From Jack Cafferty at CNN:

The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.

We all saw this coming months ago. Liberals are so confident that most of America sides with them after G.W. Bush that there is no other explanation for Barak Obama’s drop in the polls other than the tired "whites hate blacks" mantra.

Perhaps there are other arguments for Obama’s drop in the polls:

• Obama has no executive experience compared to McCain’s miliary executive experience, Palin’s mayoral and gobernatorial experience.
• Obama is an elitist and out of touch with mainstream America (who cling to guns and religion and are actually proud of their country).
• Obama’s forays into foreign relations scares many Americans. He wouldn’t visit troops in Germany without making it a campaign event. His response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was wrong. His stance with respect to the surge was wrong. And he wants to pull our troops out of Iraq while we are winning.
• Obama’s answer to the economy is to raise taxes during an economic slow down.
• Joe Biden is his running mate.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Headline:

The Sarah Palin Phenomenon Is Doomed.

Text:

The primary reason why the Palin bubble will burst is that the media will decide that they are bored with her. They’ll need to move to shine a light on a fresh issue or individual.

Of all the stupid hypotheses, this one is right up there. Like her or hate her, Sarah Palin’s popularity is not with the media. It is with the conservative base who is energized by her selection.

So why would the media think she is doomed because they are going to get bored? If anything, it should be the opposite when they get bored. Remove the negative press and I see her improving her popularity. My prediction: the press isn’t going to get bored with her because she is a perceived threat. They are going to get increasingly nasty to try to destroy her.

Those in the media really are out of touch with the real world. They mistakenly think that all of America reflects their views, which if America did we would be in term number two of President Gore.

I realize that reasonable minds can disagree. I realize their were no WMD (although at the time the intelligence says there was, enough to convince the UN security counsel), so let’s avoid playing Monday morning quarterback about that issue. My thoughts:

Since September 11, 2001, the world has fundamentally changed. For me, Afghanistan was the correct solution. Iraq followed. I am a firm Iraq war supporter for the following reasons.

First, I wish George W. Bush had sold it under what I believe are the real reasons for Iraq that I outline here, but then again if he had, Congress would have never approved. If history teaches us anything, politicians are notoriously indecisive when it comes down to making hard decisions about moving armies in and killing people. Such indecisiveness allowed Hitler to take over a large portion of Europe and it has happened time and again this last century, where a rouge country makes a move and then uses their public relations machine to "diplomatically" lull the rest of the world into doing nothing.

Take Russia invading into Georgia. Russia takes decisive action, then comes hat in hand saying they will withdraw in a couple of days. A couple of days later, they offer some feeble excuse and say they will withdraw a few days later and so forth. Over a month later, Russia is still entrenching in Georgia and nobody has done anything (except decide to build a missile defense system in Poland… hahaha in your face Russia). Meanwhile, Russia is lulling the world of diplomacy-first politicians into inaction and desensitization as to their unlawful occupation of Georgia. I digress.

Why was Iraq important?

1. We needed to take the fight away from our civilian populations and engage the terrorists with our military. Our military is trained to deal with insurgencies, not to mention mean armed men (and women) bent on killing anybody that doesn’t agree with their view on religion (Muslim and non-Muslim alike). It is true that we have suffered causalities of many troops as a result. But our military is doing the job they are there for. Let’s not forget that the military is an organization for more than putting kids through college and having "You’ve Lost that Loving Feeling" belted out to blonde’s in a bar by Tim Cruise.
- We knew that by moving our military onto Muslim soil, the terrorists would focus their attention first on getting us out of their terroritories, and then on attacking us on ours. The particular brain washing that these terrorists go through ingrains in them a perception that the United States and its allies are interested in snuffing out Islam. To them, U.S. military on already held Muslim soil was the number one problem to be dealt with to prevent us from reducing their own stake in world territory. The result: the terrorists focused their attention on Iraq and not on Indiana.
- Note that since Sept. 11, 2001, not a single additional attack of any significance has occurred on American soil. Is this because they made their point with Sept. 11? Of course not. It is because they have been busy trying to break our resolve in Iraq.

2. We needed to let the terrorists know in no uncertain terms that attacking America would be retributed on Muslim soil. In other words, we couldn’t just sit there and do nothing.

Diplomacy? Diplomacy is great when a deal can be reached that meets the interests of both parties. With Al-Qaeda, however, there is no diplomatic solution that is acceptable to both us and them. They want us to be ruled by a Calif and we want them to be nice. Isn’t going to happen unless we have some sort of leverage. Due to oil revenue, however, we can’t hurt them with economic sanctions (how do you sanction a group that exists in many countries and rejects the rule of law from any of the countries?) and we are not about to install Muslim religious rule in our country. There is simply no diplomatic solution that works with the terrorists. It is like going to the insane asylum and trying to strike a deal with the lady who thinks bees are constantly trying to get her.

The only message (leverage) they understand is getting hunted down and killed.

We did and are doing just that in Afghanistan. But, after we had them on the run, we needed the terrorists and governments that might have hosted them to understand there was nowhere else to go. Would they have gone to Iraq? Probably not. Saddam didn’t want them. But this is beside the point. It wasn’t where they could have gone that was important, but letting any country that might have considered harboring them know that we are going to punish anybody who hosts the terrorists.

So why Iraq? Because the Saddam Hussein regime was brutal and a threat to America. Saddam had vast oil reserves and had entrenched. Economic sanctions were a blunt tool at best against him. He ruthlessly put down dissenters. He had already shown he was not afraid to invade neighboring countries. If we had to choose one country in which to take the fight to the terrorists, it was Iraq.

Libya observed the goings on in Iraq for about a year before surrendering their weapons of mass destruction and deciding it was better to play with the rest of the world than against the rest of the world.

How about Iran? Turns out economic sanctions will eventually deal with Iran.

The Only Real Issue This Election (from 2004 – Why Iran can be dealt with economically)

Did we Invade the Wrong Country?

I have no idea why I am citing two articles from Orson Scott Card, a who is a Democrat… but for what it is worth, there they are.

3. We needed Muslim’s to wake up and decide to fight the terrorists of their own accord. The trouble with standing up to bullies, especially ones that will kill you, is that most people will just put their heads in the sand and pretend like nothing is going on provided their family is safe, they have food to eat, and a roof over their heads. We needed the terrorists to bring the fight against the Muslim people so that the general Muslim population would be forced to take a stand against the terrorists.

All things being equal, I would prefer to have Muslims fighting and killing themselves, then letting them kill Americans. This seems a little racist, but in principle, it makes sense. The Muslims must reap what they sow. They have sown terrorism, it is only fair they reap the consequences of their religious ruled societies that prove to be fertile soil to cultivate terrorism. Our society would never tolerate terrorism; so why should we reap the negative consequences of the terrorism grown in the fertile soil of their countries?

For a long while, the terrorists targeted and fought the American and allied troops. The Sunni’s, unhappy that Saddam had been deposed because he was one of them, readily joined Al-Qaeda in the fight against the American infidels.

Then something interesting started to happen. The American troops become more and more efficient at repelling the attacks and inflicting heavily casualties on the other side. Partly, the improved American military efficiency was born of the surge. Partly is was experience. There were more troops, more understanding of how the terrorists work, more eyes, and more guns pointed at the terrorists. The American troops became a difficult, and therefore less desirable, target than Iraqi civilians.

The foreign born leaders of Iraq’s Al-Qaeda began commanding the Sunni Iraqi volunteers to strike Iraqi targets. The Sunni’s had no desire to kill their own countrymen, just the Americans. And thus, the Iraqi’s were forced to confront the bullies or punch themselves. They could no longer put their heads in the sand.

The fight of the Muslim terrorists had been taken to the general Muslim population and the Sunni’s wanted nothing to do with it. The Sunni Awakening took place. They decided it would be better to stand against Al-Qaeda that to fight the Americans in fruitless battles with heavy causalities on their end. By joining with the Americans, the Sunni’s could take the fight against Al-Qaeda and create a situation of stability. They recognized that as soon as Iraq was fully stable, the Americans will leave. This was then end of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Sunni’s turned on them and the had nowhere to run.

Thus, we helped the Iraqis pull their heads out of the sand and begin the process of stamping out that fertile soil of terrorism in their own country.

So, what do we have to show for our involvement in Iraq?
1. No American civilian target has been attacked in seven years.
2. America’s ability to detect terrorist activities is greatly enhanced.
3. The Muslims are stamping out terrorism of their own accord.
4. A brutal and evil regime has been deposed (it remains to be seen if democracy can flourish in Iraq, however. Although it seems to be alive and well in Egypt, Jordan, and other predominately Muslim countries, giving hope that it will grab hold in Iraq as well).
5. MOST IMPORTANTLY. Al-Qaeda has been effectively reduced to a bunch of ragged men hiding in caves in Afghanistan. They have no money. The have no command and control. Their leadership ranks are either dead or unable to communicate regularly with their troops. Thus, they have no infrastructure to plan and carry out large scale attacks.

We may not have Bin Laden, but his ability to threaten America has been all but eliminated. And frankly, it might be better never to get Bin Laden. Martyrs (especially high profile martyrs) motivate people to fight against extreme odds. The combination of Afganistan and Iraq led to this result. Afganistan directly and Iraq geopolitically. Even if Al-Qaeda left Afganistan, where would they go?

This sums up modern Liberalism by her royal highness Nancy Pelosi:

“I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” [Nancy Pelosi] says impatiently when questioned. “I will not have this debate trivialized by [the Republicans] excuse for their failed policy.”

Translation: The average American is too much of an idiot to keep this planet going, therefore I must step in and make the decisions for them.

She continues:

“I respect the office that I hold,” she says. “And when you win the election, you win the majority, and what is the power of the speaker? To set the agenda, the power of recognition, and I am not giving the gavel away to anyone.”

Sounds like she is more in it for the power than the planet.

I don’t mind hearing what the left has to say, and even agreeing if they have an idea that is better than the right. That doesn’t happen very often. Two left leaning essayists each published thoughtful articles recently that I share here.

The first article is a David Mamet essay published in the liberal rag Village Voice. My cousin Dave introduced me to David Mamet’s work in college. One of Mamet’s movies is called the Spanish Game Prisoner (thanks David) and is worth Netflixing.

Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’ (By the way, has some objectionable language)

The second article is by Orson Scott Card detailing why Mitt Romney should not be selected as Vice President. I supported Mitt Romney, and I admit that part of my intrigue had to do with his identity. He is a Mormon, I am a Mormon. More importantly, he echoed my fiscal and defense conservatism, while having the same somewhat ambivalent attitude about social conservatism. I don’t know that he was my favorite candidate ever, but I would have voted for him.

Some Romney supporters, however, seem to think he would be the best choice for VP, ignoring the baggage McCain already has with certain groups of conservative voters and Romney’s own political achilles heel — Mormonism.

McCain’s Vice

On the identity politics note, what Huckabee did to Romney so dishonestly is despicable. If you are going to submarine a guy for his religion, at least be honest that you are doing it for that reason.

My more liberal-minded friends have argued that having a pro-life, pro-capital punishment position is inconsistent. (Of course, they don’t have a problem with their own "inconsistent" pro-choice, anti-capital punishment position.)

The difference between a pro-life position and a pro-capital punishment position stems from the underlying theory of capital punishment. Avoiding the legal theories justifying or condemning capital punishment from a retributive or deterrence positions, capital punishment is pronounced in cases where the individual has such a negative impact on society as to, for that person, have no social value. In other words, the person has a net negative impact on society. Capital punishment (and life in prison for that matter) is society’s way of saying that society is better off without that person.

Using the social value theory, therefore, an anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment positions are consistent. In the former case, society protects lives that have potential value to society and that haven’t been given an opportunity to choose to add societal value, and in the latter case extinguish a life of somebody who has been given the opportunity to add value, but chose to contribute a net negative effect on society.

Will some babies eventually turn into the psychopaths we condemn to capital punishment? Sure. But the net positive effect of protecting the babies and allowing them to be net positive contributors to society in aggregate outweighs the negative of the small percentage who will be a drain on society. Conversely, with capital punishment the net positive effect is observed by eradicating individuals who are a drain to the greater social good. Can some of these individuals be redeemed and add to the social good? Sure, but the system for assigning capital punishment attempts to weed out those persons with lesser sentences and reserves death for for unrepentant individuals or those of particularly heinous crimes.

Compare this to the position of my more liberal minded friends. They argue to protect individuals who have chosen to be a net drain on society, but kill the individuals whose potential would serve society with a net gain. And they think my position is inconsistent?

OK, I said I wasn’t going to write about politics when I restarted my blog. But I just can’t resist.

In a spirit of fairness to the debate, I am a conservative. I want to reveal my bias before I climb onto the soap box. I also live in California. Californians voted on and ratified Prop. 22, which outlawed gay marriage. Recently, the California Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people and ruled Prop. 22 unconstitutional.

This week, my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will encourage members of California congregations to take an active role in promoting the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman to be on the ballot this November. I am somewhat ambivalent about social conservatism. Generally, government should butt out and let people make their own choices, whether good or bad and let people suffer the consequences of their choices. With gay marriage, it the undemocraticness of the gay position that gets me motivated — the insistence of a small minority of people to force the majority of people to accept and embrace a position I find immoral.

So what is the big deal with gay marriage anyhow? Gays already have all the same civil rights as married people, can live together, shop together, share a bed together. In other words, they have already forced the government to accept and embrace their position. So why are they so hell-bent on the right to be married?

Mr. Sulu, of Star Trek fame, summed up the gay position:

"The California Supreme Court . . . ruled that our Constitution provides for equal protection for all and that it cannot have marriage for one group and another form – domestic partnership – for another group. No more “separate but equal.” No more second-class citizenship."

The issue isn’t about "separate but equal," which is focused on how the government treats a group of people, but on the attitudes of people themselves.

The problem of the gay position is that they don’t fully understand the purpose of marriage. In other words, they don’t understand why marriage is marriage. Marriage is organizational principle about which families are created and administered — husband, wife, and children . Although gays can adopt children, they cannot ab initio have children and participate in the core function of a marriage. Children are most successful when raised in an environment with both a father and a mother present. Thus, a "gay family" is an artificial creation that doesn’t exist according to the laws of nature or according to the traditional purpose and function of getting  married. A gay couple with children is a different social and emotional dynamic than a married couple with children. It simply isn’t the same as a family started with "marriage." Gay couples cannot provide children with the same nutritive environment as fostered by a father and a mother, each of whom impart very different social and emotional food to children.

Thus, gays shouldn’t be clamoring for a title that represents a wholly different family dynamic and environment than what their relationships offer. Even if you call it marriage, it will always be something different. An apple doesn’t become an orange simply by calling the apple an orange.

So why is having the name of "marriage" with all the attendant tradition etc. so important to gays? They have all the same rights with a title the aptly describes their relationship.

For gays, the battle for marriage is not about the title, or the issue of family, or any of the issues having to do with family or title. The marriage battle is a clever smokescreen for the real issue: insistence that society at large not only allow their lifestyle, but accept and embrace as correct, right, and holy. This is why they aren’t content with the same rights. Having the term "married" applied to their relationships blurs the distinction between the traditional family organizations and their unnatural relationships. By blurring the lines, the hope is that future generations come to fully accept homosexuality as correct, right, and holy. This is why they target young children in schools. This is why they have to have to crash the party of married people everywhere. This is what the debate is about, not rights, not equality, but acceptance of a lifestyle that many people in this country find repugnant.

Evidence of this argument? Again Mr. Sulu:

"With time, I know the opposition to same sex marriage, too, will be seen as an antique and discreditable part of our history."

Mr. Sulu can cast the argument in terms of intolerance and bigotry. Ironically, gays demand our tolerance of their position, but offer no tolerance to the viewpoints or voices (e.g., Prop 22) of those who disagree with their position. Gays are focused on pounding their round peg into the square hole of society (bad analogy), and have no tolerance or respect for the feelings of the majority of the people, the unchanging morality revealed in the Scriptures, or the democratic voice of the people. Perhaps that is why they have no problem that the California Supreme Court overturned the majority voice of Californians. I suppose next they will insist that they be called "heterosexuals."

For a religious examination, please see the  The Family: a Proclamation to the World , promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

(more…)