In the post, Strata takes aim at all those who argue that the Republican Party will have to become more ‘conservative,’ that they lost because they were not ‘conservative’ enough, and who have done their best in recent years to alienate moderate Republicans and Independents who then logically turned on the GOP this year and voted for president-elect Barack Obama instead of for Sen. John McCain.

Strata:

The problem with the conservative movement is it repulses more people than it attracts. This is one of many cases where they became too ugly to bear. Look at what a ‘true’ conservative stands for:

Somehow removing all illegal aliens from the country and putting up massive barriers along our borders. Conveys a nice, warm and friendly view of that city on the Hill? More like a gated community of snobs who cannot be bothered by ‘the masses’.

Opposition to giving senior citizens in poverty or on the edge of poverty a prescription drug benefit through Medicare/Medicaid, a program that reduces the cost of these programs because it removes the need to go to emergency rooms for basic medications. Those mean old Scrooges on the right where will to keep medicine from the sick and poor! Where is the shining city on the hill in this?

Opposition to education reform and desire to pull their kids out of the public school system. I think it is OK to want better than public school system can provide for kids (we all do). But to also oppose corrective action on those public schools is a step too far. It again looks like those with money are trying to dump those struggling and run to their enclaves. We are a community which does need to fix problems, not hide in gated communities and private schools.

Bush did not want the war against al-Qaeda to be a war against Muslims or Arabs, but then the ‘true’ right when on a purely religious and race based attack against a company from a moderate allied Arab-Muslim nation that was buying into some of our port operations here in the US. Even worse than the racist and religious bigotry behind the panic was the fact those screaming ‘fire’ were not listening to what was in the deal for national security. The deal included the Arab company paying for and installing Cargo sensor systems in all their international ports that would be feeding products into our port. It was a disaster for the GOP and conservatism.

The ‘true’ conservatives still moan on and on about the statesman focused process McCain and Lieberman and 12 other Senators used to avoid constitutional showdowns with Bush’s judicial appointees. A very small number of appointees were not able to get on the bench, but conversely there was no repeat of the Bork or Thomas fiascos. Anyone still holding a grudge against the Gang of 14 is out of sync with America. We don’ want FL 2000 like confrontations. We don’t want to see people Borked. I sometimes feel the ‘true’ conservatives are simply jealous about the moderates who pulled off a solution that avoided endless litigation

Harriet Miers was the poster child for moderates and ex-democrats to leave the party. She was inside Bush’s inner circle and someone who knew very well. She was an ex-democrat - like Reagan and many other leaders of the GOP in the 80’s and 90’s until the purity wars erupted. Harriet Miers illustrated how a few extreme (and in the case of David Frum vengeance driven) conservatives would tear down the impure moderates if they tried to attain leadership or positions of power. It was the universal signal to RINOS and Quislings the GOP umbrella was shrinking and only the pure need apply.

After all this (and more) if anyone is confused about the shrinking GOP brand they are just not paying attention.

One has to agree and disagree with Strata, I’d say. When conservative Republicans argue that one of the main reasons for the Republican Party’s unpopularity these days is, for instance, the massive U.S. debt and the lack of responsible spending during the Bush administration, they are quite simply right. If Bush and the Republican Congress - which was controlled by Republicans for years, Democrats took over only two years ago - would have spent tax payers money wisely and responsibly, chances are that Democrats would not have taken over in 2006, and would not have gained the majorities they will have in 2009 either.

On the other hand, Strata is correct when he criticizes ‘true’ conservatives for refusing to allow Bush, McCain and the Democrats to reach a compromise plan for immigration and other key issues. They could have dealt with this problem in a realistic manner, which would have enabled future administrations to deal even more effectively with it. But no, the proposed bill was not ‘pure’ or ‘anti-illegal immigration’ enough for the conservative base and was shut down.

There are other issues too. Far-right bloggers who have turned the war on terrorism into a war on Islam are making the problem worse rather than better. It is perfectly alright, even necessary, for people to investigate what role religion plays in terrorism and in extremism in general. But many ‘true’ conservatives in America have turned on Islam as a whole; Islam itself is inherently wrong, evil and violent, these individuals say. It became even so bad that Muslim and terrorist have become synonyms in some circles.

This rhetoric puts off potential allies, Muslim allies, Western allies, and moderate voters who have something called common sense and who may have done some research of their own and have come to understand that in order to defend terrorism or violence against civilians in general in Islam, one truly has to distort what the Koran says and ignore large parts of it.

And health care is also an issue of major concern: little has been done in recent years in order to help Americans get an insurance and / or to pay for it. Health care is becoming increasingly expensive. The problem has increased rather than decreased in recent years. But when people try to reform health care, they immediately run into problems with the ‘true’ conservative base, who accuse virtually every proponent of health care reform - which is demanded by voters - of being ’socialist.’ The result: Democrats will be the ones able to pursue health care reform because they are the only ones willing to give voters what they demand. Democrats’ health care reform is likely to be more expensive than absolutely necessary, and it may be that they will pursue too radical plans, which may hurt America’s ability to innovate in this area. Republicans should pick up on this and cooperate with Democrats in order to push through health care reform that will insure more people, push the costs of health care down but that would not damage America’s ability to innovate and compete nonetheless.

Strata is wrong… and right. Conservative should pay attention.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Case in point: China.

Peter Brookes reports for the China Post:

In the last few weeks, the media has been filled with reports of Chinese cyber spies penetrating the computer networks of both presidential campaigns and even the White House, reading unclassified, but clearly privileged, e-mails.

Unfortunately, that’s only the beginning of it.

No surprise that the Chinese would be interested in what’s being said in the White House, even the non-secret stuff. White House staffers have access to plenty of information that would be of interest to the chaps in Zhongnanhai (the Chinese leadership compound)…

China’s hacker army is also targeting American industry for espionage, especially the defense industry, where new weapons systems and top-of-the-line defense technology are at the center of the bull’s eye…

The same is true with the civilian side of private industry. Beijing is pilfering the technology of U.S. and other foreign firms that set up shop on Chinese soil. In fact, some firms resist putting cutting-edge research and development there for exactly that reason.

Since traditional espionage can be tough in a foreign country (recruiting a spy to pinch information can be expensive, difficult and politically risky), the Chinese have turned to cyberspace. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine who’s picked your pocket, providing plausible deniability to the cyber spook. Spies cover their electronic tracks by routing their penetration through any number of surrogate servers around the world, making finger-pointing difficult.

Not surprisingly, the amount of industrial cyber espionage is grossly underreported, as firms fret over acknowledging that their intellectual property — the crown-jewels of their efforts — has been “exfiltrated.”

And then the key point:

In the end, the Chinese aren’t only stealing our industrial and defense secrets, but something more important: Our ability to compete globally.

America’s great strength has been its ability to innovate — to develop new ideas and concepts. Arguably, no country in history has been as ground-breaking in as many fields as Uncle Sam. It’s something we’ve a right to be proud of.

The theft of our intellectual property — by anyone — means we’ll be less able to compete in international markets as well as protect our security interests, including against the likes of a rising China, destined to be a peer competitor.

What China is doing is this: it is stealing America’s knowledge and innovative ideas. It then uses it for itself, causing the U.S. to suffer in a world in which innovation is key to success. The U.S. will have to guard itself against China’s cyber attacks. Companies and the government can pretend publicly that the problem does not exist, but they will need to do something about this major issue behind closed doors; the best minds in the U.S. should work on it - in the end, the U.S. has tremendous knowledge in this respect, with some of the best computerminds more than willing to help out.

As long as the pay is OK.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Although the news will undoubtedly make automakers and their employees happy, there will be strings attached: the House will require ‘that the industry meet new fuel-efficiency standards, produce advanced vehicles and restructure “to ensure their long-term economic viability.”‘

Pelosi neglected to say how much automakers would receive, but it is known that they asked the government for $25 billion in loans.

We do know that the money will come from the $700 billion bailout plan approved by Congress several weeks ago in order to save the economy and then especially financial institutions.

“A restructured, competitive American automobile industry will continue to play a crucial role in our national economy and in the global marketplace,” Pelosi said in a statement.

The problem, of course, is that U.S. automakers are not and have not been competitive for years, decades even. Unions and the government force them to pay employees too high a salary, driving up production costs and the prices of the product, cars. The only way for U.S. automakers to sell cars is to sell them against no profit.

Since they do not make a profit they do not have the right to exist in a market economy. Yet, they are bailed out time and again because ’so many people depend on them.’ Yes, and if you keep bailing them out, even more will come to depend on them, costing the taxpayer even more billions every couple of years, and weakening the U.S. economy even more. If Americans continue to work in a dying sector because the government ‘helps’ the sector out, it does tremendous damage to the innovation ability and growth ability of the U.S. in other areas: if these people were all forced to work in other sectors, as the market dictates, the U.S. economy would be better off, for they would be competitive in this areas.

The more the U.S. government bails out dying industries, the more likely it is that it will lose its edge over up and coming economies such as India and China.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

To those who argue that denying marriage to loving gay couples is all about protecting children: why then are you not fighting to prevent gay couples from adopting?

Arkansas has recently shown itself to be consistent on this point. It has passed a law that denies any unmarried person from adopting a child or being a foster parent. Since a child really needs a mommy and a daddy, we’ll make sure that children (1000 up for adoption in Arkansas) remain orphans unless an ideal family is found. After all, better in an orphanage than with two same-sex parents, or even a sinful lifelong heterosexual couple. Utah is the only other state that has this law. I find it hideous and very much against the best interests of a child, but at the very least it shows ideological consistency.

In all but two states of the union, marriage remains off limits to gays and lesbians. However adoption and fostering children is allowed in most. In some gay couples can adopt and foster with an acknowledgement of their being two parents. In all the rest of the states, a single person can adopt a child, though authorities know full well that there will be two parents in the home.

My question to those who feel so strongly that they are doing a good deed by denying marriage rights to others is: If it’s important that gays not get married, how can it possibly be less important to prevent them from raising children?

How can it be that allowing two people of the same gender to get married is a threat, but allowing two people of the same gender to raise a child is less of a threat? Shouldn’t protecting children be the very first priority? And yet I see no huge campaigns to outlaw parenthood for gays and lesbians. I  don’t see the LDS Church asking it’s faithful to pour millions of dollars and hours into a fight to prevent gays from raising kids. I don’t see preachers and priests from all sorts of denominations asking their faithful to fight gay adoption. Why?

Once you allow gays to have kids, and there are thousands of gay families accross the US, it’s just as well you allow the parents to marry. If you’re allowing children to be in a same-sex household, you’d do well to give those children the legal protections that having married parents gives them. If you do not believe that children should be raised by gay parents, then you would do well to fight the gay adoption battle first, since it is directly responsible for gay families in a way gay marriage is not.

Of course you could never prevent Lesbians from having children unless you got very draconian about the matter. Lesbians can carry their own children. Even if you were to prevent unmarried couples from fertilization by sperm-donors, there are ways to achieve it without doctors help. You would not prevent two women from being mothers unless you were willing to take away their children by force. But of course that would be terrible PR, wouldn’t it?

So, I ask you, which is it? Do you really believe that gays getting married is worse than gays raising children? Or is it that while playing with the destinies of adults in pursuit of a non-existent ideal Ozzie and Harriet world is acceptable, the mind rebels at the idea of playing with the wellbeing of children in a similar manner.  Orphans will exist, children at risk will exist, and gay couples will exist. There will never be enough heterosexual young married couples to take them all in, so the realistic choice becomes whether you leave those children alone or give them to willing caretakers. At that point, I think even people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality mostly understand that a parent is better than no parent, and that two mommies is better than no mommie.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

One of the videos stars Peter Schiff, former adviser to, among others, Congressman Ron Paul.

Back in 2006, Schiff was warning investors, the public, pundits and politicians that a severe economic crisis would hit in 2007 or 2008, which would start with sub-prime mortgages, which would then hit mortgages and real estate in general, and which would proceed to do tremendous damage to the U.S. economy as a whole. In the end, the only truly strong economy left standing, after years of a severe recession, potentially worse than the Great Depression, would be China, which would take America’s place as the number one economy in the world with regards to impact, influence and strength.

Back in 2006, Schiff argued that financial institutions were weak, and that the housing bubble would break, taking the entire economy with it. His fellow experts said he was overly negative, and encouraged people to buy stocks from financial institutions. Schiff argued they should not buy those stocks for these institutions would be in tremendous trouble within one, maximum two years time.

Then in 2007, Schiff argued that the recession would truly hit everyone at the end of 2008, especially around November it would “be clear to everyone,” Schiff said, that America’s economy is in trouble. He argued that tax increases would likely be forthcoming in the years ahead, because local, state and federal governments would try to get as much money as they could in order to save what could possibly be saved.

And the main problem? “Phony wealth.” The U.S. became big, the U.S. economy became big in recent years by borrowing money, he warned in 2006 and 2007. The irrevocable result? A major collapse. U.S. wealth did not increase due to more production, etc. but by rising stock markets which rose only because people lived on borrowed money.

Note that Schiff warned against “artificial loaning standards,” and that the other “experts” laughed. They laughed then. But who was right?

Watch it:

Most fascinating to me is how the other “experts” reacted, while every single thing Schiff said has already come to pass. The others were talking about how “the worst is over,” Schiff said “the worst is yet to come.” Who was right? Schiff was talking serious, trying to warn people, the others laughed him off stage. But who was right?

The experts even told people to buy Merrill Lynch stocks. Merrill Lynch. One expert calling the stocks of financial institutions “cheap.” Schiff’s response: “Stay away from the financials, they are toxic. They are not cheap, they are expensive…” They asked him whether he had heart problems due to his negativity. But who has heart problems now?

Schiff is the president of Euro Pacific Capital. You can read more about his views on the U.S. economy there. What he is arguing, and has argued for years, is that this crisis will be very severe indeed, and that it will fundamentally change the U.S. economy. Note that he continues to believe that the best way to deal with this crisis is for the government to cut spending. Stop borrowing, stop pumping the economy up artificially. Let it fall back to healthy standards.

The other video is of yet another ‘negative’ expert who warned about a major recession for years. He now says that the crisis will be worse than the Great Depression.

My advise: take these two men very, very serious. Listen to what they say, and act on it. Buy stocks in gold, etc., stop living on borrowed money. Don’t spend more than you produce, and demand the government to do the same.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Britain’s Lord West of Spithead, the Home Office Security Minister, spoke recently of a “huge threat”, saying: “There is another great plot building up again and we are monitoring this.”

General Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, also said that he fears that Al Qaeda will try to strike during the transition period. “For some people two data points create a trend line. For others, there may be more hesitation to call it that,” Hayden said recently.

He went on to explain that most threats originate from Pakistan’s tribal area. “Today virtually every major terrorist threat that my agency is aware of has threads back to the tribal areas. Whether it’s command and control, training, direction, money, capabilities, there is a connection to the Fata [Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas],” the CIA chief said.

Hayden said that al-Qaeda remained a “determined, adaptive enemy” operating “from its safe haven in Pakistan”. He added: “If there is a major attack on this country it will bear the fingerprints of al-Qaeda.”

Meanwhile, according to British sources an attack is not yet considered “imminent” but the threat is seen as “at the severe end of severe.” This means that they consider the threat posed by terrorists about as serious as it was in 2005, shortly before terrorists killed 52 people in London.

The warnings will make many alarm bells ring considering the fact that America’s next vice president, still Sen. Joe Biden, warned Obama supporters shortly before the presidential election that America would be faced by a major international crisis shortly after he and Obama would take office which would try to “test” the newly elected president. Importantly, Biden said, many would believe that Obama’s reaction would be wrong.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville warned that those who voted for Obama were risking their souls if they would not repent before taking Holy Communion.

The reason: Obama supports abortion, the Catholic Church opposes it, however.

“Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president,” Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

“Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ’s Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.”

Interesting about the priest’s statements is that 54% of Catholics voted for Obama, according to the polls at least.

Although it is certain that Newman will receive a lot of criticism for his words, and perhaps rightfully so, one has to keep in mind that the Catholic Church and protestant churches are different from each other in so far that the Catholic Church has a strongly hierchical system, in which the top can truly tell the bottom was is and is not allowed, and we’re not merely talking about the ten commandments.

As such, the father’s words make sense from a religious Catholic perspective. Keep in mind, by the way, that he does not say that people should never receive Holy Communion anymore. Just not until they ‘repent.’

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

It is well known that Clinton and Obama could not get along during the primaries and that Obama did not want to ask the former First Lady to be his running mate. Nonetheless, the victory seems to have encouraged Team Obama to heal the intra-party wounds caused by the primaries and the team realizes that Clinton and their allies and supporters are those who know how to run a country.

Which has led to even more signals that Team Obama is considering lining up with Clinton and Clintonistas: Politico reports that many former Clinton officials are now working for Obama, are expected to work for him, or are being considered for top positions in an Obama administration. As Politico puts it, “Obama gets the Clinton band back together.”

Although the incorporations of ‘Clintonistas’ into Team Obama may cause some to wonder what Change Obama was talking about during the campaign season, the fact of the matter is that if you want to run a smooth administration, and especially a smooth first 100 days which are considered crucial for any new president, you need to surround yourself by people who have experience running the most powerful country on earth. Getting a completely new crew in will cause trouble in the first couple of months, simply because they don’t know how the White House works.

If you are a Democrat, there are only two things you can do in this situation: go back to Carter and his officials, or to the Clintons and their officials. Since Carter’s presidency is not believed to be very successful whereas Bill Clinton remains one of the most popular former presidents in modern history the choice is made quite easily.

Additionally, one assumes that the decision of Obama to incorporate so many former Clinton officials into his administration is a sign that he may be a more moderate president than some center-right critics of Obama during the campaign feared. Clinton was a Democrat, but he did not govern like an ideological liberal. His presidency was partisan, but not highly ideological; he governed like a pragmatist.

If Obama does so as well, chances are that criticism from moderates and center-right pundits will be reasonably limited, which should position quite well for a second term.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

When Sarkozy was in Moscow in August this year, in order to establish peace between Georgia and Russia, Vladimir Putin told Sarkozy he wanted to hang Saakashvili “by the balls,” meaning forcibly removing him from power.

Sarkozy told Putin that the international community would not accept that from Moscow. Putin didn’t care. ““I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” he said.

Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

The exchange between Putin and Sarkozy seemingly took place because Saakashvili responded, when confronted with it: “I knew about this scene, but not all the details. It’s funny, all the same.”

“Funny” is not exactly the word I would have used to describe it, but all is well that ends well, I suppose.

Lessons learned:

1. Sarkozy saved Saakashvili

2. Fear of “ending up like Bush” now functions as deterrent

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

I am somewhat consoled by the fact that the passage of this Proposition has seemingly woken up the gay and gay-friendly communities, sparking the kinds of passion in favor of their rights that was previously held only by those who wish to deny them those rights. They finally had tasted victory, and are no longer content to accept “their place” below their heterosexual peers.

However there is such a thing as going too far. Protesting institutions that overtly supported the ban is fine. Even calling for boycotts against businesses that supported the ban is acceptable. Targetting individuals is not fine, and should stop immediately.

I’ve read a few examples of this happening already. Whole businesses being targeted for protest or boycott because some prominent member (usually a Mormon) donated to the Yes on Prop. 8 campaign. Though legally within their right to do so, I believe that it is fundamentally wrong (and counter-productive) to do this.

The case that sent me over the edge to the point I feel I must say something was the Coyote Restaurant in LA. The Coyote Restaurant is an establishment with 89 employees, some gay, and a very diverse clientele, overwhelmingly gay-friendly. So did the business donate to the Yes-on-Prop. 8 campaign? No. Did the owner do so of his own accord? Nope. Well did a large portion of the employees put money into the campaign? No again. Marjorie Christoffersen, who is the daughter of the current owner of the business, donated to the campaign.

Considering the All Hell that has broken out because of this you would expect the donation to be huge, something that could actually impact the campaign itself. But Marjorie donated a measly $100. Because of this people on the other side have called for a boycott of her fathers business, endangering the jobs of 89 people, almost all of whom are entirely gay friendly. Heavyweights in the blogosphere like AmericaBLOG have targeted the business directly.

The matter came to a head when a meeting was called by the restaurant to explain their position. The place filled to the brim with very angry members of the gay community and journalists. This is how it started:

A floor manager stood in the middle of the back room where the community conference and stated that “El Coyote DOES NOT share the same views as Marjorie.” He stated that 89 families were going to be affected by this boycott and one of the community members screamed out “18,000 families already HAVE been affected!”

It went downhill from there.

The worst part was when Marjorie came out, trembling with fear and sadness, to try to explain herself.

She asked for forgiveness for being SO emotional and said that “El Coyote is as diverse as it’s clientele. Customers are considered part of the family and I responded to the call of the Mormon Church to donate [towards the ban on same sex marriage].”

As she continued to speak it seemed even MORE clear that she was distancing herself from El Coyote.

Marjorie began talking about how much her Aunt had done to support gays and the plight of the GLBT Community since opening the restaurant and asked that “[she] personally take responsability for [the] blame and anger” because she said she was aware of the boycott and pending protest slated for Thursday (tomorrow 11/13) night outside the front restaurant.

The crowd harangued her until she broke down crying and was taken away by her daughters. A pitiful sight, and one that manages to anger me as much the denial of rights based on misguided notions of “protecting” the non-threatened institution of marriage.

The following is addressed to any gay marriage supporter who may be reading this and might be inclined to agree with those attacking this woman. What the HELL are you thinking? You are targeting what by all accounts is a gay friendly business because one single member of the 100 person group is opposed to you? They have pledged $5,000 to two different Gay Rights organizations to demonstrate their support of the community, and you are willing to hang them out to dry because of the actions of one person?

In what universe is this even normal? And the treatment of the individual is not much better. She is a private citizen and you are metaphorically lynching her for donating a modest sum to a cause you oppose. She sounds sincere when she says that she cares for gays. Though I’m aware of the insufficiency of caring for someone you are willing to strip of rights, we aren’t talking about a Fred Phelps here. It looks very much like a bewildered and frightened woman who never dreamed her donation would spark this much vitriol.

What exactly are you aiming to achieve here? Who are you trying to convince? People like Marjorie will not be convinced by an angry mob calling for her head. Her gay friends can and should confront her on a personal level and say how disappointed they are, how personally this hurts them. People who are on the fence will be 100% turned off by this. I’m 100% in the pro-marriage camp and my first impulse was to think that marriage licences should be taken away from everyone, gay or straight, who enjoyed ganging up on this lady. Undecideds can only look at this and decide you are a lot more about hate than love.

Being angry about this is good and normal. Refusing to patronize businesses that have made a clear statement against marriage equality, a perfectly acceptable form of free speech. Ganging up on a lone woman because she holds a view you disagree with profoundly and threatening the livelihood of almost one hundred marginally related people is totally unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Note: I’d like to ask commenters to please not turn this into a debate on the issue of marriage itself or homosexuality generally, for good or ill. I am denouncing the tactic. I do not believe that the tactic itself reflects how right or wrong a movement is, but yes how civilized. As an exercise, picture this sort of thing with two different scenarios: one with a subject you feel passionately about in favor, and one against. Try to see if your opinion changes based on the underlying subject. Hint: it shouldn’t

NOTICE TO READERS: Unfortunately, due to the repeated posting of both express and implied threats of violence, we have been forced to close the comments thread.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Team Obama was considering asking individuals like Sen. Chuck Hagel, Sen. John Kerry or Gov. Bill Richardson for the job but, media report say, the leaders of the transition were not too happy with those choices.

Clinton would strategically be a very strong choice for president-elect Barack Obama indeed: It would help him heal the party tremendously. Furthermore, although Clinton lost she is still one of the most powerful Democratic leaders with a tremendous political machine operating for her. If Obama can tie her to himself, she will obviously help him for years from now.

Not only that, but Clinton is also a widely respected figure in the rest of the world. Until Obama proved he was a serious candidate for his party’s nomination, Clinton was the favorite abroad, especially in Europe. People remember her husband’s administration fondly. If you want to restore America’s reputation among its allies, Clinton would be a very good choice for Secretary of State indeed.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

I haven’t yet seen a stronger case for such a thing than from rocker Ted Nugent.  Nugent argues that it is time for more partisanship, not consensus building and reaching across the aisle.

RINOs reach across Fedzilla’s aisle to cut deals and build consensus with the liberals. Consensus building means compromising values and cutting deals with the socialist prankster punksters whose goal it is to turn America into EuroAmerica.

Consensus building is for wimps and soulless people who stand for nothing. Compromise is not about being tolerant: these days, it’s about giving up conservative principles.

Nugent also makes some suggestions as to whom he thinks would be a good pack of leaders for this new partisanized Republican Party:

Conservative leaders and thinkers such as Newt Gingrich, Jed Babbin, Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, Governor Sarah Palin and others need to turn up the heat and bring this less government, more individual freedom and strong national defense revolution to a boil. It is time.

Out of the list, I definitely like Gingrich’s “all of the above” approach to energy (though it’s not exclusive to him).  Beck also occasionally has some good ideas, too.  Then he includes Michelle Malkin.  I suppose if Republicans want one of the lead ODSers of the blogosphere to head up their party, then okay.  Palin might be able to make a comeback, but she needs to develop an actual platform first.  And I don’t know much about the rest, including Jindal.

I can see why conservatives would want to stick to the principles on the issues, but consensus making and working across the aisle are not a sin, of course.  If everybody took Nugent’s advice, nothing would ever get done.

I know most Republicans probably aren’t actually taking such advice seriously.  But, I think it’s safe to assume that Ted Nugent is one who wouldn’t be particularly happy to have Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Writing for Pajamas Media, Neo-neocon argues that conservatives are better than reacting in a knee-jerk fashion:

Yes, there are reasons to fear that Obama has a far left agenda, based on his history, some of his own statements, and his associations. There are even reasons to believe that whether he does or doesn’t have such an agenda himself, he will lack the inclination (or perhaps the backbone) to stop the far left agenda of those with the power to pass bills — in other words, the hugely Democratic Congress and its leaders Reid and Pelosi.

But I suggest that everyone stand back, take a deep breath, and wait. Wait, and observe. It will become clear enough as Obama chooses a Cabinet and advisers. And then it will become even more clear as he takes office and begins the work of government. More clarity will come as he handles the inevitable crises and tests that will occur on his watch.

That seem to me to be a conservative argument.  Go on what you see happen, not what you think will happen.  Once we see how Obama is going to lead this country, then we can determine whether or not he’s taking it in the right or wrong direction.  But until he does something, be patient.

Neo-neocon says that conservatives should use their heads going forward, and not base their actions on emotions:

In addition, those on the right have always taken pride in the fact that in their political decisions they are driven more by reason, in contrast to the left’s emotion. Whether or not this is true is not the issue here; the point is that, if conservatives believe it is true, they should act in accordance.

I have some quibbles with the blanketing of all liberals as knee-jerk reactionaries.  One of my favorite professors in college was certainly liberal, but very analytical in his style.  Yet, the core argument is a good one all the same.  It’s this style of thinking that I try to employ in life.  And it would probably be best if everyone followed this style.  It would certainly make debate much more intellectually stimulating rather than the squabbling it often devolves into.

The problem of course is not simple things like disagreeing on an issue.  The problem is demonizing a person, as Neo-neocon explains:

Once again, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about mere policy disagreements here. We’re talking about demonizing and trashing a person, ascribing to him the worst motivations possible and imagining conspiracy theories everywhere.

We saw a lot of this (and continue to see it) with Bush Derangement Syndrome.  “He’s the worst President ever!”  “He a fascist.”  “He’s a dictator.”  That kind of thing.  Of course, it doesn’t help political discourse any when some people are already using some of these same arguments against Obama as Michael wrote about a few days ago.

Now, I don’t agree with a lot of what Bush has done in regards to foreign policy (and especially detainee treatment), but I don’t think he’s a bad man.  He’s done a lot of good as well on the foreign front, especially with help on AIDS and foreign relief.  He’s also done a lot of good domestically.  I believe NCLB was a well-intentioned effort at improving education, even if it didn’t come off as well as hoped.

Any “derangement syndrome” is a bad thing, whether it’d BDS or ODS.  Those conservatives who would employ in it should remember that they didn’t like such tactics used on Bush.  So, there’s no need for a return volley.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

He also makes the argument that if the media is so utterly liberal, then how was George W. Bush able to win two elections?  It is a good argument, I think.  There is a bias there, though I have to agree with Smith that the media isn’t all powerful as some think.

So, is Smith doing the journalism job right or was he also in the tank for Obama like Bill O’Reilly apparently was?  You decide.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.