About that "white Christian party"

I realize I'm a little late on responding to Howard Dean's claim that the Republican party is a "white Christian party". But I was thinking of another comment Howie made:

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.

It doesn’t take a logistician to make the following deduction, but if Dean hates the Republicans and everything they stand for, and the Republican party – according to Dean – is a “white Christian party”, then it could be said that Howard Dean hates white Christians and everything they stand for.

So there you have it folks, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee proclaiming he loathes Christians and everything they represent. Nice job “reaching out” to those red states Howie.

Bait and switch

Karl Rove made some comments to a group of New York Republicans on Wednesday basically contrasting the philosophical precepts of liberals and conservatives. The remark that has Rove in "trouble" was reported in NewsMax as follows:

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

This had Democrats - including Senators Clinton and Schumer - throwing a tantrum; asking for an apology and/or resignation from Rove. While I felt the Democrats reaction was a bit whiney, I was scratching my head over why the heck Rove made the comments.

There is no spontaneity to Karl Rove. Everything he does is part of some grand design, so he does not slip up by using ad hoc rhetoric. But I was miffed with his comments because I felt that Democrats were finally feeling some heat over Durbin’s comments on the Senate floor. So why the heck would Rove want to give the Democrats any dirt to sling back at us?

Putting aside the fact that Rove’s comments were 100% accurate, I now suspect his remarks are part of a broader strategy. There is an endless catalog of Democrats publicly disparaging our efforts in the war on terror and the troops. But Republicans have so far been kept from beating Democrats to a political pulp with their own words because they have successfully buffered themselves with the “how dare you question my patriotism?” defense.

But instead of employing this reliable – though passive – defense in confronting Rove's claim, the Democrats got a little too cocky, stepped up to the proverbial rhetorical dais, and challenged the veracity of Rove’s charges. They have effectively solicited a debate on this issue, and opened themselves to the litany of evidence against them. A complete review of every treacherous comment made by the left since 9/11 is now fair game.

Karl Rove: Genius.

Greatest American

I'm watching the Greatest American on Discovery Channel right now. Just had to comment on the fact that Randy Jackson - not Michael's brother, but of American Idol fame - is sharing the panel with Ann Coulter and Dennis Miller. Sure, Miller and Coulter are no sages of our time. But Randy Jackson? You've got to be kidding me.

Randy Jackson is touting Martin Luther King Jr. as the greatest American, which is perfectly fine. But I have to imagine the supporters of MLK's candidacy are feeling a little let down that Randy Jackson is their primary representative on this program. His placement on the panel is so asinine that I question the motives of the show's producers. Were they trying to handicap MLK's candidacy by placing this moron on the panel to defend him?

GOP plays politics with US constitution

First off, I would like to begin this post by explaining why I've neglected my blog lately. I spent the last month going through the evaluation/approval process for my master’s thesis. Now that my paper’s fate is out of my hands, I have some more spare time for updating my blog. Let the blogging commence!

It appears the GOP has forgotten its conservative roots and has decided to play barefaced political games with the US constitution:

The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want — an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

I doubt I need to defend my patriotic bona fides, but if anyone is wondering, I do not condone the burning of the US flag and if I witnessed such an act I would probably have to bite my upper lip to keep myself from misdemeanor assault charges. However, I respect the constitution a far deal greater than the stars and bars, and therefore could not disagree more with the Republicans in congress on this issue.

The political gamesmanship here is not difficult to decipher. The GOP is trying to put Democratic members of congress on the record for voting against a flag burning amendment. The Dem's would be cornered; trying to placate their base by voting against the amendment would disgust moderates. As tempting as this is, it's an incredibly myopic strategy for the GOP.

This amendment process, if it continues, will leave the GOP reeking of hypocrisy. How can a party of so-called constructionists expect to be taken seriously if we are willing to chip away at the very rights we claim to champion? The next time we deride the left for its attempts to curb freedom of speech/expression we won’t have a moral foundation to stand on.

Sure, burning the flag is a horrible act. But so long as no persons or property are harmed in the process, it should be covered by the First Amendement. In a perfect world I would expect that every American would respect and cherish the flag and what it represents. But if amending the consitution is the only route to meet that end, I'll pass.

The GOP will not always be the majority party (I know, hard to imagine). If we tinker with the constitution to win a couple political points and silence those who offend us, who knows what the opposition will cook up in the future to settle the score.

If some imbecile is so incapable of engaging in public debate that their only recourse is to buy and burn an American flag, then that should be their right. Pity the poor dumb bastards? Yes. Amend the constitution to infringe upon their right to free expression? Absolutely not!