This is an Open Trackbacks Alliance post. Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance.
Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.
On American “conservatism”…
“What was the restricted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting [note the 19th Century usage, indicating “pretending”] to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.”—R.L. Dabney
Yes, there is little difference—in substance: both are tax-and-spend appeasers, for the most part, for example—between most Democrat politicians *spit* and most Republican politicians *spit*. But there is still enough of a difference to favor the Republican candidates over the Democrat candidates… just. Barely. After all, approaching a precipice at 50mph is better than doing so at 90mph, right? (Still a better chance of braking juuuuust in time. Maybe.)
But. Is it too late for the pusillanimous pussyfooting politicos of the Republican’t leadership to explain to the electorate just what ceding control of Congress to the even worse leadership of the Democrappic Underpants-dominated absolutely NON-liberal Left?
I submit that it may very well be too late. Republican’t leadership has again and again ceded the public arena to the screeching moonbats of the faux-liberal Left, to the degree that any presentations of fact countering the memes promulgated by the faux-liberal Left and their allies in the Mass Media Podpeople’s Hivemind have little chance of being heard for anything but the weak protestations they would be.
The War in Iraq? I thought it foolish at the time, although I supported President Bush’s actions and defended his decision against the lying memes of the faux-liberal Left. I was proven more right than I wanted when Bremmer *spit* was appointed proconsul *heh* to Iraq. What an idiot. Since then, the whole endeavor has hung on a thread.
But leave now and cede Islam a victory that will result in encouraging further adventurism against the West and its allies? Foolish indeed. Foolishness of an entirely different order of magnitude, one that could haunt the U.S. to its end, I fear.
There are solututions to the Iraq mess that would allow a victory and a defusing of that area as a hotbed for recruitment of anti-West terrorists. The simplest (thank you, William of Occam) would be to partition Iraq to allow the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites to administer their own peoples. Interdict/control air traffic with U.S. resources. Guard/protect ONLY the oil resources with U.S. military and ensure and equal sharing of those resources among the partitioned peoples.
It. Could. Work. And much more easily than putting a million-man army on the ground to proceed as we are now (which seems to be about the only answer within the current paradigm).
If the republican’t leadership were to offer such an understandable solution were offered for the Iraq War to the electorate, follow it up with clear, unequivocal attacks on the hypocrisy of the Democraps (for example: at least Mark Foley resigned at the behest of the Republican’t leadership; Gerry Studds, censured by the House for having sex with a 17-year-old page, was allowed to continue serving by the Dem’s leadership) and show rthey had at least a little smaller yellow stripe down their backs, then a disatrous Democrappic House leadership scenario might just be averted.
But will the Republican’t leadership say “We can!”?
Somehow, given the character of these cretins, I doubt it.
*sigh*
Oh. Well.
