Comparing Obama and Limbaugh

Ann Althouse does and says this:

I'm inclined to say Rush is wrong, but I note that he's only asking a series of questions, so I can't. I'll have to say that, ironically, Rush is a bit like Obama, wandering aimlessly for syllabic combinations that will equal a cogent, salient thought. Both men mesmerize their listeners and move them along on a current of verbiage.

Well. Limbaugh is a radio personality and entertainer. His schtick is his ability to craft a sentence and provoke. Obama's ability to "mesmerize" and "move them along on a current of verbiage" is a little more distressing because the President actually has to stand for something as he will represent the country. Limbaugh represents his capitalistic imperative. More power to him, but he won't be representing me or America or defining foreign policy or imposing government solutions. (And I'm not saying that Althouse believes this, only that the comparison seems odd. Liberals pick fights with Limbaugh all the time--and Ann is no liberal. The compare and contrast should be with McCain.)

Conservatives More Honest Than Liberals

And research dollars needed to be spent to learn this:

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Liberals: Cheating on taxes? Great! Plagiarizing? Absolutely! Doing something wrong and covering it up? No problem!

So why would liberals be less honest than conservatives?

The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate “doesn’t have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist.”

During this political season, honesty is often in short supply. But at least we can improve things by accepting the idea that truth and honesty exist. As the late scholar Sidney Hook put it, “the easiest rationalization for the refusal to seek the truth is the denial that truth exists.”

The only objective reality is a liberal's own reality. That leaves room for all sorts of bad behavior.

H/T John Hawkins

Scott McClellan's Loyalty In Doubt

Scott McClellan joins Dick Morris as a disloyal, self-serving former staffer. Who ever likes a "snitch" as Drudge says? He better enjoy his moment in the sun. Wait, what am I saying? The MSM loves a turncoat. He'll probably get his own TV show.

Scott McClellan will get his own TV show in.....
	a month
	before the election
	within a year
	never, he's done
pollcode.com free polls

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Conservative Answer To The Daily Kos?

Go check out The Next Right a start-up blog by Jon Henke, Patrick Ruffini and Soren Dayton. Will it be the Right's answer to the Daily Kos? We'll see!

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

We're Entering The Wilderness

Yesterday, I read John Hawkin's interview with the anonymous campaign staffer. The more I read, the madder I got. At the end, through IM poor John got sprayed with my vented spleen. If that sounds horrible, it was. He said,"Wow, you're in a bad mood." Actually, no I'm not. I'm in a great mood. I'm just fed up with the outrageous condescension emanating out of DC and Republicans in particular. I hadn't read your comments and he suggested that I do. I love you guys! You're my peeps! You said what I felt but in a far more reasoned, thoughtful way.

Later, John got me back. The New York Times dropped the piece about McCain's 90 degree turn (I can't say 180, because he only changed to the security first mantra) on amnesty. My ears are still burning from that. My reaction? Bemused. It's touching that someone actually believed John McCain. As I've said before, John McCain serves at the leisure of John McCain. We're all just along for the "I know better than you" ride.

I think it's time we face the facts, if we haven't already: The next four years are going to f*cking suck. Last week, Kim DuToit said it best:

McCain is going to screw us, every single chance he gets, as long as what he does makes him popular with the Press, or with “centrist” Democrats like Joe Lieberman, or with “moderate” Republicans like Olympia Snowe, or with “popular” figures like Ted Kennedy and Arianna Huffington, or with international bodies like the United Nations.

And occasionally, he’s going to screw us just because he hates conservatives, and because he can, and because he knows that as bad as he is, Obama would be orders of magnitude worse.

Linking to the post, I said:

P.S. Have you noticed that I have a Hillary tag and an Obama tag, but I just can't bring myself to make a McCain tag? I just. can't. do. it. Arghhhhhh! The next four years are going to be hell. Tar and feathers will be a relief.

The Republicans think that conservatives, average voters don't get it. And that's the problem. When the representatives believe they are smarter than the people they represent, they no longer represent. And that is the problem all through the House and Senate. The leaders have contempt for the opinions of those who got them there. It is no longer a representative democracy but an elected ruling class. And the ruling class thinks conservatives and libertarians who voted them into office are stupid rubes.

Illegal immigration: Security first, enrages our southern neighbor, Mexico (the world might hate us). There are millions new voters (only if amnesty passes) and the Republicans lose them all, if we're too strict on border fences (Translation: I'll lose my power). We need a cheap work force (workers as a commodity).

Earmarks, pork: You don't have to look into the eyes of big donors and tell them they aren't getting a government contract. The Democrats do it and then locals won't support Republicans. Democrats do it. We're better than them. (Translation: I'll lose my power.)

Iraq, terrorism: Americans don't like it (Translation: If I'm too supportive of the effort, I'll lose my power). No, Americans f*cking hate losing. With a purple passion, Americans hate sh*ting money away on a big pile of nothing. Do what it frigging takes, people. If that means obliterating Sadr City from the face of the planet to get the squabbling morons to pay attention, then do it and be done with it. War is bloody business. If it's a war worth fighting, then f*cking fight it. Things look like they're going better. Good. When we succeed pound away about it in the media and stop being pussies with the press.

The Press: If I'm nice, they'll be kind (Translation: I want to be re-elected and the press can help me.) The press hates you. They are progressive Leftists. Why do you give flying flap jack what they think? It is over, if it ever was, which it wasn't. You won't receive fairness from them. You won't receive balance. They will slant things, take you out of context, malign you, degrade you. Accept it. That's life. Move along and do the right thing and don't try to change reality.

Democrats: Americans want us to work with them. (Translation: Democrats are our friends and we see them at parties and we want to be polite.) No they don't. Your voters want you to stand on a principle. Fight. The Democrats will betray and sell you out every chance they get. They will be aided and abetted by the press. Stop trying to be pals with the bullies. Smash their faces (metaphorically).

Global warming: Our planet might die and it's our fault. (Translation: Everyone believes it, it must be true and we want to co-opt the issue from Democrats, because we want to sound smart and oh, by the way, we want to be re-elected.) Shut the f*ck up! You are going to kill the economy. People are also bitching about gas prices, if you haven't noticed and it's because you idiots adopt stupid policies to appease special interests like environmentalists and farmers (does anyone find these two groups an unholy alliance?). Global warming isn't caused by humans and even if it is, you buffoons aren't going to solve it. You're POLITICIANS not frigging scientists. Stop meddling in every damn thing.

Energy: We need to lower gas prices, let's ride the oil companies. (Translation: Blaming is easier than making hard political choices and I really, really want to be re-elected.) It's called drilling and exploration. Free the capitalists to do their work before we end up like Europe and paying $6 a gallon of gas.

I could go on and on. Do you notice a theme? Instead of standing on principle, the Republicans rationalize their devilish deal making by saying, "Well, if we're not in office, it will be far worse because Democrats would do worse things." And yes, I remember Reagan's quotes about conservatives unwilling to accept an 80% solution, but that's not what we're talking about here.

The Republicans don't see that if they cease to support fiscal responsibility, small government, less regulation, an open free-market, fierce self-defense, sovereignty, life, they cease to become Republicans. They are political animals buffeted about by every political wind because they're more concerned about power than principle and they justify their craven natures by saying that no principles can be supported if they aren't in power.

We'll soon find out if they're right, because the Republicans are going to lose big in the Fall. They'll be tempted, again, to blame Bush, but I suggest they look in the mirror. Return to the optimistic message that the common man is powerful and the strength of our country. Give the common man power by making sure he has as many economic choices as possible. Keep him safe from harm so he can work. Cut his taxes so he can grow. Help him educate his children by giving him educational choices.

In short, start loving the people who give you power. Respect them. They understand the political realities more than you know. Compromise is palatable if they're made on the backdrop of principle, but your voters need to believe you hold a principle. And for heaven sakes, articulate a vision. Mr. Hope-Change at least gets that. Find a charismatic, communicative, fearless Republican and have him say these things. You'll get elected, but right now, you guys have it backwards.

There is still time to turn it around. Otherwise, the wilderness will become a permanent home.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Stuff You Should Know

What does Obama really believe? If you listen, he'll tell you.

And so will Michelle. Ugh. The woman needs to pipe down if she doesn't want criticism for saying stupid things.

I don't know what to think about this research that says cellphone use by pregnant women causes attention problems in the offspring, but it seems that cell phones might be more troublesome than we know. And here's the weird thing: when my iPhone is anywhere near the subwoofer, the subwoofer vibrates when I get a phone call or text or email. In fact, if the phone is near the radio, the radio goes static until it turns off again. They produce a huge EMF for being so small. At the rate people use phones now, the next generation will all be mentally retarded.

Want to see the droopiest ta-ta's ever? Evidently they fed one of the meanest mouths, too. Part of the Code Pink crowd's progeny. Ew, my eyes are still recovering. And just so you know, yes, sometimes bloggers get hate mail. Lovely. (We get love notes, too, so it all evens out.)

William F. Buckley built a road that I don't think conservative have been following for quite some time.

Crazy ants (not to be confused with my crazy aunts) are taking over Houston. I should be disturbed, but here's the disturbing part: if we get infested with them, they eat wires. No! Not that! They also eat fire ants, which is a good thing.

Is the world economy destabilizing? Yes. Are energy prices going to cause problems? Seems like they will.

Ann Althouse wants liberals to not speak their truth so people will take them seriously when it comes to Supreme Court Justices. Even if they don't say it, Ann, we know their judicial intentions. There's no hiding it.

Are conservatives out of ideas? Um, no. But the conservatives aren't running the Republican party right now. Neither are the libertarians. Right now, fat, happy, pseudo-dems are running the party and the only ideas they possess come from the Democrats. It's called liberalism lite and it sucks.

Part of this cross-posted at RWN.

Conservative Grapevine

There are a couple conservative portals that I visit every day. Conservative Grapevine is one of them. John Hawkins does the tough work of finding links to important stories for you. What more could you want? So go check out CG today and see what's up. And make his site a habit.

Republicans Redeeming This Election Any Way We Can

Does anyone love John McCain besides his family and Joe Lieberman and certain segments of the press? I've pondered before that moderates get no love because they tend to piss everyone off--kinda like countries claiming to be neutral. Pick a side and stay on it. McCain claims to transcend politics, to be motivated to do what is "right" no matter the issue. He isn't political, he's principled.

Bull and shit.

John McCain's overarching principle is John McCain. As far as I can tell, he's the only one he's interested in serving. And that makes him different from other politicians, how? What is unique about John McCain is that he doesn't go to the trouble of even attempting to pander to his constituents. He's balls off about making it clear that he will do things his own damn way. North Carolina can suck his butt. Conservatives can bite his hiney. He just doesn't care.

On this delightful backdrop, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama duke it out for their party's nomination. Democrats kvetch that Republicans are too smug. Or "smiling too much", whatever. At this point, Republicans are looking for something, anything, that is remotely encouraging about this election. We're settling for entertainment.

The Republicans changing party affiliation get the pleasure of irritating Democrats while not-so-subtly flipping McCain the bird. Yeah, we'll end up voting for him because we actually care about our soldiers and it is somewhat satisfying that McCain's craziness will frighten would be terrorist states. But it's not all that comforting. We know McCain. He actually has a record, unlike the no-talent-ass-clown Democratic contenders. He wasn't a community activist. He put his activist pet ideas into practice as a Senator. Lucky us!

Conservatives, libertarians and Republicans know the press will manipulate things to favor their Anointed One no matter his Black Liberation Theology. It's more than guilt by association. It's guilt--Obama is embarrassed to be American. Obama has some work to do to convince America about the content of his character and worthiness of his ideas.

The Right also know that Hillary will schlep on until the very end. She's not a quitter, no siree. So why not her help her in her quest? It's something fun to do while waiting for the inevitable.

And what is the inevitable? Well, one of these three is going to win the presidency and none of them are particularly impressive. For conservatives, it's choosing someone who will do the least damage. It is hoped that that person is John McCain.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Why Christians Are More Open Minded Than Leftists

A couple of my favorite socially liberal otherwise moderate bloggers, Ann Althouse and Rachel Lucas, have mentioned that the Left is always more vicious than the right. In their experience, conservatives are far more open-minded and "liberal" than their supposedly liberal counterparts. There are reasons for this and the reasons are rooted in the philosophy and belief systems of the leftists and the right-wingers. So, I thought it would be interesting to explore them.

Leftists believe, fundamentally, in the preeminence of men. Namely, the preeminence of themselves. If God is even in the picture, He is there as an abstract entity not as a being whose ideals are meant for today. Therefore, the ideals must be created by men. This is a tremendous amount of pressure. SomeONE has to be right. And so, a lot of blood gets sweated in an attempt to find the "right" way. The right way must be rational and make sense to them. And anyone who doesn't believe like the Leftist has after years and years of refinement, must be a total moron. Anyone who disagrees is not just irrational and stupid, he is also evil, because this person is disagreeing not with a an idea but a whole, fully thought out ideology.

Because Leftists essentially create their own religion, made up of their own rules, they tend to dislike anyone who deviates from the rules. In contrast, a Christian, knows that everyone falls short of God's rules. They might be the church lady, but actually there's usually only one row of church ladies. More likely, they're the average pew-sitters who are fully aware of how they, themselves, fall short. Throwing stones at someone who disagrees seems silly. Most Christians have had a spiritual notion finally sink in years, even decades, after first learning the principle. Most Christians see their own failings when looking at the Jesus blueprint. Most Christians know that they are just stumbling along like everyone else. Judge not lest ye be judged, and what have you.

Now, here's where I've seen the church people get aggressive: When someone claims to be religious and sets himself up as a spiritual leader of sorts, he can tend to be judged more harshly. The Anchoress has received hate mail from those on the right who expect more of her because she's a good Catholic. I think this has the same roots as the Leftist hate towards moderates or those who don't 100% see things purely. It is an absolutism that comes from having complete and utter faith in the self's ability to identify "truth". This perspective is annoying whether it's coming from a Leftist or a right winger.

Beyond the "we all fall short" dogma most Christians adhere to, there's also a strong belief in free will. People have to answer for themselves on judgment day and no one else. Everyone has to choose in their own time. Add to this the notion that most Christians believe that God has a plan for everyone. Do I need to go to some blogger or friend's house and convince them of anything? Not really. God takes care of those things. Christians have faith that God's in charge.

Contrast that with the screaming Left. Wouldn't you be screaming hysterically, though, if you thought the outcome of the entire universe was all on you? That tends to make every policy decision seem like life and death. Any person who doesn't see the light is deluded and must be converted, NOW, because, LIFE IS SHORT! We could all die by Global Warming or we could harm animals by wearing fur or we could do any number of Very Bad Things and must be stopped!

Faith tempers a person's reactions, or it can. Faith encourages civility. Faith reinforces free will. Faith gives a person an alternative when things seem like all is lost. In short, people of faith, Christians particularly, can have a sense of humor. They can relax because it's not all on them. They can be content doing their part knowing that should they fail, someone else will come to finish it. Faith makes for happier, more generous people. Why be condemning? Who knows God's plans?

And these are some reasons that Christians and conservatives can be kind to those who might not believe like them while Leftists leave mean messages, attack people personally and act like looney tunes when protesting. It's life and death to them. No, it's not. We're just all little blips on the surface of the universe. Leftists need to get some perspective. They need to get Jesus. They'd have more fun. Oh, and they'd be nicer, too.

Sacred Voting & Operation Chaos

Is mocking this ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) campaign season with Operation Chaos this:

I keep thinking about the Russian Immigrant who looked forward to his first chance to vote in America, and told Gerard Vanderleun, “I will vote always for best, always”…and about the people in Iraq who braved so much to hold their purple fingers in the air…and about the Iraqi and American dead who fought to give them that right.

And in thinking about them, I’m a bit ashamed of our three-ring circus and the casual menace which we are bringing to our own sacred process. They all deserve better than we’re giving them, right now.

What is your opinion? Is Limbaugh subverting a sacred trust, or is he - somehow - “saving” it?

Well, this election has been absurd. It's been too long. The Democrats are both certifiable liars. They are so extreme in their ideology that it's disturbing. The primary season has been like watching a girl fight. Tight lipped, pulled punches, low blows and bitch slapping. No arguing over substance, because there's no substance to argue over. It's been lame.

So does it matter who gets the nomination? The deal Clinton and Obama have made is to talk about nothing. They agree about everything, so what's to discuss? Basically, do you prefer vagina or mocha colored skin? The primary has been reduced to identity. How can anyone take it seriously? It has been completely UN-serious.

As for Limbaugh's entré into the big dance. Who cares? Is he making a bigger difference than the actual campaigns themselves? They too, are asking Republicans to defect and support them. And some are. Some women and Hispanics that voted for Bush are going for Clinton. And all the blacks that would have voted for Clinton are voting for Obama. This election is symbolic, don't ya know? There is no substance. How can Rush possibly make it worse?

Should we be embarrassed? Yes. But the candidates and those voting for them seem beyond irony.

McCain Hanging From His Own Shiny Rope

One reason conservatives dislike McCain: McCain-Feingold. This heinous piece of legislation, ostensibly written to remove corruption from the political process, did nothing of the sort. It simply made it harder for average people to share what they think about the candidates which suited incumbents like McCain just fine. He didn't mind regulating speech--yours--while he could say whatever he wanted to.

Well, tied up in this legislation, are rules and more rules about money. It's rather complicated, but McCain now suffers from his own legislation. I would cry a little harder if it was another candidate so suffering, but since McCain did this dastardly deed, it seems fitting that he lives with the consequences.

Black Is Better II: "Identity Politics Is Rational"

Sunday I wrote about Frank Rich's racist and cynical views. First, he is viewing the world through a color prism. Second, he believes all Americans are as racist as he is racist.

Evidently, Rich is in good company at The New York Times. Today it's another white male, Stanley Fish, opining about how identity politics can be a good thing. Well, at least these guys are coming out of the racist closet and airing their views instead of pretending at fairness. Fish says:

We should distinguish, I think, between two forms of identity politics. The first I have already named “tribal”; it is the politics based on who a candidate is rather than on what he or she believes or argues for. And that, I agree, is usually a bad idea. (I say “usually” because it is possible to argue that the election of a black or female president, no matter what his or positions happen to be, will be more than a symbolic correction of the errors that have marred the country’s history, and an important international statement as well.) The second form of identity politics is what I call “interest” identity politics. It is based on the assumption (itself resting on history and observation) that because of his or her race or ethnicity or gender a candidate might pursue an agenda that would advance the interests a voter is committed to. Not only is there nothing wrong with such a calculation – it is both rational and considered – I don’t see that there is an alternative to voting on the basis of interest.

A commenter made the point that on the Right Christians voted based on a candidate's specific religion and that too, was a form of identity politics, yet no one criticizes that. Well, I happen to believe that voting that way is also wrong and foolish. It is nice when one finds a candidate whose personal beliefs mirror one's own, but please, if his policies are repugnant, who gives a flip if he thumps his Bible on Sundays ala Mike Huckabee?

The Right screwed themselves over, as others have noted, because they held on to identity politics of just this sort. Religious prejudice harmed Romney's chances as much as anything. I know this because I had more than one shock-inducing conversation with religious conservatives around Houston. They were voting Huckabee because Huckabee was a good Christian man. To which I responded, "Who raises taxes."

My philosophy in politics is the same as in medicine: Are you the best? Do you want a surgeon who prays but can't cut his way out of a paper bag? Or do you want a surgeon who can cut, and worships Abraham Maslow? I'll take the latter, thank you. My preference would be a world-class surgeon who also prays, but you know what, sometimes we don't get what we want.

This political season has been all about not getting exactly what we want. And both the Right and Left are making moronic choices in candidates because they're choosing form over substance. Black skin is form. Ovaries is form. Bible beating Baptist is form. The substance is symbolic, but politicians will be making real decisions that affect real lives. Christopher Hitchens says:

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

On Day 1 in office, Obama or Clinton will cease to be symbols and become the leader of the free world. Mocha skin tone and female gonads mean little in the face of real challenges--except that in both of these cases, these candidates are weak and will project American weakness--and not because of their color or reproductive organs, either. They will project weakness because their policy positions are weak and because they believe America is weak and flawed. Suddenly, their policies matter.

Well, policies matter now. Character matters now. And these should be the determining factors in this election. But with guys like Rich and Fish extolling identity politics for its own sake, we can be sure they represent a considerable number of people who feel just the same.

Good Stuff

For those who think Freud was full of it, Dr. Pat Santy gives a case study in impotence and feared castration that permeates the Islamist's mind.

Global Warming keeps causing these huge snowdrifts for my friends in Michigan. They suffer so under this disturbing threat. But hey, in defiance of scientists, the arctic cap is growing bigger and thicker. Stupid arctic circle doesn't know it should be shrinking.

How irritated with our Senators are you? Seeing that doofus Henry Waxman wax elephant and badger Roger Clemens (who is lying, by the way) instead of doing something worthwhile, is just plain irritating. However, Betsy reminds us that when they are actually working, they are usually screwing up, so maybe it's not a bad thing to have silly hearings.


Still in search of a savior? Obama is there for you with his religion: Statism. Mark Steyn has more about the revolucion d'Obama:

A few days ago, a local news team went to shoot some film at Obama's Houston campaign headquarters. Behind the desks of the perky gals answering the phones were posters of Che Guevara and Cuban flags. Do Obama's volunteers even know who Che is? Apart from being a really cool guy on posters and T-shirts, like James Dean or Bart Simpson. I doubt it. They're pseudo-revolutionaries. Very few people in America want a real revolution: Life is great, this is a terrific country, with unparalleled economic opportunities.

Good news for the western world: The Danes stand up the Iranian mullahs.

For the doubters among us, proof that there is a God. And, along these lines, if you don't think you're going to heaven, maybe you'll spend your dough on this.

James Lileks hits on a way to be remembered:

You know, if you really wanted people to remember your name in business, you’d change it to Adolf. There would be an initial moment of awkwardness, but then you could say “I know, I know, but I’m named after the meat tenderizer. Mom loved that stuff” and it would be okay. And they’d never forget your name.

Compassionate Conservatives need to, wait their philosophy, needs to die.

The new Democratic nominee Al Gore? It could happen....... And Brendan Loy explains Clinton logic. It's circuitous.

Congressional Democrats are playing fast and loose with American security. Do they even know that we're at war?

Finding justice in Houston and pondering mercy.

John McCain is funded by George Soros? Big surprise.

Finally, here's a love story that's worth reading about. An inspiring story about discovering a soul mate.

Have a good weekend all! Enjoy the reading. There is much goodness on the web.

Another List I Didn't Make

A prominent blogger leaves me off the list of "the Top 10 Women on the Right I'd Love to Eat Breakfast With".

I know that I shouldn't keep getting offended......

Difference Between Romney and McCain

Ann said something interesting in her speech that cut to the heart of the issue, that is now a non-issue, between McCain and Romney (this is a paraphrase, see the whole thing here):

Romney is a conservative who had to act liberal to get elected in a liberal state. McCain is a liberal who had to act conservative to get elected in a conservative state.

I know some people find her a loathsome creature. Still, her humor gets at the heart of some things and on this score, I think she is right.

Dealing with Disappointment: McCain Nomination

I had this whole lame post written--you know how bad writing is an absolute struggle. I essentially wasted two hours on McCain-Huckabee analysis. Consensus: They both suck. Bottom line: McCain is the nominee. There might be two readers here for whom John McCain is their dream candidate. For the rest, the question before us is: How do we deal with the disappointment?

Disappointment is the junction where expectations and unfilled meet. No one likes to be disappointed. We all want our expectations to work out just the way we hoped. Inevitably, this doesn't happen. Sometimes it turns out all good--like the Garth Brook's song [Thank God for] Unanswered Prayers . And sometimes, the disappointment is raw and real and hangs on--we find out that what we missed out on is exactly as good as we hoped. The disappointment lingers and can corrode the good that is elsewhere in our lives.

I'm not suggesting, by the way, that there is one right way to deal with the McCain nomination. Those deciding to sit out or vote Democrat in the next election have a valid point of view as do those who believe that the only reasonable course is to rally behind the less-than-appealing candidate.

What I am suggesting is that the spirit we bring to our decisions matters. Presidents come and go, and even life's biggest disappointments like an unexpected death or loss of love, passes into memory. How we frame the story remains--the meaning we give the story remains. Viktor Frankl noted in Man's Search for Meaning that those who couldn't find meaning in their concentration camp suffering often quickly died. Helplessness and hopelessness lead to despair which caused an involution of the human spirit. People simply gave up.

That brings to mind the Buddhist notion of attachment--that the key to happiness is to have no attachments. What that means is that we don't hang our happiness on a certain outcome. We might like a certain result, but unhappiness ensues when we feel that result must happen. When we are detached on the other hand, we can rationally evaluate the information and make a clear decision. That brings to mind the mafia boss who said, "I don't get mad. It clouds the judgment."

This whole election will be filled with disappointments. As frustrated as the Republicans are at this point, I shudder thinking about the emotionally immature and paranoid Left trying to process an Obama or Hillary loss. Hillary has demonstrated over and over, what liberal disappointment looks like--not righteous action, that's for sure. More like narcissistic tears. Dems have attached their own self-worth to the success of a certain candidate. It is all about the individual. The individual is projecting his ego and need onto the candidate. A loss of the candidate means a loss of self.

Republicans would do well to observe and learn. Not that anyone is crying in their beer, mind you, but the rhetoric on all sides is sounding less and less rational and more and more emotional. Part of growing up is dealing with disappointment. Part of growing as a person is finding a place of contentment even when desires may go unmet. Happiness can happen anyway.

And you know what? It is possible to be surprised. We don't know all ends and outcomes. What seems like a potential four-year disaster now can be a transient bump on the road to transcendent joy--not that I expect that from McCain, mind you.

But you never know......

Superficial vs. Substance

The Anchoress notes that the conservatives argue ideas while the liberals argue skin color and other vital statistics.

A Divorce, Republican Style

Is the conservative movement divorcing President Bush as David Frum says? To me the divide is more disheartening than that. The divide is between the elites and the commoners. The commoners are now being told to stay in their place for daring to disagree.

Even if a citizen agrees with the President and Senate on it's convoluted proposals, I would think the contemptuous tone would worry them. These are elected leaders, after all, not the House of Lords with a monarch.

If, as Peggy Noonan recommends, the government would shut the border and get serious about that, first, the rest of the policies might be given serious consideration. But the government is not serious about border security which means it's not serious about sovereignty which means the War on Terror is a partial war, because the most important front on the war on terror is on America's border.

And those who disagree with amnesty are being vilified. The division now, is the conservative movement against everyone. As I've written before, this fight is about an economic principle: free markets, even free markets of people, supersedes everything. Cheap labor, President Bush believes, is what is fueling this economy. He is looking at the question one-sidedly, the side that suits him. He is ignoring the long-term consequences of an unassimilated underclass and the socialist mentality it brings with it. He is seeing the Italians and the Irish. And many Italians and Irish are seeing that too, when they look at the Mexican hoards within America.

There is one tiny difference: legal versus illegal immigrants.

Becoming an American has always been hard. Being a new immigrant has been often grueling and demeaning. New immigrants are hazed, if you will. There was a time in the past, when that difficulty was still worth it. Freedom was worth it. Today, thousands of legal immigrants still believe it's worth it. This bill presumes that illegal immigrants want to become legal. That is a disputable premise. In addition, where's the love for all the low income Americans struggling?

Becoming an American often meant being spectacular. As Charles Krauthammer notes, under the new bill, Albert Einstein wouldn't have been allowed into America. We will become a nation built on an "egalitarian" point system. Get enough points, you get in. I see more pay-offs and point padding in our future.

But no matter the result of immigration reform, I hope, like others, that agreeable disagreement will continue to the hallmark of the Right. It certainly isn't the Left. Submit or leave is the order of the day over there. I guess that's why the name calling--racist, un-American, nationalistic, etc.--bothers me. It is possible to love all races and classes and disagree with this legislation. While some kvetch about the "angry right", I might point out that the elitist naming calling smacks of the Left and that's, why that's un-American.

No More V-Tech Shootings

As usual the academy comes up with a perfect solution to disliked speech suggesting the right to defend oneself against a rampaging murderer.

Criminalizing Conservatives

This has gotten insane.