Redstate

Posted at 6:24pm on May 20, 2008 When Blogs (And You!) Can Change the World, One Nation at a Time

By bamapachyderm

Many of us frequently lament what often seems to be the relative impotence of the blogosphere. In some cases, though, one person can change the world and save lives from her living room.

You can help fight for freedom and democracy in the Middle East in two clicks of the mouse.

Posted in Foreign Affairs — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:08pm on Mar. 18, 2008 Barack Obama's speech: More far-left platitudes

By bamapachyderm

My overall impression: more platitudes:

Ironically, this quintessentially American – and yes, conservative – notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:49pm on Feb. 3, 2008 Ann Coulter is a fool, Part Duh

By bamapachyderm

Ann Coulter would "vote for the devil" over John McCain.

Ann Coulter is still supporting Hillary Clinton, but (sort of) says Republicans should vote for Romney.

Ann Coulter, until very recently, had nothing good to say about Mitt Romney. Or any other candidate--including Fred Thompson--besides Duncan Hunter.

You have a choice: ally yourself with the unhinged Ann Coulter/Hillary Clinton wing of the conservative movement, or the John McCain/Steve Forbes/Ted Olson/Tom Coburn/Norman Schwarzkopf/et al. wing.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:22am on Jan. 24, 2008 You might be a RINO if...

By bamapachyderm

You might be a RINO, o ye who draggeth around the corpse of Ronald Reagan, if you don't follow the Reagan philosophy that made the conservative religion movement the powerful force it is--or was, before said Reaganites In Name Only set out to destroy it.

That philosophy? I'll let the good man speak for himself.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 12:45pm on Jan. 18, 2008 John McCain Can Bring America to the Right

By bamapachyderm

(First, if you're in South Carolina, you can ignore this post. Vote for Fred Thompson!)

Okay, then. I started to write some of this as a comment in TheSophist's thoughtful diary, "Why I Fear President McCain," which should be read as a preface to this. His thesis:

I fear President McCain, because President McCain means that he would have won the general election. And he will have permanently shifted the 'winning formula' to the left of where we are today.

Posted in 2008 — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:47pm on Oct. 10, 2005 Answering the "Liberal Feminist" SMEAR on Harriet Miers

By bamapachyderm

Yesterday, I got (what I consider) spammed with a "comment" at my blog that consisted solely of a link to some other blog with a smear on Harriet Miers, saying she's a "feminist" (the horror!).  You know what?  That's just ridiculous.  I deleted the "comment" and responded via email to the spammer with a modified version of this answer to the smear.  I would have just blown off the whole thing from there, but I found today that it's being repeated on other blogs, and now here at RedState.  (Thanks to one of my commenters for pointing it out--which is why I'm cross-posting  this from my site.)  

And I see now that the Family Research Council is, MUCH to my aggravation and frustration, spreading the story.  Here's their attack, which they temper with a (weak) "handle with care" disclaimer:

The Chronicle of Higher Education yesterday published a story on Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. It spoke of her "playing a key role" in the late 1990s in establishing the Louise B. Raggio lectureship at Southern Methodist University, Miss Miers' alma mater. The article says Miss Miers "pushed for the creation" of the Raggio speakers' series. The Raggio lectureship brought an apparently unbroken string of pro-abortion speakers to the university's Dallas campus. Among those tapped to enlighten young law students were Gloria Steinem, founder of Ms. Magazine and a veteran campaigner for liberal abortion laws. Also holding forth were Congresswoman Patricia Schoeder, Susan Faludi, author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, and even former Texas Governor Ann W. Richards, the pro-abortion Democrat whom George W. Bush defeated in 1994.

Interesting, isn't it?  Well that's not really the WHOLE STORY, either, but you wouldn't know it unless you CARED TO LOOK for yourself.

From the SMU Raggio lecture series page:

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:05am on Oct. 8, 2005 Why Harriet Miers might BE "the best nominee"

By bamapachyderm

Promoted from Diaries, again for the much-vaunted different look at things - Thomas

I know, you're saying, "WHAT?"  Just hear me out.  You might think I'm full of it, but believe me, I know I'm not a legal scholar.  What I am is an obsessive--er, inquisitive geek for political strategery, and this is theory, not fact.  (What else is strategy, anyway?)

I say she might be "the most qualified" right now, for long-term strategy.  In a post this morning (at my blog), I mentioned the John Paul Stevens issue.  

Justice John Paul Stevens is 85 years old, but he is said to be healthy (or not?), and hired two new clerks this summer.  However, there have been rumors since the late 90's about him thinking of stepping down.

Nobody is saying (that I've heard) right now that he's going to retire, but the possibility is worth considering, especially when you read more recent rumors about Stevens, for example:

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:56pm on Sep. 27, 2005 Email from the Marines in Iraq

By bamapachyderm

I've been corresponding via email recently with a Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant serving in Iraq, who with his along with his brothers-in-arms, reads my blog (hey, no accounting for taste!) ;-)

When it comes to the war, his words are worth listening to (especially following the freak show in DC over the weekend):

I think you would be amazed at the morale of the young military people here.  I know I am.  I've been in for over 28 years and I have seen good and bad.  These youngsters are getting the job done in a way I would never have imagined.  They go on convoys, get shot at or have IEDs go off, then they return still in high spirits.  The trick here is to convince the bad guys they have been beat.  The idiots at the peace rallies are what's really hurting since the stated goals of the insurgents is to break down public support for the war in the US.  I heard the other day that 52% of the people back home think we are losing.  I would be worried if it was 1995 and this was the case, but Bush doesn't govern via polls like Clinton did.  That's one thing we all appreciate about the president; he sticks to the plan. :-D

Did you get that?  Peace rallies serve the insurgents.  Protesting the war is NOT "supporting the troops," and no one with a shred of common sense believes it does.  MGySgt Kuzniak* is no "boot"--as he said, he's got 28 years of experience on which to base his assessment.  

Let me just take a moment to salute our senior enlisted serving; we hear a lot about the amazing young troops out there, and I'm in awe of their resilience and strength--they really are heroes.  We don't hear a lot about the senior enlisted over there though; of course, that's because there are fewer of them in the military, period.  But the high morale and dedication to the mission is absolutely a reflection of the outstanding leadership demonstrated by the senior NCOs.  So those of you old crusty folks (hey, I can say that, I'm that age myself) over there, I salute you.  I know that good morale is crucial to a job well done--and in your situation, crucial to everyone's lives.

Support the troops!

* name and content of email used with permission.

(Funny Photoshop from them here,  if you're interested.)

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:05pm on Sep. 26, 2005 It's the strategy, stupid!

By bamapachyderm

I just read an excellent post ("Deep Thinkers") at JustOneMinute about the power of the blogosphere, which was in response to Peter Daou's The Triangle and the Limits of Blog Power.  Basically, Daou analyzes the difference between the Right and Left sides of the blogosphere, and concludes that we on the Right are an echo chamber, and the Left is spending too much time ineffectually bashing Bush.  Tom Maguire disagrees with much of Daou's lefty groupthink commentary, and this is noteworthy:

Over in my slice of reality, I could rally up plenty of right wing bloggers who couldn't give two cents for Bush's approval ratings.  Getting proper conservatives elected in 2006 and 2008, and finding someone (anyone!) to provide credible leadership on Iraq specifically and terror generally - that will excite right wing bloggers.

I'll add that the Right is far from an echo chamber; if anything, that's the domain of the Left and their "Dear Leader ChimpyShrubHalliBushitler Lied, People Died" chant.

Anonymous Liberal sagely  adds in the comments:

That being said, the conservative triangle seems to have broken down recently (especially post Katrina). The mainstream media has been fairly reluctant to repeat White House talking points, and, as you point out, conservative bloggers/commentators (to their credit) have been fairly open in expressing their dissatisfaction with various Bush policies (particularly spending and cronyism).





But the fact that conservatives have been openly critical of Bush lately doesn't undercut Daou's basic analysis. Indeed, it reaffirms it. It explains why the White House has been having such a hard time influencing public opinion of late. With a suddenly uncooperative media and blogosphere, Bush cannot complete the triangle. Not enough people are repeating White House talking points. (If anyone cares, I have a fairly lengthy post discussing Daou's piece at my own site.)

I wouldn't say "White House talking points" is accurate, but it is on point; a more accurate statement would be that conservatives (especially bloggers) have been violating Reagan's 11th Commandment (of which I am fond of repeating):   "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

Does this mean we should all nod our heads obediently and never disagree?  Of course not.  There's always been disagreement within the ranks of the right, but the difference is that before the Information Age and the rise of blogs, Republicans were better focused, had a better sense of priorities.  And let's be honest:  bloggers are a pretty mouthy, independent bunch (myself included), some being almost rogues.  Nothing wrong with being outspoken and independent thinkers, of course--but far too many are honestly very poor political strategists.  

Discussing activism, Tigerhawk comments,

It goes more deeply than that. Republican activists at the grass roots come from churches or small businesses. Democratic activists come from "social change" organizations, NGOs, and so forth. The former have no particular respect for "dissent," so even if they might disagree with a course of action, they will go along with it, perhaps after having expressed their disagreement. The heroes of the right are often authority figures. The left admires "dissent," and "speaking truth to power," and its heroes challenge authority. Who is going to have more message discipline?

That sounds pretty accurate to me.  But bloggers?  Bloggers, even on the right, tend to resemble Tigerhawk's example of left-wing activists--doing a lot of shouting and sniping (even Bush-bashing) on a dizzying number of issues.

In other words, no message discipline.

So what's the answer?

Stop right now with the attacks on Bush and the GOP.  For God's sake, there's ENOUGH of that already on the left.  There is a way to disagree without being destructive:  Michelle Malkin disagrees often with Bush, but she generally doesn't call him "weak" or other such nonsense.  The way to effect change is not to sit at a blog and say "Bush is acting like a liberal again, bitch, bitch bitch."  I'll use Malkin again here, since she has the most influence of conservative bloggers and is the link between us and the mainstream media:  her method isn't just bashing, she gives phone numbers and email addresses to which complaints can be directed along with the background of the story.  Mindless bitching and generalizations do no good.

All the loud criticism and hand-wringing does is encourage people to stay home on Election Day (including Congressional elections).  What COUNTS is votes.  So you don't like Bush's immigration policy?  Fine.  He's not running for re-election, but other Republicans are.  Taking this issue (for example) and using it to paint the entire party as weak or "not conservative" (or whatever) is dangerous business, because it encourages defection to honestly irrelevant and impotent third parties, if any political participation at all.  (See also:  Ross Perot, Ralph Nader.)  

So you don't think the GOP is conservative enough, or you don't like everything they represent?  OK, fine.  Does the Democratic Party represent you better?  Basically, that's your choice right now--no third party, not Libertarian, not any--is going to suddenly gain national power any time soon, and you might as well play with the cards you're dealt.  What are the most important issues today?  I submit that the War on Islamofascism and  judicial activism are, and I doubt that <del datetime="2005-09-25T03:54:2705:00">many</del&gt any would disagree.  I repeat, you have two choices:  the Democratic Party's approach, or the Republican Party's approach.    Either get on board, or surrender to the other side.

This means not only cut the destructive sniping, it means--crucially--no more attempts on the life of the GOP.  Specifically, withholding political contributions, and encouraging others to do the same.  So you don't want to give contributions to the RNC?  Fine.  Pick candidates running in 2006 that you like, and send money to their campaigns, then.  Better yet, send money to those in tougher races.  You may not be happy with the Republican Congress, but it's a lot better than a Democratic Congress!  Think:  if Congress were controlled by Democrats, would we get any good judicial nominees confirmed--or even nominated?  Wouldn't Bush have to pick "safer" nominees?  

So you don't like the Patriot Act, and you don't like the current immigration policy?  With a Democratic congress, you would likely have a weakened Patriot Act, but you could forget about immigration reform.  Don't forget about Guantanamo, while you're at it.  That would be history.  And furthermore, imagine the Congressional meddling in military operations (see also:  Vietnam).  

Fed up with the current Federal budget?  Me too.  I think it's a joke to imagine that the Democrats would do any better, though!  So when I read something like this,

the GOP majority has been spending federal tax dollars like drunken sailors since 2001

I'm even more disgusted.  Not because of the rate of spending, but because 1) war is expensive, duh, and 2) not ALL of the GOP slurs like a drunken sailor, and here's one example:

Sen. Richard Shelby says it's time for the federal government to go on a massive diet to pay for hurricane relief, and he's willing to start by delaying many of the highway projects and other earmarks he lured for Alabama.

Good.  Excellent.  And note that while Mark Tapscott complains about the GOP as a whole "losing its soul," Michelle Malkin puts the target on specific offenders.

Basically, all I'm saying is we have to choose our battles.  All I've seen lately is bitch, bitch, bitch on the Right, people saying things like "why do we even have a Republican Congress?"  Guess what:  you're not going to get your way on everything; politics is a game of compromise, like it or not.  I'd be happy to have it all go my way, but I'm a realist.  There are certain issues I simply don't write about here that others do, and that's because I know some things I have to let it go for the sake of the big picture.  On those issues, I act, but I do it quietly, behind the scenes, if you will.  There's a reason why we have access to the phone numbers and email/postal addresses of the White House, our Senators and Representatives, and our Governors, and there ARE organizations who work those issues (i.e. the budget, immigration, etc.).

I have no illusions that political bloggers are going to change people's politics, but bloggers DO have the power to change methods of activism.  Unfortunately, I see most bloggers doing it all the wrong way.  I wish some conservative bloggers had Karl Rove mind-control devices implanted in their brains.

I've referred to this before, and I will again.  Read Hugh Hewitt's book If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It.  It's focused on the 2004 election, but the lessons still apply.

It's the strategy, stupid.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »