Boehner and the GOPs Reagan worship

"Remember when Ronald Reagan was president? We had Bob Hope. We had Johnny Cash. Think about where we are today. We have got President Obama. But we have no hope and we have no cash." ---John Boehner

   I'm a little over a month late on this, but apparently John Boehner thinks that the 1980s were the time when Cash and Hope were tearing up the pop charts. That or he's making a nonsensical reference to their being alive when Reagan was president and how they are deceased in this present time, when Obama is our president.

   Of course it's probably the second one and he's probably just using their names for a silly punchline. But it does seem like Bob Hope has always been a favorite celebrity of the GOP (I know Nixon loved to trot him out at least). But I love how he glosses over the fact that Hope and Cash were also alive when both Bushes and Clinton were president. 

  I look forward to the day when the GOP shuts up about Reagan. Nothing against the man personally, from everything I've read he sounded like a nice enough human. I do believe that a lot of his legacy has to do with the way he made people (especially Republicans) feel more than any real fiscal conservatism. If you don't believe me then read this nice little summary from the fanatically free-market/small government Ludwig Von Mises Institute.: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan
Note it was from 1988 and the president was nearing the end of his term. People who truly believed in small government saw right through Reagan before he was putting on his shoes to walk out the door.

So here are my two thoughts:

1. The GOP has enough new blood to justify them laying off the Reagan praise and talking about whatever plans they have for the future.............

2. .....which if they actually mention I'm sure will involve throwing around the words "cut taxes" the way they throw around Reagan's name. Which leads me to another point. I don't mind a party that raises taxes, I mind one that raises taxes but doesn't show much evidence of sound budgeting.  I look at Britain with envy these days. Their Tory/Lib Dem coalition government are making tough decisions that should nonetheless put them on a more sustainable path. Smart tax raises and smart spending cuts. The minute I see a candidate who talks about both and means both (none of these piddly little cuts, a million here, a million there) then I might get behind them enough to put a sticker on my car. But if the lack of serious responses to any of the recent debt commissions are proof of the apathy on this matter then it looks like my sedan bumper will continue to be bare.

Obama's "deep seated hatred for white people"

Remember that time when that dude who cries a lot on FOX News said that President Obama had a "deep seated hatred for white people"? Is it only more or does that seem about as preposterous as saying that Will Smith has a "deep seated hatred for white people"? I've heard the joke in the black community about some white people getting a "ghetto pass", well I think Will Smith got his "white pass" for basically the content his entire stinkin' career and our president got his when he started wearing mom jeans for his casual photographs.

Mike Huckabee: Palin destroyer?

   Few things in politics frighten me more than the possibility of a Sarah Palin presidency. It frightens me enough that when Arkansas has its open primary, and if Palin is on the GOP ballot, I will choose to vote in that primary and I will vote for whichever candidate has the better chance of pulling ahead of her.

   Which brings us to the man whose name is the title of this post.

   Mike Huckabee was the governor of my state. A very moderate governor, due in large part to having to deal with a Democrat controlled state legislature. For instance, he signed legislation which put into effect ARKids, a program to insure children in low income families in the state. Also, regarding illegal immigrants, Huckabee condemned a bill which would deny them state benefits as "un-Christian".

   But he wasn't perfect. The Arkansas Times often pointed out what could be considered his ethical lapses, such as his reporting (or lack thereof ) of campaign payments he made to himself. And of course there's the stories of his commutations of  rapist Wayne DuMond and felon Maurice Clemmons, both of whom went on to commit murders once out of prison.

   But now that Huckabee's star has ascended into the world of TV and radio, you never hear about those much. The Teflon quality that Reagan and Clinton had, Huckabee has too. Both Clinton and Huckabee hail from Hope, Arkansas by the way, which makes one wonder what elixir they discovered in their younger days.

   One evening a few weeks ago, my wife and I settled in to watch Real Time with Bill Maher. A prime piece of blue state TV if I've ever seen it. But also one of the best shows to watch if you want insightful and informed political panels. Any Republicans or conservatives who go on this show and face such a hostile crowd typically know their stuff, or could at least name several books, newpapers, or magazines they read for information (unlike Palin). Huckabee came on for an interview with Maher on satellite and we both concluded afterwards that he was definitely presidential material. Not to say we would vote for him. But his charm, whit, and general likability really are Clinton-esque in a lot of ways. He also had well thought out, albeit philosophically conservative, answers to everything Maher pressed him about.

   Then the other day I read an article in which conservative writer David Frum argues that Huckabee is the only person who can stop the Witch from Wasilla. You can read it here. I mentioned this article to my wife who speculated on a Huckabee/Palin (or the other way around) run instead. I sincerely hope Frum is right and my wife is wrong.

   Palin is a thoroughly mean spirited politician who has the vindictiveness of Richard Nixon with none of the brains, all wrapped up in a package that is soccer mom-ish enough to speak to the Twilight reading mini van mom crowd and physically appealing enough to suck in conservative men to ignore her total vacuousness. Just look at the near worship that square-jawed haircut Sean Hannity tends to lavish on her. 

   Huckabee has nowhere near the meanness of Palin. But that doesn't qualify one to be president. His accomplishments as governor if you read up on them show him to be a "compassionate conservative" in the truest sense. Maybe he wouldn't be a terrible president, but then again the man who first brought us the term "compassionate conservative" brought us an unnecessary war, a bumbling response to a natural disaster, and a green light to torturous behavior which ceded some of the moral high ground of my country's military. Huckabee may be nice, but the most important thing to me in a president is one who can respond with wisdom and not excessive militarism to events like North Korea firing on South Korea or Iran's continuing development of nuclear program. Nothing I see in Palin shows me that she could pass this test, and Huckabee has yet to prove himself to me on this front.

The co-opting of the tea party, and some thoughts on Obama

Just popping in to share a few links that I'm digging right now.

The first one is Matt Taibbi's latest Rolling Stone article on the Tea Party movement. It does a good job of tracing the movement's origins in Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign up through it's current co-opting of the GOP. A movement that was truly independent and anti-establishment has become a breeding ground for ignorance and theories about Obama's citizenship. You can find the article here.

The second link is a response to Dinesh D’Souza's recent Forbes article on President Obama. It can be found here.

Opponents of Obama are coming up with all sorts of reasons ranging from "anti-colonialism" to a "deep seated hatred" of whites for his actions as president. Which is funny because he really isn't any different than any other liberal politician. Talk of higher taxes on the wealthy for instance are pretty standard in Democratic circles. You didn't hear anyone calling Clinton an "anti-colonialist". I guess now that we have a black president, calling him "liberal" just isn't enough.

Plus on the foreign policy front the only difference I've seen between Obama and Bush is better vocabulary.  Recently our president has asserted a power to assassinate U.S. citizens if he deems it necessary. I can only imagine the storm that would have erupted in the media if Dubya asserted something like this. You can read more here.

The Dem Gaz grows a pair on "don't ask don't tell"

Kudos for once to the Democrat Gazette on their recent editorial calling for some courage in ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Obama has been an embarrassment on this front. As the editorial pointed out, Truman issued an executive order to end racial segregation in the military. Compare that to both Clinton's institution of "Don't ask, Don't tell" and Obama's approach to it so far. Regardless of one's views on homosexuality, I don't see any rational reason for gays to be restricted from military service. Especially considering our army apparently has, and is pretty slow in dealing with, a few murderous sickos like this: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28soldier.html

Now I know not all our soldiers are like that and all the ones I know are disgusted by those who do things like that (okay, there was my obligatory "support the troops" disclaimer). But believe me, I've heard some stories from some said soldiers that make me think those idiots in the article aren't totally unique. As far as the discomfort or damage to morale that gay soldiers might cause, all I can say is "tough". I'm going to guess that black soldiers caused the same discomfort amongst some soldiers back in the day, but letting them in was the right decision. I'm not sure I want my country protected by an army filled with guys who are afraid of getting cooties from the gay dude next to them.  Plus the freaking Israeli IDF allows gays to serve openly, and I don't think anyone would deny the toughness of the IDF.

What's the deal with Texas?

I have a certain amount of admiration for the state of Texas. Sure it is very tied to Dubya in my mind which is a strike against it, and a lot of people who come from there are cocky jerks, but it has so much cultural significance. Its major cities, its icons, the wild west, etc. Also, The Economist had a great article about how Texas is thriving in these hard economic times when compared to the rest of the country, and especially when compared to that other great iconic American state: California. Only subscribers can read the article, but a good summary is here.

But..........

There are still "what the heck?" moments that show massive amounts of ignorance. The Texas School Board has been a treasure trove of these lately with their war on textbooks. Here's their latest effort to dilute history:

http://www.salon.com/news/islam/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/09/17/texas_school_textbooks_muslim

The death penalty: Part Two

Well the last post didn't have the amount of responses I was hoping for. I would still love more debate in the religious community on the death penalty since it seems church goers are reliable voices in favor of it to a degree that I don't understand. Here are my main reasons for being against it, they aren't backed up by any stats. Just a few articles, quotes, and interactions that help articulate my feelings on the matter.

1. Support for the death penalty seems to be about vengeance rather than justice.  One of the most fervent supporters of the death penalty I know fondly refers to a Ron White comedy bit where the comedian speaks of Texans putting the death penalty in the fast lane. Which is interesting because Texas is going to feature prominently in another one of my points. But for this point I just want to talk about the glee that accompanies this mindset. Let's just look at the mindset of that statement. In essence it shows pride in one's state for killing more people. Considering the attitudes of many supporters of the death penalty how they often have this sort of reaction, I can tell justice is the furthest thing from their mind. Here's a quote from a Matt Taibbi blog that I think captures the mindset of the death penalty's strongest supporters:

"Years ago a friend of mine in the media told me a story about an experience he had covering the execution of John Wayne Gacy in Joliet, Illinois. You won’t find anyone in the world who’d have been sad to see serial child murderer in a clown suit like Gacy die, but this reporter friend of mine said the crowd outside the prison on execution night freaked him out almost as much as Gacy had. There were something like 400 people outside the gates at Joliet and there were people selling commemorative t-shirts and pounding beers and chanting (“Kill the Clown!” was a popular one) all night.

At the moment of truth the crowd cheered and my friend turned to interview a scraggly-looking twenty-something with thinning long hair whom he described as looking like a too-old version of the Todd Ianuzzi mean-teenager character in Beavis and Butthead. The guy was into his second six-pack and smiling goofily like he’d just gotten a half-price rub-n-tug from a Thai massage parlor. He says to my friend: “You’re not against capital punishment, are you?”

“I’m not against capital punishment,” my friend says. “I’m against enjoying capital punishment.”

I’m with my friend on this one. As far as I see it, there are three positions on capital punishment. There’s being against it. There’s being for it. Then there’s putting six-packs of beer in a cooler and driving to a hideous prison complex in the middle of the night with four hundred strangers to cheer like fans at a baseball game for the execution of some fat old child killer. Dude, if that’s what you call recreation, you’re either dangerously bored or seriously f****d up."

While I won't say that I know many people that would take it that far, I have met plenty of people whose support for it is a less tacky version of that.

2. Seeing the guilty punished by death isn't worth the potential for innocent loss of life.

For any Texas residents who are going to be voting for governor, I ask you to consider this little tale which has Gov. Perry's fingerprints all over it. Seems a fellow named  Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson and executed because of a fire that killed his three young children. While not the only evidence brought against him, the damning evidence was a police inspection after the fire which it was said pointed to arson. Much of this evidence seems to garbage according to experts in fire investigation. Perry never replied to Willingham's appeals.

In 2009  Texas Forensic Science Commission was due to hear from a nationally recognized fire expert when Perry yanked three of the members and replaced them with new appointees. I won't say that Willingham was for sure innocent (he certainly doesn't sound like an angel), but it's cases like this that are filled with such uncertainty and odd behavior by elected officials that I can't give a full throated endorsement of the death penalty. The Commission is proceeding according to recent articles but only time will tell whether Perry's actions tainted its objectivity.


The way I look at it, the guilty are still being punished if there is no death penalty and more time is also given for science and evidence to potentially free the innocent. Here in the Natural State, the West Memphis 3 case is a good example of science catching up. New fiber evidence points to a stepfather of one of the slain boys and way from the three men now in prison, one of whom is on death row. Jury notes also show that a recanted confession by one of the three convicted men was wrongly considered in the deliberations during the trial of the other two. The case of  Damien Echols, the only one of the three on death row, is being considered by the Arkansas Supreme Court on September 30. The hearing will be viewable online here.