A Second Hand Conjecture

With Obama tapping Ken Salazar for the Interior Department, rumor has it conservative John Elway may step forward to run for his Senate seat in Colorado. This rumor –similar to one for Mike Ditka in Illinois– has come and gone before. This time however, the tectonically altered political environment makes it more credible. Party political defeats don’t tend to alienate good new candidates, but draw them in, as the rapid transformation of the Democratic Party between 2004, 2006 and 2008 demonstrates.

1 Comment »

In a Q&A session at the University of the Pacific in October, Dinesh D’Souza was asked about the moral dimensions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. I don’t agree entirely with the causality he posits exists between irresponsible consumer behavior and irresponsible governance, but it’s an interesting take. Particularly in how he adapts certain complaints more commonly associated with the political left, to serve a conservative argument:

No Comments »

You may have noticed there’s an ugly and unfortunate current developing in some of the protests against Proposition 8 in California. Namely white gays, blaming blacks for its passage. Even Andrew Sullivan, who has been blaming blacks for a couple of days now, has noticed that perhaps things are getting a little out of hand.

Altogether, as Mark Steyn puts it, this wasn’t quite the possibility for post-election civil discord people were anticipating:

The media were warning that if the election went the wrong way there’d be riots, but I didn’t realize they meant Klansmen in Abercrombie polos roaming West Hollywood itching for a rumble.
(NRO)

One of the most visible recurring problems here is the frustration many gay men and women are experiencing with the question of how blacks could “betray” the cause of universal civil rights, after such a long and noble struggle of their own to secure them. Confronting this matter directly in an opinion in the Los Angeles Times, Jasmyne Cannick raises several worthwhile points of explanation. Most notably, a misunderstanding on the part of white gays about both the origins and requirements of an appeal to the black community:

[T]he black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity — not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community.

[...]

Likewise, holding the occasional town-hall meeting in Leimert Park — the one part of the black community where they now feel safe thanks to gentrification — to tell black people how to vote on something gay isn’t effective outreach either.
(LAT)

In a consistent vein she adds on her site:

[G]ays are headed to Long Beach tonight to protest. I wonder though why they are moving from Westwood to Long Beach and skipping past Compton, Watts, and South L.A.?
(Jasmyne Cannick)

While fear and conceit are definitely in evidence, more pertinent is the matter of misdirection in the division between political friends and enemies. In ordinary times, the necessary accord for putting these two parties back into a grudging spiritual alignment would be to unify against the common enemy: the invidious conservative power structure.

Thus the real trouble is that simultaneous with the passage of Proposition 8, this conservative power structure and government has been quite visibly thrown down by the election of Barack Obama and the Democrats. The once titanic foe is now in pieces, scattered and preoccupied with internal reexamination and a painful reconsolidation project. It isn’t a party to this debate, it isn’t even a party with an agenda of any kind at the moment. So it is that without a Tito to oppose in common struggle, the Balkan coalition of Yugoslavian dissidents become Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians, almost eager to turn on each other. Head north to peaceful Slovenia says me. Call it Oregon.

6 Comments »

Rasmussen reports today that Sarah Palin is the choice of 64% of Republicans for the 2012 Republican nomination, and that a staggering 91% of Republicans have a favorable impression of her (equally remarkable, 65% rate their view as ‘highly favorable’).

It’s perhaps unnecessary to mention that there is no figure of comparable popular prestige left standing in the Republican party. Assuming she puts to rest lingering concerns among the Republican commentariat about her knowledge of foreign affairs, she’s in a remarkably similar political position to Ronald Reagan in 1976…standing as she is, alone among the wreckage of the GOP. And in 2012, the conservative grassroots sentiment will likely be quite similar to 1980, when no one in the GOP was eager to give the establishment favored candidates of George H.W. Bush or Howard Baker another chance, after the painful defeat of their previous hero, Gerald Ford.

6 Comments »

“Tattered Hope” by Nathan Rupert

Jason at postpolitical and I often get into testy email arguments about Barack Obama’s alleged “arrogance.” He is quite Greek in the sense that he thinks hubris is the fatal flaw at the heart of all political downfalls. I don’t entirely agree with that, nor with his contention that Obama represents an emblematic example of arrogant leadership. At least no more so than any other politician.

On this matter Jason is of course much more in line with majority opinion on the right than myself. Many conservative bloggers have argued for Obama’s arrogance for so long, it once was merely a kind of premonition.

(more…)

No Comments »

Apparently the teenage pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol has excited social conservatives even more about the candidate (for the when-it-counts demonstration of opposition to abortion). According to Grover Norquist, the soc-cons are “over the moon” in their support.

That’s interesting. It reminds me that historically a minor or unfair scandal that is politically survivable (as this one most certainly is), can often help a young candidate, as it compels his or her supporters to circle wagons and commit to advocacy, as well as forcing his or her opponents to commit to opposition and be proven either wrong or very petty and vindictive. It should also be said that it can have more obvious benefit in stripping the candidate of any illusions about comity in national politics.

(more…)

5 Comments »

The explosion of enthusiasm for Palin on just about every conservative blog and media outlet has apparently gone unnoticed at the DailyKos, which is predicting that Sarah represents a divisive force, who will soon fracture and ultimately destroy the Republican party. Hmm.

Now, there has always been a tendency among ideological people to retreat to fantasy in moments of peak political crisis, when the ideological narrative they’ve been following suddenly runs aground of some protruding reef of reality, but this is almost too much. I’m not sure it’s even possible to be more comprehensively mistaken in a single political assessment.

In truth, Palin is of course the ultimate force for unification and it’s why she or someone like her was so desperately needed by McCain and the Republicans. How much of a unifier is she? When the neoconservatives and Ronpaulists like the selection, if you are familiar with the party beyond name, you need say no more.

8 Comments »

Bill Whittle argues reasonably and persuasively, on a lefty blog, about the real reason for choosing Sarah Palin. I stumbled across this at Brutally Honest but follow the link to Whittle’s full comments. They are excellent.

I think, for me, it’s a sense that this is an honest person - not just another politician. A breath of fresh air in a honorable profession gone bad. She convinces you through the strength of her character and beliefs not through triangulation. She does not see gaining office as a quest for power but as a sacred duty in the service of others. Kinda like our forefathers when they pledged their sacred honor when signing the Declaration of Independence.

Perhaps my expectations are too high. I think not. I hope not.

I know some folks read and participate on lefty blogs in order to understand the opposite point of view and to argue the conservative point of view. Whittle has done this masterfully. I applaud those who can do this, I can’t. I have little patience for the left’s arguments.

No Comments »

Just got this email from the Fred Thompson PAC.

Friends,

At this crucial moment in our nation’s history, it is vital that we adhere to the fundamental conservative principles that have unified us for over two centuries. On Monday, September 1, Senator Fred Thompson will announce a major new effort to ensure that these conservative principles are supported and defended across our country and at every level of government.

Please stay tuned and join Senator Thompson as he unveils this exciting endeavor.

Not sure what this is about. Perhaps some sort of conservative organization he’s starting/joining?

No Comments »

Ryan Ellis, the Tax Policy Director at Americans for Tax Reform, presents 3 principles of conservative health care.

Principle 1: Conservative health care reform should neither raise taxes nor increase the size of government. You’d think this would be a no-brainer, but trust me that it isn’t.
Principle 2: Health insurance should have nothing to do with your job unless you want it to. In any event, health insurance should be 100% portable.
Principle 3: Shopping for health care should look more like currently shopping for prescription drugs, dental, vision, and cosmetic surgery, and less like going to the hospital or getting a checkup. The former is price transparent and market-responsive. The latter is bureaucratic and doesn’t work

He offers the the Health Care Freedom Coalition as a possible package and then asks for reader suggestions in the comments. Sadly the comments then fill up with sidetracking discussions about illegal immigration. If you have any ideas, feel free to chime in at the Next Right.

No Comments »

calls himself “a progressive conservative, Democratic Republican” these days apparently. Who knows what the hell that means.

1 Comment »

There seems to be some confusion on the part of some as to exactly what sort of place ASHC is:

I was rather surprised to read this dubious and scornful appraisal of Michael Yon’s Wallstreet Journal editorial at A Second Hand Conjecture, a heretofore conservative site.

The post Mick Stockinger is referring to was created by Joshua Foust, our resident curmudgeon. Josh took aim at Michael Yon’s apparent advocation for more troops in theater:

This leads us to the most out-of-date aspect of the Senate debate: the argument about the pace of troop withdrawals. Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting.

The title of Yon’s WSJ piece was “Let’s ‘Surge’ Some More.” So the obvious inference was that Yon thinks we should be committing more troops to Iraq as we did with Petraeus’ “surge” last year. Josh took exception with that (in his typical, short-post, snarky way), and he made a valid point: our military is admittedly stretched and strained, to the point that further commitments are not exactly feasible.

I’m not concerned here with the merits of Josh’s post, but instead with the characterization of ASHC as “a heretofore conservative site.” I understand why Mick (and others) think that, but we should set the record straight. This is not a “conservative” site by any stretch of the imagination. The great majority of us support the war in Iraq, but not based on any sort of conservative principles. Essentially we all believe that winning is possible, and that winning is in the best interests of America. The only difference between Josh and the rest of us on this score is that Josh thinks (and can cogently explain when he wants to) that the war was a mistake and that the costs of continuing it are greater than any perceived benefits. Josh and I fundamentally disagree on this point, but that does not make him “liberal” nor me “conservative.”

Which leads me to the ultimate point: ASHC is not a conservative site. We are an amalgamation of views loosely coalesced around the idea that more freedom is better than less. We each hold different views on what that means, and the sole issue on which we are diametrically opposed is with respect to the war in Iraq. Josh stands alone here on ASHC, but I defy anyone to produce a more intelligent and reasoned voice when it comes to articulating why taking on Iraq was a bad idea. Even as I routinely and vociferously disagree with Josh’s assessments, I appreciate the value that Josh adds to the discussion. In other words, Josh may be wrong, but he makes wrong look as right as anyone possibly could.

In sum, if ASHC is deemed insufficiently “conservative” because of Josh’s posts then so be it. We never claimed that moniker, nor is it one that we’ve ever expressed any interest in holding. Personally, I’m proud to have Josh as a co-blogger precisely because our views conflict. You will often find arguments here opining as to how we are winning in Iraq and the GWOT, and you’ll also see arguments suggesting that Iraq was a huge mistake. That does not make ASHC deficient in any category. It makes us more useful and interesting.

15 Comments »

photo: Michael Buck

The sole finalist for the new president of the University of Colorado system, is a Republican oil executive with only a bachelor’s degree. You can imagine where this is going:

Campus observers have fiercely protested the selection, which has yet to be approved by regents. A “Boycott Benson” Web site questions the selection process and criticizes his background as a conservative Republican activist. The student government has voiced complaints, and a campus portrait of Benson was defaced with graffiti that said, “I’ve given CU enough $ for an individual right-wing nut like me to be CU’s president.”
(Newsday)

1 Comment »

One of my liberal friends routinely rails at me for being such a selfish, uncaring conservative. When I remind him, though, that he is the one who moved from Minnesota to Florida because he “could not afford the taxes” in his former home state, and I am the one who remains here - I hear mumbling about temperatures and golf. (With temps seemingly stuck in the “your-nose-will-freeze-and-fall-off-your-face-if-you-go-out-for-more-than-three-minutes” range, I’ll give him the temperature argument.)

People do move for weather and sports, for culture and family. Nevertheless, if you look at the data, clearly some percentage of people move because they judge it costs them just too damn much to live in their high tax state.

We invite readers to visit the U-Haul Moving Company Web site (www.uhaul.com), where you can type in a pair of U.S. cities to learn what it costs to move from point A to B. If you want to move, say, from Austin, Texas to Southern California, the moving van will cost you $407 to rent. But if you want to move out of California to Austin, the same van costs $1,831. A move from Dallas to Philadelphia costs $663, versus $2,433 to swap homes in the other direction. The biggest discrepancy we could find was $557 from Nashville, Tennessee to Los Angeles, but the trip costs nearly eight times more, or $4,285, to move to Nashville from L.A.

I’m someone who believes in fiscal responsibility. You need reasonable services to have a pleasant and safe community, and you need some taxation to pay for those services and safety. Politicians should remember these words of wisdom, however:

Our friends on the left say Americans are willing to pay more taxes to get better government services, but their migration patterns reveal the opposite. Governors would be wise to heed these interstate migration trends as they try to cope with what may be one of the worst years in recent memory for state finances. The people who tend to be the most mobile in American society are the educated and motivated — in other words, the taxpaying class. Tax them too much, and you’ll soon find they aren’t there to tax at all.

1 Comment »

photo: Simón Pais-Thomas

Mick at Uncorrelated has another lovely post on the essentially vile character and politics of Mike Huckabee. Toward the end of his remarks he briefly hits Huckabee’s proposed Fair Tax:

…and politically DOA policy planks like the fair tax.
(Uncorrelated)

Politically DOA we must hope, because Huckabee’s tax plan would do more than “eliminate the IRS.” It would probably eliminate the US economy along with it.

(more…)

16 Comments »

Italy’s President, Georgio Napolitano, has called a snap election after the collapse of the leftwing coalition government last month. This paves the way for a remarkable comeback by conservative Silvio Berlusconi, who is running ten points ahead of his center-left opponent in polls. (BBC Video Report)

No Comments »

Michael Goldfarb denounced Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives as “disgraceful” today, for their open criticism of John McCain’s record and views. He labels it the result of a psychological condition he and other McCain apologists call “McCain Derangement Syndrome”:

I understand that some conservatives are uneasy about a McCain nomination, that he isn’t their first choice to carry the party’s standard. But there’s something truly unhinged–and at times spectacularly disgraceful–about the response of some on the right to this increasingly likely prospect.
(The Weekly Standard)

I can only echo his editor, Bill Kristol, who after Bush’s hopelessly misguided selection of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, lamented: “And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?” Apparently no one, since John McCain will be the non-conservative nominee of the Republican party. Far from the silent acquiescence Michael advises, I wish there was as much public indignation and outrage now as there was then. Were there, perhaps we wouldn’t have this problem to begin with.

I would also remind those McCain defenders who are urging a tactical silence for political purposes, that deep conservative opposition to McCain was not a secret until Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the subject last week. The Democratic opposition was not under the impression that conservatives loved the man, and it would not have been possible to conceal a lengthy history of dissent against him within the party. Nor is the current criticism being leveled against him (that he is not conservative), anything the Democrats could possibly use to their advantage, as they’re even less so.

I might also ask more generally, how it is somehow acceptable to urge conservatives to forfeit their views, but not to demand that the candidate they are supposed to elect to represent them, forfeit his own instead? We do not represent John McCain, he wishes to represent us. If he doesn’t represent us, then we should say so. For silence is the one thing no representative democracy can tolerate or long survive.

18 Comments »

The Anchoress has a splendid post on my very own Representative, Heather Wilson (R-NM), whom I proudly voted for in 2006. While she upsets many conservatives with her McCain-esque positions (NR likes to slam her quite frequently), it should be remembered that Albuquerque –the urban heart of her district– is a politically divided city. Her cross-appeal to female Democrats has often made the difference in defeating strong Democratic challengers. At heart she’s a conservative and is thus enormously infuriating to Democrats who see the 1st District as being naturally theirs. However, I’d like to keep her where she is in the House. Let Steve Pearce take the fall against popular Tom Udall for Domenici’s Senate seat.

3 Comments »

Haven’t had a chance to look at them, but here are the responses.

No Comments »

Sadly, Mike Huckabee remains in the race in order to distort it. One has to wonder if the increasingly paranoid crypto-theocrat’s gambit to become McCain’s Vice Presidential nominee succeeds, how substantially will it depress mainstream conservative turnout? I’d say pretty significantly, as this is a concord between the liberal + soc-con wings of the party (although there’s now several points of commonality). Even were 66% of the GOP to be very happy about the ticket (that’s stretching their numbers substantially), that would still equal a devastating defeat to an almost certain Clinton/Obama ticket which will naturally command well over 90% approval from invigorated Democrats. You need maximum GOP turnout to have any chance of beating that Democratic ticket and McCain/Huckabee will not get it for you.

4 Comments »

Arnold has to govern liberal California, Rudy had to govern liberal NYC and McCain…McCain is from Arizona. So what exactly is his excuse for his dramatic shift to the Left over time? Lest you think he has one, here’s a very good interview from Kudlow & Company with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, who is championing the cause of slashing corporate taxes to induce growth, while his colleague McCain rants about the evils of big business. Just some info in case you’ve ever wondered if like Arnold and Rudy, McCain’s liberal positions are induced by electability concerns in demographically fluid Arizona. Kyl has managed to remain staunchly conservative for years while being easily reelected. On a media note, Kyl’s 2006 reelection is often described as “narrow” by the press. 53-43 isn’t narrow.

H/T: Larry Kudlow

No Comments »

(Cross posted at What if?)

My liberal friends think I’m a conservative. My conservative friends think I’m a liberal. Frankly - there is truth in the assessment of both groups. Depending upon the issue, you can honestly label me with both.

One issue that continues to gnaw at me is that of equal rights for gay people. Again - I am bothered by positions by both conservatives and liberals on this topic! Too many conservatives either do not appreciate the burdens that gay folks must experience today, despite improvement in recent years. Others are out and out homophobes. On the liberal side, too many seem unaware of the relationship between the battle against radical Islam and the fight for equality for gay people.

Bruce Bawer has a column which highlights these points. Whether your general philosophy is of a conservative bent or a liberal one - please read this and take it to heart. Have more consideration for your gay neighbor. If you already do - then please realize that his rights are under terrible threat in societies that you consider to be “enlightened.”

Europe is on its way down the road of Islamization, and it’s reached a point along that road at which gay people’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is being directly challenged, both by knife-wielding bullies on the street and by taxpayer-funded thugs whose organizations already enjoy quasi-governmental authority. Sharia law may still be an alien concept to some Westerners, but it’s staring gay Europeans right in the face – and pointing toward a chilling future for all free people. Pim Fortuyn saw all this coming years ago; most of today’s European leaders still refuse to see it even though it’s right before their eyes.

13 Comments »

Draft Sarah Palin has some excerpts from Alaska Magazine’s profile of “America’s Hottest Governor.” Palin also happens to be the most popular governor in America. Indeed, with approval ratings often in the 90s, the conservative Republican is perhaps the most popular governor in the history of the United States.

No Comments »

Here’s some splendid news for those of us not delighted by the prospect of a liberation theologist takeover of the Republican Party. Rasmussen is reporting their new South Carolina numbers and Mike Huckabee has lost five points and Fred Thompson gained four since last week. Thompson now stands at 16%, Huckabee at 19%, with McCain reaping the rewards at 28%.

If Huckabee can be stopped in South Carolina, it’s quite probable that will be the end of him. Until of course John McCain’s advisers convince him to name Huckabee as his Vice Presidential nominee in order to appease the soc-con voting bloc (traditionally his strongest adversaries within the party).

Indeed, my friend Jason over at postpolitical (who is an ardent Huckabee supporter) is holding out hope for McCain to win the nomination if Huckabee fails, for precisely this eventuality. Even the slimmest chance of getting Huckabee anywhere near the levers of power is apparently enormously important to his supporters. But is it as important to his opponents to prevent that? It should be.

(more…)

1 Comment »