apropos of Katy’s post here, I point the reader to Kendall’s Richard the Third and Josephine Tey’s Daughter of Time . Both books hold that Richard III, the infamous Crouchback, murderer of the Princes in the Tower, was not only innocent of that crime, but probably not in any way deformed or crippled. Rumour, innuendo and slander grew and were manipulated to the point where they could be used to excuse the Tudor usurpers who were more likely the murderers. Once this was discovered, and it has been discovered again and again throughout history, it made no difference. The Narrative was set, Richard III was the bad guy and the truthiness was more important than the truth.
For a more recent example, please see The Al-Dura Affair.
So the question becomes, is the narrative sufficiently determined in favor of the Left that it can only be used to their benefit?
Continue reading ‘The War and the Election’ »
I mean, IIRC, we were supposed to vote for Obama because he wasn’t like the other politicians, Right? He wasn’t slick like Clinton, or dumb like W, or another “politics as usual” candidate like the rest of the field. Obama was supposed to be smart and clean and pure. Hope Change.
Of course, he was so smart he told AIPAC he wanted Jerusalem to be the eternal, undivided capital of Israel and then said he didn’t know that “undivided” was a “code word” in the Middle East. So either he’s incredibly stupid, or he was pandering then like any other politician, and he’s lying now.
He spent ten years cultivating relationships in a radical, racist church in Chicago, then said he knew nothing about the racists and the radicals. Again, either he’s stupid, or he’s just another politician, playing a game to get votes and hoping we’re stupid enough to believe his lies.
He’s inexperienced, and the experience he does have shows him to be the most liberal senator in Washington. And that’s after dodging hundreds of votes to make his record as feeble as possible.
So, why again should anyone be voting for him?
Will the war on terror be an issue in this campaign? Should it be? Naturally, the Obama camp hopes it won’t be, since his lack of foreign policy experience could be particularly damaging to him.
Of course, the war is sooo 2002, after all. And we’re tired of it and let’s get out. Even the anti-war protest this spring was paltry. The surge is working and we don’t hear about it. Let’s just be nice and give full habeus corpus rights to people we’ve locked up for “no reason at all” in Cuba.
But let’s just remember that September 11, 2001 did in fact happen (watch Fitna if you haven’t already. But don’t watch on a quesy stomach or in the office because you may in fact cry). The bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 did happen. The 1993 WTC bombing did happen. These were attacks by foreign agents on U.S. territory.
What’s Obama’s plan? Oh, it’s one we’ve heard before. Prosecute the terrorists. As he said recently in an interview with ABC, we should crack down on terrorists “within the constraints of the Constitution.” Really? Should the laws of the U.S. apply to those non-U.S.-citizens whose aim is the destruction of the Constitution and all it stands for? There would seem to be a very obvious answer to this, and it is no.
Obviously national sovereignty is not as robust as it once was (we in the West fear nationalism more than anything. Nationalism can lead to fascism, after all). But we must ask ourselves, is our nation so bad that we should stand by and watch its slow death, and quicken it by electing a man for President who supports this national suicide?
The war — who cares anymore? What’s the point? Al-Qaeda will never win anyway, we say. It will just go away if we don’t talk about it. Right.
In today’s statement Obama again straddles the line saying that he “supports public financing…but the system is broken.” Was it not broken in February 2008 when he wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today saying that he would accept public financing if his Republican opponent did as well? Let’s face it, he’s got a good deal going with his aggressive fund raising machine made up of “real people” (especially the real people in Silicon Valley c-suites), so why turn off the spigot? His comments about organized groups drowning out the voices of real people are disingenuous as well. According to OpenSecrets.org, as of May 2008, Obama has accepted $7 million from the education industry compared to McCain’s $727,000 from the oil & gas industry. Who is in whose special interest pocket?
Tim Russert was an honorable journalist. Though we may have disagreed with him frequently, there was no doubt that he did his job with fairness and energy and grace — especially appreciated during his moderation of the primary debates this season. He will be missed, and as so many commentators on both sides of the aisle have said, he is irreplaceable as a pundit.
We do note, however, the silence of Arrianna Huffington, though we wonder — who really cares? What is Huffington to Russert?
So Hillary is actually out — Facebook users are gradually leaving the 1,00,000 Strong Against Hillary group on Facebook (they reached 1.2), and the discussion now revolves on who Obama will choose for VP (no one seems to have an opinion about McCain’s possible VP pick. Lieberman is consistently mentioned by some McCainiacs, but that’s another post.) But, for whatever reason (call me pessimistic), I’m not certain it’s really over for Hill ‘n Bill.
The silence surrounding her is decidedly odd. I have a conspiracy theory, but it is too reminiscent of the theories I indulged in the ’90s, when no one really knew (or cared) what kind of scandal was going on in the WH.
Welcome to Conservative Cabal, taking blue back!
This year has long been touted as one that would be difficult for conservatives. We say, Republicans, yes, most likely, but conservative ideology is not gone by a long shot.