The NeoCon Crusader
Wednesday, May 19, 2004
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Practice Clark Rant
Wesley Clark is not only a reprehensible candidate, but an incredibly poor politician. First of all, you'd better have Eisenhower-like credentials if you're going to make the presidency your first foray into politics out of the military. Secondly, your military record should be worth bragging about. I do'nt see Kosovo, and the support for Islamic terrorists therein, as a viable platform against an incumbent Presidnet who has crushed two vicious regimes in two of history's hallmark military campaigns. Finally, it helps to have political sense. Don't be a hardcore pacifist when you pleaded with Congress to support the war. And let's not forget your appearance on Meet the Press. When confronted by Russert about Kerry's allegation that Clark was a Republican lobbyist in Washington, he responded, "This is a campaign about the issues. I have a broad, diverse background which should be appealing to voters." And one last note: the guys wears sweaters. SWEATERS!!!
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Day #7::Dean
Unfortunately, most of what can be said about Howard Dean, especially from the conservative side, has already been said. We know that he’s a maniac. Even political nonbelievers can make commentary on “I have a Scream.” We all know that he is, at the core, unelectable. Two weeks ago, every liberal commentator on Hannity and Colmes prognosticated, “Don’t underestimate Howard Dean!” Nowadays, even Susan Estrich of Michael “The Duke” Dukakis fame laughs him off as a wayward lunatic. And we all know, far too clearly, that he’s a left-wing radical in sheep’s clothing. I can’t see why people like Alan Colmes kept trying to cast him as a centrist. Anybody who proclaims that the “The Iraqi standard of living has gone down since the end of Saddam’s rule” is just begging for the ultra-left label. So I’m not here to ridicule him as a candidate. He’s done that plenty well by himself. But let us take a fanciful look at what could have been, since he only has himself to blame, not those mean ol’ other Democrats who kept picking on poor Howie. A short while ago, I was a little nervous…not that Bush would lose, but maybe that overconfidence would be damning. Now, Rove was, once again, proven right: We should all go Democrat and vote him through the primaries. It truly is our best hope.
Dean, though he claims to “relish his newfound role as the underdog” (Democrat self-flagellation at its most shameless), he has numerous reasons to kick himself, primarily because it was his nomination to lose. He really had a good thing going: a pretty successful Vermont record (if you ignore tax increases on everything imaginable, including cigarettes and property) and the centrist label due to his proclaimed support for gun control and opposition to gay “marriage.” An apologist could point to things like this to defend against the left-wing maniac charge. But at the same time, he picked up the Wesleyan crowd (those who aren’t staunch Kucinich fans) through his fierce war opposition and universal health care plan. He was two candidates running one campaign. Sure, the Republicans could have blown him out of the water in the general election, but who cares? This guy likes to chop wood! And he hates Bush! Doesn’t it just make you swoon with righteous indignation? Come on…Admit it…
It would have all been so perfect, had he possessed a little thing called common sense, which is apparently not very common. But, from the looks of it, it seemed like he never really wanted to win anyway, unless he honestly believes the majority of American people believe that killing Udai and Qusai “didn’t justify the means” and that the capture of Saddam “didn’t make ANYONE safer.” No one who wishes to be a viable player launches vicious attacks on his opponents and then runs and hides behind Terry McAuliffe’s leg when they fire back. Nobody who is serious on winning an election and sane says and does such things. They weren’t gaffes, which implies something accidental. This was a drive towards self-destruction. And that’s probably what a candidacy of hate ultimately drives towards. This guy was all about destruction from day one: Destroy the war on terror, destroy tax cuts, destroy everything Bush, crush the infidels, rise, mighty legions of the orange hat! Emerge from your coffee shops, blog your way into the glory of victory or paradise of martyrdom! Sorry, folks. This country is not inclined to elect the candidate whose rhetoric most closely resembles that of an Islamic terrorist.
He had everything going for him…image, credibility, a strong enough record…but maybe he didn’t want it to be that easy. Maybe he wanted a challenge in gaining the nomination, couldn’t resist the “underdog” (aka excused Well, he sure got it. One simple”YAHHHHRRRGH!” secured that one. He coulda been a contender…now he’s hardly even worth my half-baked witticisms.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Day #6::Sharpton
I have a great deal of trouble laughing at Al Sharpton. I can’t approach this with the casual attitude I hold towards non-threatening Democrats like Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt. Sharpton really concerns me, because he’s not a harmless radical like Kucinich who’s just trying to stir the pot. He’s a vicious megalomaniac who has the incredible gall to call himself a civil rights leader. It worries me very deeply, because if this man can comfortably exalt himself in the ranks of the Democratic party, say and do whatever he wants without a qualm, then he is given sanction and legitimacy as a leader. And a community with that sort of leader is in so much trouble that I fear for the future of a community that’s dealt with enough betrayals from those who were supposed to guide them. He consigns his constituency into doom and his party into mockery.
Sharpton is frequently compared with Jesse Jackson, and the conservative can correctly point out that they’re equally corrupt, ineffectual, and selfish. But at least Jesse Jackson’s really good at pretending. At least he can point to organizations like the Rainbow Coalition and PUSH as evidence of his accomplishments, even though one is a front for vicious anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, and the other is actually a front for lining his own pocket. But at least he can fake it. Al Sharpton, in terms of being a civil rights leader, has nothing but his assurance. Even the NY Times can’t come up with anything, as they listed his accomplishments as such: Ordained at the age of 10, running for mayor, inciting a fatal riot (the subject of a riot was a Jewish businessman in Harlem whose crime was not being black. Sharpton referred to him as a “white interloper.”) Then there’s his claim to fame: Defending Tawana Brawley, who claimed to have been gang raped by various white men, including prominent businessman. Sharpton led the campaign to either put them in prison or ruin their lives…until the whole thing was proven as a hoax. Even now, he refuses to apologize to the innocent man he tried to destroy. He is a racist with blood on his hands, a fear-mongerer who talks enough about being a civil rights leader enough to make you forget how much of a lie that is. I fear very much for any black community that would consider this man a leader. None of this is a secret, I just wanted to open up the details to anyone who isn’t aware.
Far more sinister than Sharpton himself is the nature of his role within the campaign. He is frequently considered the black representative, and constantly lectures the other candidates on racism. When Dean made his Confederate flag remark, he lambasted Dean for referring to the “Swastika of America” thereby labeling a huge portion of southerners and everyone in the States of Georgia and Mississippi a Nazi. He lectured Dean on not having any black people in his cabinet (Even I’m defending Dean here- he would have to have gone out of his way to find a black man, and that’s affirmative action). What’s wrong with this picture? What gives him the right to lecture anyone on civil rights? Only two things: His word of honor, and that he’s black. The color of his skin far outweighs the content of his character. And because of men like him, the civil rights movement, on a national level, is over. Gone are the MLKs and Malcolm Xs, fighting for justice. There are only Jacksons and Sharptons who invent nonexistent racial problems to perpetuate their own egos. And the Democrats eat them up and let them make speeches, applauding both them and their own selves for being so tolerant and multicultural. Conservative Americans ye be warned: Don’t ever let a Democrat tell you that they’re of the tolerance party. If they were, they’d do something that actually helped blacks, rather than consigned them to the stewardship of criminals. The Democrats exalt the people who do the greatest imaginable disservice to the black community by excusing immoral behavior and shadowboxing white racism instead of combating serious social issues like crime and illegitimacy. And when these bullies open their mouths, neither white nor black will never have the courage to call them for what they are. They’re too afraid of the labeling game. Funny. I always thought civil rights was about moral courage, about doing the right thing no matter the cost. Maybe it’s true that the mission is not accomplished in terms of racial equality. But until the Dems wake up, they ensure that that operation is a true quagmire.
Day #5::Lieberman
I’m going to be blunt. Joe Lieberman’s campaign is the most colossal failure amongst a group of candidates that don’t exactly qualify as superstars. Our proud Connecticut senator had everything before him. He has years of political experience, great popularity in his own state, a solid image of morality and honesty, and most of all, name recognition, an edge which can’t be underestimated. By all rights, he should have been able to ride all of that to the front of the polls, and stay put. But instead, he got to the first part…and then things started going bad, fast. Now that we’re closing in on the first primaries, and invisible is about the best word to describe him. That and hopeless. What’s wrong with this picture? Why did a popular former VP candidate end up as the Democrats’ crazy old uncle in the attic? As Connecticut residents, let us take a look at our fallen star as he struts and frets his hour upon the stage, soon to be heard no more. For his campaign is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Forget the Judaism. It’s hard to analyze the effects of that, and besides, I don’t want to go there. And I’m speaking the obvious to talk about his conservatism. Sure, Democrats shouldn’t exactly be thrilled over somebody who’s more hawkish on Saddam than President Bush, but I won’t tell you something you already know. Rather, the problem is Joe himself. Selling yourself as a candidate is like selling anything else. It’s all about delivery. I think Joe’s advisors forgot that one. The problem with Joe’s campaign, or at least the biggest one, is that he’s executing this campaign like the stereotypical politician that he is. He kisses a few babies, throws on a hardhat for a few minutes, and talks about his legislative record, oh how he talks about that. He’s like an overly zealous golfer after a 300-yard drive. “Did you see me push that Homeland Security bill through the Senate? ‘Cause I sure did, and it was a beeee-uty.” Not only is there no energy or originality, but he forgets that most people don’t trust politicians. That’s why the last guy elected President from Congress still charms the hell out of us forty years after his death. Serious candidates have personality as well as substance. And they’re almost always anti-political, at least on the surface. Lieberman is the most political of any of the guys up there, and worst of all, he’s proud of it. He’s treating it like a Senate campaign writ large. Someone needs to go up and tap on his shoulder and say, “Umm…Senator Lieberman, you’re running for President, not reelection.” Boy, will his face be red.
You can get away with that half-hearted interaction in the Senate. People don’t care as much, and those who do are zealous enough to put issues over personality. Not so in the big leagues. Most voters, unfortunately, are idiots. They vote personality, always have, always will. Howard Dean is a vapid banshee, but at least he gets your attention. Let’s remember that while we scroll over to Joe, drolling on about…oh, who the hell cares. See? Try it sometime, next time he’s up there…if he hasn’t dropped out by then. I don’t think he’s a bad senator. He’d probably be better if he remembered that his job description doesn’t include the words “Running for President 24/7 (no, wait, 24/6) for two straight years.” Maybe he wouldn’t even be a bad president. But on the campaign trail, he makes George Bush Sr. look like Chris Rock from Head of State. And Dan Quayle like Bernie Mac.
Day #4::Kerry
Clearly, the biggest surprise thus far to the 2004 campaign has been the meteoric rise of Howard Dean as front-runner (though I’m pretty sure that meteors are better known for falling.) As a result, the previous front-runner, Senator John Kerry, is languishing in the throes of stagnancy like a fly on a web. It’s only a matter of time before the spider of Super Tuesday finishes him off, but he’ll kick and scream as much as he can before the bitter end. Yet within this phenomenon is another intriguing development: How did this guy ever become front-runner in the first place? And, having obtained it, how did he lose it so easily? Once again, there’s little point in me using this article a soapbox to blast him for being such a poor candidate. Rather, his brief rise and crippling fall indicate why the Big D is going home empty-handed this year.
Right from the get-go, the Democrats proved that they don’t have a very solid sense of history. Let’s look at the history of incumbent defeats over the last several years. George the First was defeated because his sound policies were overshadowed by his poor communication skills, and Bill Clinton, say what you will, is a political genius who could charm the pants off of…well, you know how the story goes. Jimmy Carter against Ronald Reagan really wasn’t a fair fight from day one. Gerald Ford in ’76…he certainly doesn’t count. As a U.S. President, that is. Having reviewed that, did the Democrats really believe a wartime president who held a 55+ approval rating despite Iraq and a recession could really be beaten by…John Kerry? No, wait, make that John F. Kerry. Uniqueness, passion, and substance (Oops, say goodbye to Dean) mark those who defeat incumbents. Not a career politician from Massachusetts (and the top 1%) who has a voice for newspaper and looks like a tree. Sorry, I couldn’t resist. His initial ascension marks the desperation of the party for somebody, anybody, to take on Bush, even a Senator (and no, despite what he tells you, he is not another JFK, except on his birth certificate).
But that’s not the end of it. For even though fate was aligned against him, it was choice that doomed the Kerry campaign, and Kerry himself pushed the button on the self-destruct mechanism. He achieved all this, by listening to the ravings of some lunatic governor from Vermont, and then paying attention. Not only paying attention, but decided that this Dean guy was putting on a pretty good show, and he wanted in on some of the action. Cue the ferocious anti-Iraq sentiment, cue the UN kowtowing, cue the class warfare (coming from someone who’s worth is by marriage 30 times what Bush earned on his own). Even Dean’s biggest competitor became swept up in the Dean craze of style over substance, rage over reason. He might as well just handed the guy his King-until-the-election crown. If Kerry has just ignored the guy and pursued his own motif, he would still be # 1, and the Democrats might be taken a little (just a little) more seriously. Nobody ever said politicians were smart. Well, somebody probably did, but they were wrong. Kerry had no shot from day one. But he would have a made a great Michael Dukakis upgrade had he not indirectly bowed down to George McGovern 2.0. Kerry truly is the story of the 2003-04 Democratic Party. He started out desperate. Then he replaced platform with emotion. But through it all, he’s always been a whiner and a fake. And the emblem of why the donkey will walk away from November with a “W” tattooed on its hide.
Day #3::Kucinich
It’s very difficult to take Dennis Kucinich seriously, even for the purposes of a mere column. His ideas, such as the “Department of Peace,” and scrapping of America’s nukes (and nobody else’s) make me want to scratch my head and adjust my television. “Imagine,” catchy though it may be, doesn’t strike me as a proper campaign song, unless you’re running for Dear Leader. His followers are the ones holding up the “Bush: World’s # 1 Terrorist” signs at protest rallies. He has the gall to refer to himself as the “progressive” candidate of the race. And besides, he is, as Ann Coulter put it, “a strange looking little man.” But it’s far too easy for me or anyone else to sit down and blast his outer-space politics, so I won’t prattle on regarding what we already know. Rather, I have a theory that while his ideas are certainly extreme even by modern Democratic standards, the mindset behind those ideas is nothing new, nor nothing irregular as far as the Dems go. The philosophy behind his wannabe agenda lies at the heart of everything wrong with his party, a deeply rooted corruption that is not limited to Wesleyan students and the Plowshare movement. It’s nothing more than a more detailed version of the party line.
Let me introduce my point with this, part of his conclusion speech at the Iowa caucus.
"Fear led us into attacking Iraq. Fear led us into passing the Patriot Act. My candidacy is about the end of fear and the beginning of hope for America -- hope that we can reconnect with the world community, which will enable us to bring U.N. peacekeepers in and bring our troops home; hope that we can reestablish our civil liberties; hope that we can once again become a nation where we are respected around the world for the quality of our morality, for our willingness to work with our hands instead of our arms."
Finally, we see what is at the heart of his campaign, beyond all the diatribes about the Kyoto Accord and Bush targeting civilians in Afghanistan. He attributes every action regarding of the war on terror, from both invasions to the PATRIOT act, as an irrational act of fear, and that by acting on that fear we’ve made the whole world mad at us for being so petulant. Not only that, but if elected, he’ll make everything better by proving once again just how swell America is capable of being. The underlying principle here is that everything is America’s fault. The world doesn’t like us because we’re jerks, terrorists exist because we denied their liberties, and if we just be nice toward everyone it will make it all better. Sounds crazy, right? Ok, so Kucinich is a lunatic. But what about Howard Dean? He has frequently implied that he would order an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and indicated that he would only invade Iraq if the UN gave him “permission.” John Kerry has the same remedy for trouble and victory: appeal to the UN, get help, we did wrong and it’s time to fess up. Bill Clinton, in November of 2001, went so far as to cite the Crusades as a justification for September 11th. Hillary, when not making racist comments about 20th century icons, visited Iraq only to tell the troops that they weren’t doing a good enough job and needed help. Do I see a trend? America is always wrong, everyone else is always right. That philosophy is not the conjurations or Rush and Tom DeLay. It’s very real, and Democratic leadership is not afraid to admit it. I will not generalize rank and file Democrats, but in terms of leaders, the only thing the US can ever do right is admit just how wrong it is on everything. They don’t necessarily hate America, they just don’t trust it. The only thing setting Kucinich apart is that he formulizes that mindset into concrete form with his ideas, rather than simply implying it. As far as the Democratic race goes, he is not a lone nut appeasing to the boondocks of the left. He is nothing more than their very own Charles Barkley. He says what everyone else thinks.
Day #2::Edwards
Obviously, the Democratic race cannot easily be defined as a logical process. However, if there was a shred of reason left in this campaign, it seems to be that John Edwards would be the out-and-out superstar of the race. I’m not saying that I like him, but it seems like he has everything they could want in a candidate. He’s a young guy with a nice-looking family, and he’s cornered the market on a “regular guy” image. His past is probably squeaky clean, he’s eloquent as far as the Nine go, and he’s moderate enough to comfortably court both sides of the fence. His campaign is marked by actual ideas, and if the last forty years is any indication, Democrats dig guys with Southern accents. So why are his poll numbers comparable to those of Al Sharpton? Why is he the most obscure of the serious candidates? I already showed why Gephardt can’t win. Now I’ll tell you why Edwards, in this place and time, never even had a chance.
I said before that he based his platform on a series of ideas, of new initiatives and folksy values. Usually, that would be a big asset, but now it’s a crippling setback. Because the Democrats have proven that they don’t want a campaign of ideas, plans, and hopes. They want a campaign of anger, vitriol, and yes, hatred. They’ve worked themselves into such a frenzy over Bush, they can only find satisfaction with someone who will provide a channel for that rage. Why else do Dean’s supporters write off his countless gaffes and flaws? He’s the only serious candidate giving the people what they want: Not so much a campaign as a crusade. As a result, it doesn’t matter if Edwards comes off as the reasonable, electable candidate. He doesn’t incite his followers into wael-raes, so they have no use for him. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if he’s the most “regular” fellow on the podium. Not only he is painfully overzealous in his quest to prove himself as normal, but Democrats don’t want normal this time around, at least the majority of them don’t, if polls are any indication. They want a representative who will justify their all-consuming righteous fury. If the nomination is as hateful as they are, then they can pass off that sentiment as normal and acceptable. John Edwards can’t be that man. Sure, he’s a Bush-basher, but his focus on vapid rhetoric isn’t nearly enough for the mobilized Democrats of the primary phase. He’s just too…normal. How passé. So this time around he’ll have to pack up and head home, and keep on fighting for me in the halls of the Senate (listen to one speech, no, one sentence of his, and you’ll see what I mean.) Maybe he’ll be called back once the Democrat leaders remember that elections are held on Earth.
Day #1::Gephardt
Dick Gephardt surprises me. I thought he was just “yesterday’s candidate” but he’s actually become a viable player and a definite alternative to Dean by being, umm, sane. At least, most of the time. Yeah, he did call Bush’s foreign policy a “miserable failure”, then turn around and gush about how he was for Iraq the whole time when we caught Saddam. Yeah, he did say that Bush “has declared war on the American people.” But you know what’s worst? I’ve got all of Dick Gephardt’s problems right down to a very simple solution. He’s just your average Democrat. Ho-hum., (yawn). Let’s consult the list. Hugely pro-labor? Check. From a big farm state? Check. Gushes on about how much of a regular guy he is? Check. Skittish defense record? Check. Obscure rhetoric about evil Republicans? Checkmate. But there’s nothing remarkable, nothing to set him apart from the crowd. Besides, as my mother says, “He’s boring.”
I’m not going to discount his political potency. I think he definitely has a shot at the nomination, especially as Dean continues to dig his hole amongst the Dems. If the Golden Boy fails, then it will be natural for the Democrats to go with what they’re familiar and comfortable with, a case in which Gephardt’s lack of distinction may come in handy. But that won’t do them any favors in the long run, because while putting Dean on the national spotlight is equivalent to committing mass suicide, there’s no advantage in taking Gephardt as an alternative. The Democrats, more than anything else, need to energize the base. Since George Bush will be tough to beat, they need to counteract their usually dismal turnout with someone who will motivate them to do so. That’s why Dean was so special, until they realized how psychotic he was. He was someone that really inspired passion in his followers, few and isolated they may be. Gephardt may have more mainstream appeal, but I don’t see anyone worked up in a frenzy over him. He’s just another Dem, so if they throw him against Bush, your average joe schmo Democrat voter will have no more motivation to vote for him than he did for Gore, and Bush is in a far stronger position than he was in 2000. Sure, the whole business about being a regular guy, all the pro-union business, the anti-rich routine, that works great when you’re a Representative from Missouri. But this is the presidential race, and the last guy to win from either house of Congress was none other than John F. Kennedy. And as Lloyd Benson might say, “You are no Jack Kennedy, Dick Gephardt.”
Days of Thunder
I have to start big. I have to announce my entry onto the stage with an epic, all-consuming account of the key issues, the real important stuff, and cut it to shreds with my opinion and analysis. But, all I’ve got is the Iowa caucus. All I’m left with is the “naïve nine” as Sen. Zell Miller so wonderfully put it. But, I’ve got to deal with the cards that are dealt me, and so, I will inaugurate my column by doing what every conservative pundit/commentator must do: Analyze the candidates one by one. I was going to do it based on what they said today at Iowa. In fact, I was going to do it simply based on their 45-second conclusion speech. But then I realized that they all just spewed out the same trite about increasing the welfare state, being such regular joes, and how the decision is now in the hands of the people. So I’m going to cheat and approach it from a general perspective. For the next nine days, I’ll approach one candidate and break him down. Give me comments on how I’m doing, I’m still trying to figure out how in God’s name I do this column business.
