wonder instead why people vote Democratic when it’s not in their best safety interests. The Democrats are digging themselves deeper into their grave and they can’t understand why. It’s quite simple, really.

My Advice to Democrats after Kerry Loss is still as right as ever. Terror decided the election then, and it will continue to decide elections. Figure it out before the party self-destructs because of people like Durbin, and Dean, who can’t figure out that the real enemies are the terrorists.

There’s no need for any major shifts in the Democratic Party. The reason you’re losing is because of 9/11, but probably not for the reasons many Democrats think. Memorize this, Democratic Party: 9/11 was an overt act of war.

9/11 was an overt act of war.

Until you acknowledge this fact, the Democratic Party will never recover.

9/11 was an overt act of war.

It’s not saying, the War in Iraq is justified. It’s not saying Guantanamo is justified. Those are debatable. This fact is not.

9/11 was an overt act of war.

Until the Democratic Party figures out that terrorism is the greatest, most urgent, threat to America, they will not win back the presidency.

Of course, figuring it out and convincing the people you’ve figured it out are two separate things. I’m sure some members of the Democratic Party have figured it out. However, perception is everything.

It’ll be hard doing the convincing, though, when these marvelous quotes from Democrats are lying around.

Still, I’m giving advice and someone should take it. Carefully consider all the words and implications: 9/11 was an overt act of war.

Wow. So, apparently, promoting democracy is now propaganda.

(Oh man, when I saw the soldier thing during the State of the Union, I was like, “This is effective. This is good. You just can’t help but be affected emotionally.”)

(Promoting democracy is now propaganda… wow, I’m so good. They should hire me.)

News story: Court orders repeat Ukraine poll.

I’m relieved and ecstatic that the court ordered a new vote, but this news article doesn’t make me any more comfortable.

All we get of the detailed accounts of election fraud that must’ve been submitted to their supreme court is that it’s a “controversy [that] broke out when the presidential run-off vote on November 21 was handed to Mr Yanukovich despite strong polling signs that Mr Yushchenko had won.” Yeah, strong polling signs. That’s what started the controversy. That’s what the over 11,000 complaints to regional courts are complaining about. (See news article in previous entry.)

I’ll tell you this: It isn’t about some symbolic dispute between Russia and the West… it’s about democracy. And yet still, after the courts decided, the widespread electoral fraud is only “alleged.”

I don’t get it. Why can’t you just put one little line about the details of the widespread and blatant election fraud? What are you trying to hide? Why are you trying to hide it? Why? Just one sentence. It’s not that hard.

Look, you even wrote a whole Q&A article on the Ukraine electoral fraud, and still, you won’t put why! WHY ARE YOU HIDING THIS! (Oops, I meant electoral “crisis” not fraud.) How come no one asked, “What types of electoral fraud were alleged?” See, you could’ve still put “alleged” in there and put something. But no. You don’t. And I think it’s because you’re trying to hide something.

Democracy and truth triumphed. That’s what just happened in Ukraine, in case anyone can’t figure it out from the article, or from any other article.

Someone today in class asked me what was going on in Ukraine. Indeed, what is going on in Ukraine? You hear about election fraud but just what the hell happened? When I saw one news story (can’t find it anymore), all I saw was mention of discrepancy in exit polls. I was going to completely trash this so-called election fraud. Glad I wasn’t so quick on the draw.

This is a must-read: Revealed: the full story of the Ukrainian election fraud. (Note: Found this via Patterico’s Pontifications, which found it from Captain’s Quarters.

But check out this MSNBC article, Talks fail to resolve Ukraine election dispute. Priceless. All we see is mention of election fraud. So, so, people, tell me, why is the American media hiding this? Why? A quick google search on “ukraine election fraud” and none of the American articles reference the obvious travesty of democracy.

I’d like to emphasize something else in the article. Notice the headline, and then notice the picture of happy people with their arms thrown up. Talks fail… *CHEER!*

Well, people, if Yanukovich pulls this off, you can fear for the future of democracy. I know both candidates are urging for violence not to happen, but shouldn’t you fight if an election is so obviously stolen? A government that no longer represents the people should be overthrown. I only hope that a new election will be held.

Compared to this, Afghanistan’s election went ahead without a hitch.

Would Dubya Run in 2008? from Slate.

I wrote about this in July.

The moral of the story: Read the Agnoiologist weblog.

ADDENDUM: Oh man, this gets better: “The prospect of a Dubya run in 2008 has been considered by almost no one, but Ken Herman of the Austin American Statesman wrote about it last month.”

Yes… proud to be part of the “almost no one” crowd.