Around The Web

British children are forced to bow to Allah. The two who didn't get detention.

And you thought Republicans were dumb. They have some wimpy competition.

Intelligent design stuff.

Greta Van Susteren smacks down Anderson Cooper. Anderson has a staff of 60. A couple are dedicated to peeling his grapes and fanning him no doubt.

James Lileks smacks down M. Night Shamalayan:

The trailer doesn’t spell out the message, but Gort – played by Keanu Reeves – says “if the earth dies, you die. If you die, the earth lives.” Well, there’s a message we can all get behind. And if the film flops, you get the Malibu beach house. Seems win-win for everyone except, well, the poison-belching peons who will queue up for another sermon. Gentle cautionary tales are one thing; this groveling self-hatred is another. Same with the M. Night film that has the trees emitting pollen that makes us all kill ourselves – apparently the trees took a big wait-and-see attitude towards deforestation in the late 19th century, and finally decided to kill people when we were just starting to get the point.

The taxing work of being rich and finding enlightenment. Sigh. Aimless and dough-filled make for such trying times. Via Alarming News

Barack Obama's pedigree includes forged papers? Is it possible he doesn't really exist?

Speaking of Obama, if he really is an American citizen, which is in question (see above), he's not patriotic. I question, very openly, his patriotism as does Jonah Goldberg. But the true believers question the questioners. It's amusing.

Tigerhawk on loving America....and those who hate it.

Patterico honors Jesse Helms and thanks the Left for their sympathy.

This is what the world is coming to and Rachel Lukas has a solution. She's going soft.

And on that outrageous note, I'm going for a walk, because my blood pressure is up again from watching the video at Rachel's link.

One Tough Son of A .....

The last election cycle here in Texas included incessant "one tough grandma" advertisements by Carol Keyton Strayhorn. She was going to "clean up Texas" and "take on the insiders". Her voice was so grating and her message so superficially disingenuous that I thought to myself that woman is not getting my vote no matter what. From the things I read and from the the things she said, Strayhorn just seemed to be a troublemaker. She seemed to be working to craft a "character". And in fact, she did run for Governor based on her "one tough grandma" persona.

I don't know Texas political history, I've only been here 11 years, but it turns out that the old adage "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" is true. Scott McClellan is Strayhorn's son. I guess disloyalty and opportunism is a family trait.



Glenn Reynolds quotes Mark Twain regarding McClellan, "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principle difference between a dog and a man." I'm guessing the problem is even worse when the man sees himself as pleasantly plump.

McClellan's Book Published By Soros Company

Little Green Footballs has the details. You know, I tried to not be mean about Scott McClellan yesterday and just light-heartedly joke about his opportunism. Today, I'm not feeling so charitable.

When McClellan worked as Press Secretary, he was so dull-witted and slow on the uptake it was painful to watch. The press was clearly frustrated. The bland dullness and lack of articulate answers didn't look feigned. In fact, I thought it was a case of pure evil Rovian genius to have McClellan as Press Secretary. McClellan was so bad he was good.

Below is a clip around the Plame investigation:



So, McClellan now says he knew what was going on and didn't blow the whistle.

Well, McClellan wasn't some Rovian plot. He just stunk that bad and had to be replaced by Tony Snow, who was fantastic. I don't think this book will make McClellan come off as suddenly smart except to liberals who aren't too bright anyway.

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

Republicans A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy?

Dr. Helen notes that the kvetching by Republicans just might create what we fear most:

Believing that your party is a bunch of losers surely will not help it to improve it and may, in fact, hasten it's self-destruction--something some Democrats would be happy to see--but why play along while marching in step to the tune of Saul Alinsky? I was watching a show the other night on PBS's Frontline about a wonderful young boy who was being cyber-bullied by peers stating: "YOU ARE SUCH A LOSER." The boy believed it and went on to kill himself. He basically self-destructed by incorporating the negativity that others felt for him onto himself and felt that he was not worthy. Now, it seems that many right-leaning citizens feel the same. Instead of saying that there are still ideas and policies that the Republicans have that are worth saving-- (national security, low taxes, small government) they have deemed the whole party losers.

She suggest that Republicans stop feeding the negative vibe and reading books like The Power of Positive Thinking.

Well, I believe there is a certain amount of learned helplessness displayed by the Republican leadership, not just the blogosphere, that has lead to the continual buckling on big ideas. For example, the Republicans had a huge opportunity to remake Social Security and it fizzled, not because the American people didn't want change, but because the ideas weren't readily received and the Republicans seemed convinced it would fail. And then, it did.

So, our attitude does matter. We need to find a way to cheer up. I find that action and moving in a positive direction helps. So what moves should conservatives make?

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

You Can't Be Serious

You are not seriously sitting out the election or voting for a Democrat are you? John Hawkins, as you've read here is done. Ace is flipping his lid too:

Or perhaps it's simpler: John McCain is unfailingly honorable; if he acts in a way that seems to be dishonorable, you must be perceiving it incorrectly, because John McCain is unfailingly honorable.

In fact, I imagine he conceives that there's a great deal of integrity in his "having the guts" to tell the conservative troglodytes what they needed to hear in order to secure the nomination.

I held off on this last night because I didn't know what to do. I guess my heart is with Hawkins, though my brain says Morrissey's right... Obama would be (marginally, I think) worse than McCain.

But Obama hasn't really flat-out lied to me.

That counts for something.

I admit it. John McCain is a liar. But I never believed him when he said that he'd support security first, anyway, so I'm not feeling betrayed. This whole election has been about plugging my nose, and mustering the gumption to pull the damn lever. And for me, it's still about that, because I think about an Obama presidency with a Democrat congress and my skin starts erupting red blotches.

Ed Morrissey doesn't think McCain lied, exactly, and disagrees with John and Ace. He says:

Does anyone believe that Barack Obama would be more committed to border security than John McCain? Not if they’ve paid attention. Obama is at best the same as McCain on immigration, and more likely to acquiesce to Democrats like Dick Durbin on another full-blown amnesty. Even if we consider that a wash, where else does Obama look better than McCain to conservatives?

I guess I just can't believe that Republicans will want to be a party to that kind of destruction in America. Obama will usher in a time of Carter-like prosperity and as a business owner that makes me want to curl up into the fetal position and suck my thumb.

Do you guys really think a Democrat would be better?

I will be voting for
	John McCain
	The Democrat Nominee
	No One, I'm Sitting This One Out
pollcode.com free polls

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.

Right Leaning Politics Around The Web

What is wrong with Republicans? Peggy Noonan blames Bush. Dan Collins blames morons. You'll have to see who they are at the link.

For those looking for something to be thankful for: Huckabee shot his chances to be Veep. Can I get a hallelujah? Hallelujah!

Darlene Click has the temerity to question the Supreme Court of California's eminence. Don't question the deciders, Darlene. They say gay marriage is good. Barack Obama says it's bad. Uh oh. I'm on tilt. Do two rights make a wrong?

McCain is the reason the Republicans suck. Or is it that the Republicans suck which is why they chose McCain? The Queer Conservative says:

I'm coming back to a thought I tossed around when McCain became the "presumptive" nominee. I think we need to lose this election; Congress, the White House, governorships, state houses, the whole shebang. Nothing motivates or gives you perspective like a good ass-kicking.

Uh huh. I think we'll find that out for sure here soon, how motivating ass-kickings are.

Republicans Don't Get It Because They Don't Want To Get It

The Republicans and the rest of the country will pay come this Fall. If it's a close race, a Democrat will win. Every. Time. Why? Because the Republicans still don't get it.

Forget the social issues--abortion, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research--they don't matter. Oh, they matter. Blah. Blah. People have strong opinions on them. People might change their votes between two similar candidates based on a social issue. But there is only one issue for which Republicans used to be defined: fiscal responsibility.

Low taxes. Low spending.

Those two things defined being a Republican. It was, it is, something all working people (besides the super, mega wealthy liberal elite) can agree on. It ties everyone together and makes for a solid, reliable voting block. But nooooo, the Republicans, when they take control of Congress and the White House spend like a million bloated Ted Kennedys. It makes me so angry I could spit and vote Obama for spite. I am not alone.

Over the past six years the Republican leadership, including the smug John McCain, ducked from fights and chose solutions like reaching across the aisle for "compromise". Compromise meant spending like a Democrat just not spending quite as much. Americans don't want two versions of Democrats when it comes to THEIR money. They want a choice. Well, for the past six years, Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats have watched in helpless outrage as the Republicans treated the electorate the exact same way the Democrats treated them--with contempt.

These Congress people get wealthy while in office and blithely bankrupt the country. They have no problem spending your hard earned dough, a couple times over. And the Republicans did nothing to stop the madness. They encouraged it along. Did they think they will not pay a price for their gluttony at the public trough? They will pay one.

And come Fall, the country will pay because the irony is this: Americans figure, if they're going to get Democrat policy might as well elect Democrats and see if they can do it better. There will be even more spending and more taxes. Thanks Republicans!

Meanwhile, John McCain is talking about Global Warming in Oregon (where he has a snowball's chance in Hell). Are frigging kidding me?

McCain Pain...Already

Save room in the barrel for me Kim:

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.

Leave space for me in the tar barrel. It’s going to look like a Japanese bath house by the time the election’s over.

As an aside, I love Kim du Toit. Embarrassingly, I just added him to my blog roll. To make up for my ages of stupiditude, you need to visit his blog every day this week. In fact, go visit every day, a couple times a day, for the rest of your days because Kim will make you smarter. To make it up, I don't ever leave his blog, I just hit refresh over and over.

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.

Most Influential People On The Right

How is it that President Bush only makes #14 on a list of John Hawkin's blogger list of 25 most influential people on the right. Is he that lame of lame duck?

President McCain

I told you peeps this a month ago, but you know it's official when Dilbert agrees with you.

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.

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.

McCain, Obama, The Times and A Civilized Election

When John McCain received the typical media treatment that conservatives receive, the conservatives responded with typical conservative outrage, John Hawkins among them. The New York Times may continue to lead the charge to take down the "conservative" candidate, but everyone knows that John McCain is no conservative. The media's bias shines through. It's not conservatives they hate. It's anyone who isn't a Democrat with socialist tendencies they hate. McCain is Republican, sure, and a "moderate". Which is to say, he enjoys big-government intervention just like Democrats. He's not from the Bible-thumping corner of the party. He's not conservative on immigration, regulation, just about anything. He's been a staunch defender of the war in Iraq. That's it. Yet the Times gives him the same disrespectful treatment.

I do believe The New York Times miscalculated. They revealed their paper as the instrument of the Democratic party. They revealed themselves to be in the business of making news not reporting news. And their timing was purposeful. The story could have come out during the primary process where it could have hurt McCain's chances against other Republicans. But no, the Times waited until the timing most benefited Democrats. Megan McArdle calls her mom The Swing Voter who had this opinion:

As longtime readers of the blog know, I'm related to the Swing Voter, aka my mother. Her vote is an infallible indicator of who will win the general election. We had dinner last night, and somewhat to my surprise, The Swing Voter is completely outraged by the New York Times story--she vows to no longer take the Times, nay, not even for the Sunday crossword. She is also now thinking seriously about voting for McCain just to spite the New York Times.

It seems that the press will have to tread carefully all the way around, with a McCain-Obama election. Hammering McCain (they won't be able to help themselves, they love the Leftists too much) will further diminish their standing. Harsh pieces on Obama will engender cries of racism.

So will an Obama-McCain election be more civilized? Maybe so.


Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

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......

D.U.D.S.

Yes, such a thing exists. Dr. Sanity elucidates the difference between healthy and pernicious narcissism:

Like many laypersons, Wolcott assume that narcissism is always a bad thing.

It isn't.

In fact, as I have pointed out repeatedly, narcissism--when there is a optimal synthesis of both the grandiose elements and the idealistic elements-- is an absolutely essential ingredient for a healthy, functional personality. For healthy narcissism, the essential task of the individual is to combine the grandiose side of the personality-- which is responsible for developing individual ambition and the energy to pursue happiness, as well as a feeling that one has a fundamental right to that life and happiness; with the idealistic side--which provides the ability to to develop values and ideals (see here for a full discussion). An excess of either side leads to dysfunctional, self-serving and often toxic behavior.

By definition, all ambitions, values and ideals are necessarily narcissistically invested. How could it be otherwise? These are the factors that define us as individuals.

This definition lays the foundation for her argument that the Democrats, specifically in this example, Nancy Pelosi's, narcissism is malevolent. Here's the good Doc's take:

Nevertheless, if Sean Hannity and others want to go down with their conservative principles completely inviolate and not vote for McCain-- that is their choice. I can appreciate and even honor such a principled choice. By the same token, it is also Nancy Pelosi's choice to call Iraq a failure and insist despite all the evidence that the surge is not working.

What 'prinicple' is Pelosi adhering to with unwavering determination? Ask yourself how it benefits Sean Hannity to be correct about McCain not being a true conservative and unworthy of support; versus how it benefits Nancy Pelosi that her country admit defeat and failure at the hands of a terrorist group. In the former case, if Hannity is correct, the Republicans and even Hannity lose. In the latter scenario, America loses but Pelosi and the Democrats win big---really big.

Placing your bets on your country losing a war so that you can win an election is the gamble the entire left has wagered. Contrast Pelosi's stance with McCain's statement that he'd rather 'lose a campaign than lose a war'. Which of the two has a serious narcissistic defect going for them and sees their own needs as first and foremost?

*******

And speaking of "marching in ideological lockstep"--could there be a finer example of goosestepping than the expectation that all blacks or women must be Democrats support Democrat policies--otherwise they are by definition 'traitors' to their gender or race? Isn't the whole 'identity politics' thing a mandate to conform to your group or race or tribe in order to maintain ideological purity?

In point of fact, both of these positions that are attributed to conservatives are actually psychological projections on the left's part, because they represent the only possible positions their rigid dialectical and propagandized brains can imagine. Due to the narcissistic defect that the entire movement suffers from, they are all more or less stuck on either the grandiose or the idealistic narcissistic pole without the ability to synthesize the two extremes of the dialectic. Thus they vascillate between the cold grandiosity inherent in believing they know what's best for all of us; and the utopian idealism that leads them to impose --by force if necessary--those beliefs on everyone else.

This as good a study as any into the mind of the pathological narcissist. And I said it before about the Dems. This election is about their own identity. When their candidate flops, it will be a personal crisis. Forget Bush Derangement Syndrome. This election there will be a new diagnosis: Democrats Unhinged Derangement Syndrome.

Expect D.U.D.S. aplenty after the Democratic candidate is chosen. Dr. Sanity has job security.

McCain Bloggette

With the whole Chelsea Clinton pimped out kerfluffle, other candidates children on the campaign trail have been obscured. It happened before, too. The Bush twins turn out to be nice, normal young ladies years after receiving negative press about doing things college girls do. No one cares about the good they do now.

Seems that John McCain's daughter helps out the campaign by blogging. Thanks to Don Surber, who calls her the "un-Chelsea". Everything about the Clintons bugs me including their now-adult daughter, but since she's not running for President and won't be married to either of these conniving would-be White House inhabitants, I pay her no mind.

Back to Meghan McCain... She's a visual blend of her folks. She looks normal. Calls her parents "cute". She also has some nice video up on the Florida primary. Anyway, Meghan makes me like her dad better...well, maybe her mom. I doubt she saw her dad much while growing up. So, her mom must have done a good job. She looks like a normal 23 year old.

Maybe you'll like McCain more after you see this....



H/T Glenn Reynolds

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......