True Yankee

When listening to people talk sports, they will often talk about how somebody has to 'earn' their place on a new team. The New York Yankees of the last few years haven't won a World Series, which is nearly the end of the world for any Yankees fan. As a result, almost all of the players brought in to the team since that time are seen as not being 'True' Yankees. A-Rod being the clearest example.

The problem for the GOP is that currently none of their three big stars (McCain, Rudy, Romney) are "True Yankees". McCain will forever be remembered for running to the left of Bush in 2000. Rudy is pro choice, pro gay rights, lived with his mistress while getting a messy divorce from his wife. And Romney is the most craven political creature possible, state shopping as best he could till he managed to win the meaningless Massachusetts govenorship (the Mass State Congress is nearly pure democrats, when a republican is in the Gov's office, they just override his vetos and do as they please.)

The thing is, the high bar of True Yankee that Bush set is one that will be nearly impossible for any of the major three to meet. There are a few lower teir canidates like Brownback who have the ability to make the case, but nobody's looking at them at all.

And this is the problem for the GOP, the majority of Americans don't like Bush, so they don't want more of the same in the next election, to not be crushed in the upcoming election, the GOP must go with somebody who is at the very least on the surface, more moderate then Bush.

But to win the nomination, one must pander to the 30%, those who support President Bush and all his amazingly unpopular decisions, like being anti-stem cell research, being in favor of having the government get invovled in a family's decision to end life support for someone who is in a 'persistant vegitative state', and of course, the whole failure in Iraq and the potental for a new and greater failure in Iran.

This is the albatross around the neck of the Republican Party that Bush has become, those who wish to take his place can not both be "True Yankees" to the home team, and still be tolerated by the public at large. McCain has already said he'd work to overturn Roe V Wade. He's doing everything he can to placate the fans, but he'll never be a "True Yankee".

This leaves the 30% in a true pickle, they want to support their team, but they now feel their team has betrayed them, will they stay home, or will they decide to support another team? Time will tell.

Our side is to smart

I think the real problem with the politics of this nation is that one party truly seeks to inform and educate people. That they want to bring the truth to light and show everyone what's really happening.

The other side just wants you to believe what you believe, to pander to your fears, your hatred, your ignorance of the world.

The problem with this is that one side becomes about winning and losing, while the other side is about doing right by people. One side is like a sports franchise that has fans while the other side is a movement of people trying to effect the world in a positive way.

The Republican Party is morally bankrupt. The "Small Government, balanced budget" party is now the party that invades your bedroom to make sure your partner isn't someone that's the same sex as you. They invade your doctor's office to make sure you're not having an abortion. They invade your death bed and demand you be kept alive by machines. They run up huge debts and don't even attempt to balance the budget. Yet their followers remain. What issues they run on or what stance they take is meaningless. I've heard many people claim to be 'truly liberatian' and thusly, to be relevent to American politics, they vote Republican.

How any liberatian can ever see themselves in the GOP camp is beyond me, the only issue they have any ground on over Democrats is on guns, and the Dems have long given up on gun control as a national issue. On all other issues of personal freedom the Democrats are light years better then the Republicans.

Yet this hardly effects their angry base. There are many conservatives who are intelligent and do care about issues, but this is not about them. This is about the angry horde, the 30% of America who will just vote for whoever has an "R" before their name. It is like rooting for a Red Sox or a Colt. The person is meaningless, the team they play for has your loyality.

This is the problem for Democrats. I can honestly say I don't know anyone who's a blindly loyal democrat. I might be living in a vacuum, but I've dealt with a great many people who will vote for whoever the GOP puts before them, while those who do vote Democrat do so because they care about the issues, and the Democrats happen to represent that the best.

It is saddening to know that after 6 years of Bush's rule, we still have so many people supporting him, what could ever change their minds? I doubt anything, they are truly unreachable, and will just support 'the home team' for as long as they live.

Good Old Rush

I was listening to a clip of good old Rush, I.E. Pigboy on bartcop's website. Bart was generally tearing him apart as well anyone should when listening to Rush, but I heard something in Rush's endless rambling that Bart didn't bring up and it struck me as being really galling, I know a liberal being offended by Pigboy's radio show, shocking isn't it?

He went off on one of those fantastic false comparisons where you compare the number of people murdered in American City X (In this case he used Philly) then compare it to Iraq, and wow! Iraq's no worse then American City X! The Press are a bunch of whiny defeatists who want to see us lose this war! The liberals long to live in an Islamic Dictatorship run by Osama Bin Laden! Clearly that's how the world works.

After making his false claims about Philly = Iraq, he then pouts over the fact that 3100 Americans have been killed in Iraq over 4 years, and that this is really a small small number of dead over such a giant period of time, really, Philly is just as bad, yet the Media does NOTHING but whine about all the dead kids in Iraq, not one word about all the violence riddling the streets of Philly.

Now of course I could waste a great many words refuting that stupidly illogical line of reasoning, but I won't, what I want to ask to Rush is, how many American troops in Iraq need to be killed for it to be worth writing about, and how fast does it have to happen? Do we need 200 in a week for you to accept it as being newsworthy? Is 10,000 dead enough no matter how long it takes, or do we have to reach that milestone within 2 years from now? When will the amount of America troops killed in Iraq reach the threshold you need to accept that this is in some small way, relevant to the world at large and thus, the press shall be allowed to spill some ink in covering it? How high must we pile the dead before you will grant your blessing for them to be spoken about?

Deal or No Deal

I have been told by more then 1 person that we are fighting the Iraq war due to the amazingly flawless reasoning of "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here." and that the Iraq war allows me (Cause they know me so well) to have "Peace of Mind" knowing that terrorist will in fact not be blowing me up today or tomorrow.

Can you imagine that being the reason we have sent all these people to Iraq, to be shot at, wounded, or killed? For us in America to have "Peace of Mind"? What kind of a sick nation would we have to be to be so morbid as to declare our military to be expendable, their deaths merely a means by which to protect us from harm.

The "Peace of Mind" war is one that can *never* end. Since the moment we leave Iraq, we will lose our "Peace of Mind". I can't imagine what life is like for these people, did they feel instantly 'safer' once we invaded Iraq? Were they living in fear from 9/11 until the invasion of Iraq? Or did it take more for them to finally feel safe? Did killing Saddam's children make them safe? Or was it capturing Saddam? If that wasn't enough was it hanging him? How much more can we do to make them, or anyone else, feel safe?

Can anyone imagine this being the justification or reason for this war? Can anyone think that honestly any President could have gotten in front of the American people and said the following.

"My fellow Americans, we have been attacked by Terrorists, these people have caused great damage and loss of life to our nation. To deal with this threat we shall engage in a cursory attack at their leadership in it's home nation. After having done so, we will invade Iraq, mostly because it is a middle eastern nation with an easy to defeat military. After we have crushed Iraq's puny military, our troops will then police the nation. The people of Iraq will most likely rise up in rebellion against them. Osama Bin Laden, who we will have failed to capture or kill, will find Iraq's rebellion against our troops to be a chance to strike at us, and will do his best to send his terrorist legions into Iraq. There his supporters and the native Iraq population who hates us, will work as best they can to murder our troops. By allowing Bin Laden and the Iraqi people to stay focused on murdering only those Americans sent over to Iraq, we will keep America safe. You may ask when can the troops leave? Clearly the answer is never, they must fight and die in Iraq so that we in America can remain safe and free from deadly terrorist attacks like those we suffered on 9-11. We will end up with tens of thousands of wounded troops, thousands of dead troops, and so many others who will suffer from endless mental disorders inflicted on them by the horrors of war, but this is a needed, and vital mission to keep America safe.

Thank you, and God Bless."

This is what they are telling us. This is the sad, pitiful reality we have to face. That the doomed, mindpoisoned 30% of this nation live in such fear, such dread of boogeymen and hobgoblins, that we must, MUST send endless waves of young men and women to Iraq to die, just so they can feel better.

Ugh.