Conservathink

YET ANOTHER C4P POST! I CAN HARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF!!! (EXPLODES)

2009-11-08T18:26:00.000-05:00

Here it is. Go to C4P now. I command you!

Off-year election predictions are fun!

2009-11-03T16:54:00.004-05:00

Hey, everyone. I'm going to be adding to this post later, but I wanted to get this part posted before the polls close in Virginia at 7 p.m. EST.

I predict that Bob McDonnell will win the Virginia Governor's race by 15 points or more. The Deeds campaign has failed to get out the vote in any reasonable sense, and reports are he will even lose the liberal-leaning northeastern portion of the State. In fact, McDonnell wins by nearly 20 points, I would be unsurprised. This electorate is far more conservative, older and whiter than last year's. More McCain voters are coming out. Many Obama voters in this State would never have even registered if Obama's team were not as ruthlessly efficient as it was. That is why this longtime GOP stronghold went Blue last year, in addition to shifting demographics. I doubt Hillary Clinton would have won Virginia (although she could very well have won West Virginia, but that's for another day).

I predict that Chris Christie will win the New Jersey Governor's race narrowly. Corzine and the Democratic machine may have good get-out-the-vote infrastructure, but independents do not like Corzine. And Obama is not on the ticket. Again, angry McCain voters are far more motivated to vote than Obama voters, and some Obama voters are fed up with Corzine, too. Also, Daggett will not play a major factor. This is not a Perot situation. In fact, more Daggett supporters consider Corzine their second choice than Christie. This will be a nail-biter, but last-minute polling shows Christie has the momentum.

NY-23 will not just be a Conservative victory but a decisive one. Scozzafava voters will stay home or move towards Hoffman. Or they'll just vote for her anyway. Independents and conservatives - both Republican and unaffiliated - will move towards Hoffman in this traditionally GOP district.

Mike Bloomberg will win easily - I live in the shadow of New York City. Even people who think Bloomberg shouldn't have extended his term are voting for him. Voter surveys from the pollsters I trust are sparse, but Bloomberg's vast wealth and high approval ratings should propel him to a solid win. I can't give exact figures because there are so many third parties, and again, polling is sparse. Bloomberg could get over 60% and sweep, or he could get a fair 10-point win. Hell, there's even a "Rent Is Too Damn High Party". "Damn" has since been removed from the ballot.

The "everything-but-marriage" initiative will pass in Washington. The anti-same-sex marriage initiative will narrowly pass in Maine.

UPDATE: I was right on everything except NY-23, and I have more to say on New York City in a moment.

NY-23 proves that all politics is (are?) local. The Conservative candidate, Hoffman, did not live in the district and had little grasp of local issues. His opponent, despite being a Democrat in a Republican-heavy district, won because he had neither of these issues. This is still a partial victory, however, because after this debacle of an election, the RNC has pledged not to fund candidates in contested primaries. I feel strongly that there must be a place for moderates in the GOP, but you don't waste them on conservative-leaning districts. Run moderates in areas where they are absolutely needed, like Connecticut - and actual moderates, not Snowe/Collins types who betray conservatism on important fiscal matters.

I was very unsure of the NYC race. I figured Bloomberg would win by less because his opponent was black and drawing heavily from that part of the Democratic base. Also, there were indeed those who liked Bloomberg but thought his term extension was wrong - as evidenced by exit polling showing his approval rating was 20 points higher than the percentage who voted for him. SurveyUSA had a poll showing Bloomberg ahead of Thompson by just nine points, but I figured enough undecideds would break for Bloomberg to give him more than a 10-point lead. As I said in my original analysis - which was far closer to the actual result and I feel stupid for deleting - money can't buy you everything.

Dick's Army Marches Along...

2009-11-02T23:59:00.007-05:00

Last time, on Conservathink...

SCENE: The roof of Canterbury Cathedral. A large group of people, many of whom are clad in clerical garb, are frantically boarding a helicopter bearing the Vatican coat of arms and the words, "German Shepherd One".

A biplane bearing a "Coexist" bumper sticker is flying off in the distance, piloted by a rather mannish woman wearing a United Nations T-shirt.

Sensing that the biplane is about to strafe the crowd, the pilot of the helicopter shouts in a thick, Bavarian accent, "GET TO ZE CHOPPER! DO IT, NOW!!!"

***

Our special friends over at RichardDawkins.net apparently didn't take too kindly to our rather blunt criticisms of their Dear Leader's assessment of the Pope's overtures to Anglo-Catholics.

Well, it appears that through the miracle of Google, one of Dick's dowdy denizens stumbled upon my humble blog:

I couldn't help but go out and look at the reaction to this article on Catholic and other religious blogs (I guess because I'm a masochist, or something). It's about what you'd expect-- the Telegraph article mentioned above ("Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is vicious and crazy. The man needs help") is typical of the tone. Some of these people are truly deranged, though.

I don't know whether one should be offended and hurt at these kinds of remarks, or proud to be hated by such people (and amused at their utter inanity). Honestly, the emotion I felt most often was pity, when I wasn't tittering over the sheer stupidity of remarks like "I won't even get into Dick's 'pimp' reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in 'The New Colossus', perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church." (Real quote, in a post titled "Richard Dawkins, kiss my misogynistic, bigoted, Anglo-Catholic arse." I hoped this was a Poe or at least a joke...no such luck.)

Oh, Lisa. What am I to do with you? You're so offended by my reference to Dick as a "whore", but Dick's own name-calling warrants nary a peep. Convenient, that.

See, name-calling is only name-calling if it's actually slander. If you say someone is a racist because he opposes President Obama's policies, that's slander. If you say someone is a racist because he burns crosses and effigies of his melanin-rich brethren, that's a rather fair assessment of his character.

Now, when I say Richard Dawkins is a "whore", I don't mean that he walks the mean streets of Oxford in a halter top and fishnets, offering a Cleveland steamer to any John who opposes teaching Creationism in classrooms.

No, I am referring to the Alan Grayson definition of the word. That is, "A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain."

Dick is a scientist. Scientists are supposed to use the evidence before them to draw a conclusion. Science is a process involving logic and reason as opposed to emotion and, well, faith.

So, when Dick says "dotty" things like how Catholics are sexist, homophobic, cannibalistic paederasts, who kill Africans with AIDS and abstinence and whose women are self-hating, it leads me to wonder,

Who the diddly-f*ck does Richard Dawkins think he is?

Seriously! Dick has claimed that, even after he began his murderous rampage which specifically targeted Roman Catholic clergy and nuns (amongst millions of others), was opposed by most German Catholics (who were by no means the originators of German anti-Semitism) and wished that Germany were Islamic because Christianity was an impediment to his plans, Adolf Hitler was, in fact, a Roman Catholic!

There are only two possible reasons Dick says the things he says: He's an idiot, which is highly unlikely, given his academic credentials, or he's lying. And since we are only left with that option, we must confront why he lies about history as well as theology - such as the idea that Anglicans don't believe in Divine Eucharist (he glosses over what transubstantiation is - it's NOT synonymous with the transformation of the bread and wine; it is a philosophy about the change itself), and the Church does not lie about condoms' efficacy, which have up to a 15% failure rate, as opposed to abstinence, which has a 100% success rate - and his twisting of Benedict's call to personal responsibility during his African visit this year - which at no point mentioned condoms' efficacy - follows the anti-Catholic Left's repeated misrepresentation of the Holy Father's comments.

The only other part of this sad atheist's screed I will parse is this: I don't know whether one should be offended and hurt at these kinds of remarks, or proud to be hated by such people (and amused at their utter inanity). Honestly, the emotion I felt most often was pity, when I wasn't tittering over the sheer stupidity....

First off, hate isn't how we operate, dear. Per Luke.

I certainly don't have to like you, but for some reason, I have to love my enemies. Who was it again Who said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Having said all that, I wonder: Who should be pitying whom here? We have the promise of Eternal Life and subscribe to a philosophy of love and forgiveness. You look forward to eternal nothingness, an utterly empty non-existence, preceded by your philosophy of intolerance and hate.

Yes, militant atheists, you are the intolerant ones. Religious people do horrible, atrocious things in the name of their faith, they believe some silly things and yes, they do sometimes halt legitimate discussion over seemingly common-sense notions like an Earth that's older than several thousand years.

But, as a whole, they are not bad people.

Your inability to fathom a voluntary system of rules and regulations which runs contrary to your own beliefs has led you to conclude that religion is inherently evil. You're almost, pardon the term, dogmatic on the issue.

I'm not about to throw Pascal's Wager at you because, frankly, someone of strong intellectual fortitude who has determined that there is no God or gods should not feel coerced to believe in God out of fear of eternal damnation, contrary to his own rational conclusion.

So, I have my own wager.

Any atheist who can make a convincing case that an atrocity committed in the name of Christianity was possible only because of religious conviction will get me to renounce my faith as based on a faulty, indefensible system, whose very foundations are suspect, if not outright fraudulent.

Since you can't, I'm declaring victory now.

Oh, wait, am I being arrogant? Does my surety that I am correct flabbergast you? That is exactly how we feel when you do not merely proselytise for atheism but seek to - using your own word - poach converts from the faithful by tearing down their beliefs, rather than presenting a positive case for atheism.

I guess you could say that being an atheist means never having to say you're sorry.

Funny, isn't it, that the doing the exact opposite is the most important part of being a Christian?

Richard Dawkins, kiss my misogynistic, bigoted, Anglo-Catholic arse.

2009-10-27T17:02:00.001-04:00

You know who needs a serious fisking? Richard Dawkins. Let's get started, shall we?

What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.

Let me congratulate Richard Dawkins for acknowledging the closed-minded, outdated notion of the binary system of Good and Evil. Nietzsche would be scandalised.

The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.

Right, like how the Episcopal Church is now transferring funds from their charitable causes to funds dedicated to suing orthodox believers out of their houses of worship.

The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast;

If you mean we don't believe that Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then you're just a tad off, Dick. And while you're at it, you might wish to have a word with the J-Man himself, as He didn't find His "cannibal feast" all that "dotty" in Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 or Luke 22:13-20.

nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.

Since when have British men ever possessed testicles?

It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.

Dick? Condoms are indeed ineffective when HIV is widespread throughout society. Even the United Nations admits that. God (or no God, in your case) forbid the Church promote "distort[ed]" moral values, like abstinence.

Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.

I'm afraid you've got it all backwards, Dick. It's Rowan who's an embarrassment, what with his kowtowing to the Brits' Islamic overlords, as opposed to Pope B-Unit (my nickname is better), who actually takes a damned stance on things, rather than simply letting society redefine Truth in the name of "tolerance".

Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed.

If by "poaching", you mean "welcoming" then, yes, you're absolutely right. After all, who would want to stay in a Church where if you tell the Truth, you get called names?

If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?

See above.

For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests.

I don't believe men can give birth because it's biologically impossible. Is that deep-seated sexism re-labelled with a mendacious euphemism, such as "an important point of medical principle"?

One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.

Right. They're all unenlightened, backwards broads, you see, so they must be either ignorant or self-hating. Dick? My mother would like a word with you.

For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.

Never mind what Jesus said about marriage. Never mind what the Bible says - in the New Testament mind you! - about improper sexual relations. Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hardly alone in the abuse of minors (not to condone their poor handling of it but Dick is wrong to single them out as somehow exclusively and rampantly abusive).

Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."

Well, you're right about one thing, Dick. Catholicism is hurting badly in the West, where your special brand of anything-goes morality and secularism is gaining "converts", shall we say. But your math is off. If 1,000 new priests were to join the ranks of the Church, that would be a rather paltry addition to the over 400,000 priests worldwide. I won't even get into Dick's "pimp" reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in "The New Colossus", perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church. Oh, and fun fact: Being a super-liberal, happily heretical "church" doesn't win you many new members.

Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.

If by "nice", you mean "weak, indecisive and duplicitous", then right on. Anyone who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church is free to leave. Unlike some denominations, they have held true to the Faith as instructed by Christ to the Apostles and carried on by the Church Fathers and their posterity. Anyone who dissents from Scripture and Sacred Tradition as held by Catholic doctrine really has no case, insofar as Church policy has remained largely unchanged for over 2,000 years. Anglicans, however, have seen their Faith hijacked by revisionists, heretics and other malcontents of the worst sort. They have been marginalised, scolded, robbed and otherwise abused, all in the name of "tolerance" and "equality", contrary to any semblance of either.

Damian Thompson - I don't know him, I swear - is right. Dawkins needs help. But then again, so do we. And that is why we must turn to Christ, whose Cross is our only true Help, our only hope for Salvation. Would that the revisionists, in all of their progressive "wisdom", could look at that very Cross and feel just a touch of humility, rather than engaging in the self-aggrandising, destructive behaviour which has rendered their once-respectable Church a religious chimaera, hating, rather than loving, the Faithful; enabling, rather than ameliorating, sin; damning, rather than saving, souls.

New C4P post!

2009-09-28T19:42:00.000-04:00

Hey, y'all might want to skedaddle over to C4P, if'n y'all wanna read my latest post, I reckon.

Dr. Changelove or: How I Learned to Stop Racism and Love the ’Bama

2009-09-22T21:00:00.001-04:00

[It's time for another episode of, "Stuff That I'm Printing in My College Newspaper at the Risk of My Life and Academic Career"!]

There is no charge more powerful or damaging in American politics than the accusation of racism. Though sometimes warranted, allegations of racism are far too common and serve little more than to shut down all civil debate.

When such an assertion is false, it becomes the equivalent of asking a man whether he still beats his wife and demanding a yes-or-no answer. The accused is forced either to ignore the charge, which will be seen as an implicit admission of guilt, or to rebut his accuser, veering the current discussion off-course into an unrelated matter – which was the exact intent of the one who made the racism declaration.

That having been said, it stands to reason that the election of the first black President would infuriate those who harbour serious malice towards minorities, and it also stands to reason that those people would oppose him and his agenda every step of the way. But there are far more Americans who have serious disagreements with the President’s policies and would be just as opposed to those policies were he white. In fact, it would be a form of racism for those opponents to support Obama’s agenda, since making an exception to their own ideology merely to celebrate the milestone of the first black President would amount to affirmative-action politics.

The opposing-Obama-is-racist line has most recently been levelled by former President Jimmy Carter, who said that the “overwhelming” portion of animosity towards Obama is racist.

This is the same Jimmy Carter whose Democratic Party primary for Georgia Governor, as noted in Stephen F. Hayward’s book, The Real Jimmy Carter, was marked with Carter’s anti-black race-baiting, including distributing grainy photographs of his opponent standing arm-in-arm with two black men in order to depress his share of the white vote; producing a leaflet noting his opponent had paid tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr.; declaring that he had “no trouble pitching” for votes of both supporters of segregationist George Wallace as well as black votes, only to later boast, “I can win this election without a single black vote”; and releasing a radio commercial in which he said he would never be the tool of any “block” vote, slurring over the word “block” so that it could be mistaken for “black.”

And this is the same Jimmy Carter whose anti-Israel best seller, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, recently received a ringing endorsement by… Osama bin Laden.

Carter’s behaviour speaks to the Left’s own insecurity on the issue of race. Many – but certainly not all – liberals feel an undeserved guilt for the sins of the past and feel an obligation not merely to defend the oppressed but to make themselves the chief – if not exclusive – defenders of those oppressed people, to the point of lambasting their detractors as illogical and bigoted.

Their guilt manifests itself in the form of a modern-day White Man’s Burden, an obligation to use government as a means of achieving some semblance of equality, even if that means sacrificing the liberty of those with the misfortune to be born into the dominant group, regardless of any lack of bigotry on those individuals’ part.

Janeane Garofalo – who once said, “If I don’t have my self-loathing, what do I have?” and whose production company is aptly called I Hate Myself – engaged in even more of her own projection when she said that Michael Steele, the current and first black Chairman of the Republican Party, “suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favour with the oppressor…. Any female or person of colour in the Republican Party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.”

That served as cover for her next assertion that the anti-government, anti-tax Tea Party protests are “about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of tea bagging rednecks.” Garofalo’s proof of her allegation was supposedly a single sign reading, “Whatchyoo talkin’ ’bout, Willis?”

To be fair, there were multiple signs at Tea Party rallies with racial overtones – if not outright racist sentiments – in reference to the President. But that is the downside of any protest, especially one as grassroots as the Tea Party protests: You always run the risk of having a small but vocal minority who say things that make your movement look bad. By Garofalo’s logic, every anti-war protestor is an avowed Communist who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, George Bush is Hitler and Israelis and Jews are Nazi, Zionist devil pigs Hell-bent on controlling the world. And those are some the milder extremists on the extreme Left and Right.

And yes, most Tea Partiers are white, but since most political conservatives are white – for reasons there is not space to get into here – it makes sense that most of the protestors are, in fact, white. It is because of this that the notion of a black conservative, or a female conservative, or an Hispanic conservative, or an Asian conservative, or – GASP! – a gay conservative runs contrary to the Leftist narrative, for their ideology is the pinnacle of tolerance and societal equity.

Garofalo also said that “there is almost no liberal outlet for news commentary or editorialising.” Right, just like when MSNBC, being the far-Right propaganda outlet that it is, showed footage of an armed Tea Party-goer as evidence that racist white people want to do harm to the President. There was just one problem: The protestor in question was black. But MSNBC, desperate to prevent the shattering of the Leftist narrative, cut away from the footage so viewers could not see the race of the man in question.

But now, I’m belabouring the point. The fact is, not all opposition to the President is racist, and perhaps more important, not all support of him isn’t racist. By framing a non-racial debate, be it over taxes, health care or the size of government, in racial terms, the Left is engaging in both hyperbole and logical fallacy, which is precisely what racism is.

Racism – or any other form of bigotry, for that matter – is the ultimate societal hyperbole because it attempts to make all members of a group into one faceless, homogeneous mass. There has always and will always be bigots, and often, the accuser doth protest too much, revealing his own deep-seated hatred towards those different from himself, as well as his deficient intellectual capacity.

I would be remiss to point out that despite my many qualms with this President, I do believe that we can find common ground. Obama’s recent off-the-record comment that rapper/fish stick lover Kanye West is a “jackass” is probably one of the smartest things he has ever said.

Of course, I am loath to say that the pot called the kettle black, lest I be labelled a racist.

Eight years later

2009-09-11T22:21:00.001-04:00

"This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."
-President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001

IT'S A BOY!

2009-09-10T23:59:00.000-04:00

Long-time readers of this blog may remember the birth of my niece. I now have a nephew. Here are some key statistics:

Name: Sebastian Zelig

Date/Time of Birth: Tuesday, September 8/11:42 P.M. (12 days late, induced)

Weight: 9 pounds 1 ounce

Length: 21 inches

I'm stuck at school, so I haven't had the chance to meet the little critter yet, but hopefully, I will soon!

So, I've been doing stuff, and... yeah.

2009-08-31T23:59:00.002-04:00

(Note: I know damn well that this is being posted in early September, but I'm marking it as August, so there isn't a gap in my archives. Besides, this information was just as true on August 31 as it is now. Also, shut up.)

So, I've started a Ning network. You all should join, or perish, or something.

Also, I am now a contributor to a little site known as Conservatives4Palin. Perhaps you've heard of it. Look for my stuff soon.

Where Sarah Stands: The Republicans (Part One of a series)

2009-07-31T23:59:00.010-04:00

[Note: More links will be added ~~tomorrow~~ after I return from ~~Jesus Camp~~ Saint Michael's Conference.]

So, I haven't blogged in, like, for ever because I am a shameless Twitter fiend. Fancy that.

As you all know, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. The time for critiquing her decision to resign has passed, and those defending the resignation have made their case. What I want to discuss is just where she stands now and where she will stand in three years.

Let's start with a brief overview of the electorate, then move on to the Republicans.

Some polls show Sarah as largely disliked; others show the public divided on her. There does not appear to be any sort of clear trend other than the fact that she is not as popular as she was when she was first introduced to the general public nearly one year ago. This makes sense - she was on a losing ticket last year.

There has been a much-trumpeted NBC/Washington Post poll showing that Palin has a mere 40 per cent approval to 53 per cent disapproval.

Fun fact: Some of the people in that poll can't vote.

That's right: The NBC/WashPo poll was amongst "all adults" - not likely voters or even registered voters. In other words, people who will have absolutely no say in 2012 or 2016 or any Presidential election are being asked what they think of someone for whom they will never vote, who will run against someone for whom they will also never vote.

In layman's terms, The poll's crap.

Our friends at Public Policy Polling, a Democratic pollster, found that registered voters are evenly divided on Sarah. Gallup, in what was perhaps an outlier, found all adults divided on her.

PPP and Rasmussen Reports (the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election) found that in match-ups with Obama, Sarah would lose by single digits. Of note is the fact that these polls were taken before the President's numbers started dropping below 50 per cent, before his disastrous health care press conference and before Gates-gate.

In other words, less than a year after being the number two in the worst-run Presidential campaign in modern history and less than a month after abruptly resigning in the middle of her first term as Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin - the butt of every joke of every comedian, liberal blogger and talking head - is competitive with a man who broke the highest racial barrier in the world's only superpower and did so with the support of States no member of his party had won in three decades or more.

Tonight, our first item of focus: Where does Sarah stand amongst Republicans, the people who will mostly (remember the infamous open-primary States) determine the nominee?

First, let me tell you how I divided up Republican and conservative opinion towards Sarah post-election amongst people I know personally, and I have many, many friends on the Right. Keep in mind that I live in New York. Many Republicans here would be considered RINOs to those of you who live in the Midwest and South:

There are those who would have voted for McCain no matter what but were further compelled by Sarah’s selection. Most of my Republican and conservative friends fell into this category.

There are those who were compelled to vote for McCain because of Sarah. A libertarian Republican friend of mine from Queens not only enthusiastically supported the ticket - she got her family to donate over $400 to the campaign after Palin's selection. Keep in mind, not only did she dislike McCain until this point, she was - and is - a rabid Ron Paul supporter and proud of it. (She figured McCain was old and would probably die anyway, so it was like voting for Palin for President.)

There are those who liked Palin but still sat out the election (or voted third party) because they despised McCain. One of my friends - who was registered to vote in New Jersey but lives in Florida and is now registered there - wrote in Mitt Romney's name. If he were not registered to vote in a Blue State, he would have held his nose and strategically voted for McCain. (And had Palin been at the top of the ticket, he would have voted for her without hesitation.).

There are those who were disappointed in Sarah but who voted for McCain anyway because they disliked Obama so much. I know several Republicans like this, and they will be the ones who Sarah will have to win over to solidify her position in the 2012 primaries should she run.

I can think of just one Republican who supported Obama after initially supporting McCain because of Sarah joining the ticket - and he’s an anti-Christian, socially liberal bigot. (He once complained about the "Jesus music" playing everywhere at Christmas. The background music at the time was, in fact, a non-religious Christmas song.)

Now, early polling shows a statistical three-way tie amongst Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. It also shows that Sarah is far more popular amongst Republicans - including moderates - than any of her potential competitors. In other words, she has far more room to grow than her rivals, who all have problems dealing with their niche appeals.

Mitt Romney is a smart man. Considering that he is a one-term Governor of Massachusetts, his knowledge of national issues and foreign policy is impressive. Unfortunately for him, his State's health care plan - frequently nicknamed "Romneycare" - is a disastrous, socialistic mess reminiscent of Obama and the Democratic Congress' attempt to destroy the private health care market.

Romney also suffers from the flip-flopper label on several issues, including abortion. You don't ever - ever - waver on life issues if you want to be the Republican nominee for President. Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Also, the Mormon thing... Yeah, that still hurts him. It shouldn't, but amongst some evangelicals, it does.

Speaking of whom - Mike Huckabee! He has a fun show on FNC, but as a candidate, the only thing noteworthy about him is he got endorsed by Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris Fact: The only difference between Chuck Norris and a hockey mom is lipstick. Oh, and legions of fans who would literally kill for their leader and would swamp a B-list celebrity endorser whose main claim to fame is an admittedly awesome show whose series finale was eight years ago.

Huckabee seems like a nice guy, but a President? Maybe he'll win Arkansas, and maybe he'll split the conservative vote with Sarah in certain States, giving them to Romney (a McCain primary victory redux). But Mike Huckabee - barring a massive accident which kills every single GOP contender besides him and Dr. Paul - will never, ever be President.

I've just jinxed this thing, haven't I?

Sarah's strength is with, well, all Republicans. Conservative or moderate, she's popular. She's most popular in the Mountain States and the South, and she's least popular in the Northeast and West Coast. Again, we are not focussing on independents or Democrats in this post, but the standard still applies. A New York Republican is not as likely as an Iowa Republican to back her. But the primary/caucus schedule is in her favour.

Iowa and South Carolina are both ground rich in possible Sarah support. New Hampshire is, too, but remember that Romney is understandably popular there, given he governed their next-door neighbour. This isn't the time to speculate which State will go which way, but it's safe to say that if Sarah can win the early conservative contents in 2012, she could easily make moderates her own in the big States on Super Tuesday later on.

NEXT UP! Squishy moderates - Can Sarah win them, or is she a Right-wing lightning rod without a storm?

Props to Boehner and Eight Republicans to Shun. SHUN THE NON-BELIEVERS!!!

2009-06-27T01:21:00.000-04:00

[Cross-posted at Shots on the House]

So, the delightfully anti-business, anti-capitalism and anti-common sense cap-and-trade bill passed the House of Representatives by the thinnest of margins - 219-212 - despite John Boehner's noble pseudo-filibuster, in which he read the 300-page bill for an hour. The bill, like the stimulus (which is helping our economy SO much), wasn't actually read by anyone in Congress before the vote, and Boehner (who I am calling Killa B from this point on since I am struggling to spell his name correctly) decided to rectify the situation.

Regardless, eight Republicans voted for the bill. Had they voted against it, it would not have passed.

They are:
Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Castle (DE - May run for Senate in 2010)
Mark Kirk (IL - Also may run for Senate in 2010)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
John McHugh (NY)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

Now, before you all get excited about the 44 Democrats who voted against the bill, keep in mind that Dennis Kucinich and several others took a cue from far-Left groups, such as Greenpeace, and voted the way they did because they felt that the bill didn't go far enough, not because they were Blue Dog Democrats who oppose spending slightly less than their ultra-liberal brethren.

There was really no reason to vote for this bill, if you were a Republican. The GOP should be rallying round condemnation of President Obama's drastic expansion of Government, not aiding and abetting it by voting for massive tax increases, such as this. It would be one thing if voting against the conservative position was politically expedient, in order to keep a moderate district, such as voting for Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, but the fact is, opposition to big Government is a mainstream position. If anything, voting for cap-and-trade could very well hurt the eight defectors, especially in their primaries come next year.

In the meantime, give credit to Killa B and all of those who voted against cap-and-trade. Hopefully, predictions will hold true, and cap-and-trade will die in the Senate. Also, since I am a simple man who needs to have things explained with pretty pictures, here is an interesting map of how cap-and-trade affects the country, State-by-State.

Going on holiday and in memoriam.

2009-05-23T10:00:00.006-04:00

In case you nosey, nattering nabobs were wondering, I am currently on a flight to Disney World with my parents. I have scheduled this post to appear at the time of our flight's departure to Orlando.

The trip, in case you were wondering, is my twentieth birthday gift.

No material gift, however, can make up for the sacrifice of our fallen heroes. This Sunday is Memorial Day. I will not be using a computer for the duration of my trip - my decision - and rather than scheduling a Memorial Day post, I say thank them now.

Thank you, dear soldiers. With all my heart.

I'll be back May 30th! Cheers!

No more pencils! No more books! No more teacher's dirty looks!

2009-05-19T22:57:00.000-04:00

Today was the last day of my sophomore year of college. It was a great year in the end, but it was a difficult one. Having the room-mate from Hell did not help. He's gone now, though, so it's all good. Enjoy the video; I'ma collapse.

Conservathink turns four; still using diapers, blankie.

2009-05-11T22:37:00.003-04:00

So, this is where I celebrate my blog, or something.

Um, w00t?

Nah, just kidding. Thanks to everyone who's read and linked all these years. You peeps rock.

Wanda Sykes is a classless bitch.

2009-05-11T00:43:00.000-04:00

President Obama’s first White House Correspondents' Association dinner Saturday night relied on the same Hollywood energy surrounding his Inauguration four months earlier, but also included racy punch lines that had some guests laughing out loud and others left with mouths agape.

...

Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin was scheduled to be a guest of Fox News but had to cancel late because of flooding in her state. In her place came her husband, “first dude” Todd Palin, and he was left to squirm in the face of a few pointed jokes from the night’s entertainer, comedian Wanda Sykes.

In a not-so-veiled reference to teenage daughter Bristol Palin’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, Sykes said of Sarah Palin’s “early pull out” of the dinner, “Somebody should tell her that’s not really how you practice abstinence.”

Todd Palin and most of the guests at his table fell silent while other diners gasped and laughed.

The Great Divorce of Church and State

2009-05-08T16:30:00.001-04:00

When tackling the issue of same-sex marriage, it is important to explore several factors. The first is what constitutes a right. The second is the role of the State in protecting that right. The third is how the State protects the rights of those whose interests might be infringed upon by the exercising of the aforementioned right.

Exploring every facet of the history of marriage law would take far more space than this column allows, but suffice it to say, the institution as a legal matter – setting aside its religious aspects – has not been a simple cut-and-dry case of one-man, one-woman. The suffragettes fought for the rights of women to own their fair share of property within marriage. Civil rights activists fought for the right of interracial couples to marry. Now, gay rights activists are arguing that same-sex couples should be given the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples.

And they’re winning.

Regardless of where one stands now, the fact remains, the day when same-sex civil marriage is widespread will come. Maine became the fifth State to legalise same-sex marriage, and it was the second to do so through its legislature. Jon Huntsman, the Republican Governor of ruby-red Republican Utah, supports same-sex civil unions.

But here’s a better way to look at it: Who needs marriage anyway?

This is not a call to abandon the culture wars, nor is it one to fornication. To the contrary, this is a call for equal rights as well as for a reduction of the State. This is a call to ban same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage, give all consenting adults contracts conferring the legal rights to which they are entitled and then let those adults call their unions whatever the hell they want. Civil marriage is a contract, not a sacrament – as such, if there is so much debate over its locution, change its name in the civil realm, and let the contracted parties refer to it as they see fit.

There is no reason whatsoever that any two people should need the approval of society or the State to recognise their union in any respect other than the rights and protections they are constitutionally afforded. Government licensing of marriage makes about as much sense as licensing baptism or entrance into a religious order. Unless one’s spouse has a gear shift or a trigger lock, the idea that one needs a marriage licence to guarantee basic rights, such as joint-filing of tax returns, immigration benefits, hospital visitation rights and so on, is idiotic.

In fact, the way marriage is currently structured by the State, individuals entering into it are in fact losing many rights. If a single person buys a car, that is his car, period. If a married person buys a car, his spouse owns that car, too. Should the married person choose to terminate his civil marriage, that contract holds that half of all of the property acquired in that marriage is his spouse’s, regardless of how much of the wealth was actually created by the spouse. Had the two individuals elected to keep their union a purely private matter, without the intervention of the State, they would be able to split relatively amicably and leave with the property which is rightfully theirs, divorce lawyers be damned.

Of course, the matter of civil marriage is not the issue. Rather, it is a part of a larger cultural struggle over how to deal with sexuality in contemporary society. Congress passed the Matthew Shepard Act, named after a young, gay Wyoming student who was tortured and murdered in 1998 and whose two male, heterosexual attackers claimed that they were driven to temporary insanity by Shepard’s alleged sexual advances. The Act extends hate-crime legislation to protect victims based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Opposition to the bill was just as stupid as the bill itself. North Carolina Republican Representative Virginia Foxx said, “[W]e know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay.... This – the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it’s really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.” Right, just like how we know that Shepard’s killers claimed “gay panic defence” when in court. Shepard’s mother was reportedly in the House gallery when Foxx made her ignorant comments. Nice.

The real reason to oppose bills like the Matthew Shepard Act has nothing to do with the nature of sexual orientation versus race or gender or hating homosexuals or being a bloody dolt like the, um, distinguished Representative from North Carolina; it has everything to do with opposing the criminalisation of thought.

Matthew Shepard will be no less dead if his killers have their bias against homosexuals held against them in a court of law. The fact is these two individuals sadistically murdered an innocent man in cold blood. In fact, the jury in the original case initially considered giving one of the defendants, Aaron James McKinney, the death penalty, but Shepard’s parents showed him mercy and brokered a deal giving McKinney two consecutive life terms, without the possibility of parole.

Whether he was executed or imprisoned until natural death, charging McKinney for his “hate” wouldn’t change the end result of his punishment, and the intent of the murderer is irrelevant outside of whether he intended to kill the victim. Killing a man because he is homosexual or black or Jewish is the same as killing a man because he had an affair with your wife; in either case, you hate him. There is no such thing as a “love crime.” A “hate crime” is a redundant concept.

It is this same attempt to control thought which has overtaken the gay rights movement. Emboldened by their recent court and legislative victories and embittered by their losses at the ballot box, same-sex marriage proponents have begun to demonise and blacklist those who disagree with their agenda.

Consider Miss California representative Carrie Prejean, who was asked her opinion on whether every State should follow Vermont’s lead and legalise same-sex marriage during the interview portion of the Miss USA pageant last month. Prejean answered that she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman (or, as she put it, “opposite marriage” – no-one said eloquence was a staple of the Miss USA pageant).

The judge who asked the question, openly gay celebrity blogger Perez Hilton, was furious at her answer, and after the pageant ended – and Prejean received second runner-up – he posted a YouTube video of himself on his blog in which he shrieked, “She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage; she lost because she’s a dumb b***h!”

But remember, we must be tolerant.

Of course, dismissing Prejean as a two-bit bigot is easy, but you know who else agrees marriage should be restricted to one man and one woman? President Barack Obama. In fact, Obama’s not only against same-sex marriage, he’s flip-flopped on the issue. Obama was for same-sex marriage before he was against it, but when Hilton was confronted with this fact, he gave the President a pass, saying that Obama “also says that he believes gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples [have].”

Ah, all right. So it’s awful that Prejean called Hilton “a second-class citizen” who doesn’t “deserve the same rights that heterosexuals get,” but Obama, who wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he supports the right to “a civil union that confers equivalent rights” – not marriage with equal rights, is a gay rights hero?

Seriously, girlfriend. If you had asked Obama the same question and received the same answer, would you go on the Internet and rant against his intolerance, even going so far as to call him “a dumb n****r”? I would say Hilton should be charged with a hate crime, but I don’t believe in hate crimes.

Yes, same-sex marriage is coming, but it might get here more quickly if it weren’t for the tactics of its supporters. Harassing those who donated to Proposition 8; forcing Catholic Charities of Boston to end its adoption services, rather than infringe upon its deeply held religious opposition to same-sex adoption; suing a photography company owned by a Christian couple who refuse to provide their services to same-sex weddings – all of these incidents only serve to put a damper on same-sex marriage support. Tolerance is mutual; understanding is vital. Changing public opinion requires more than just waiting for older generations to die off; it means demanding the same right to dignity and privacy as everyone else while simultaneously reassuring those concerned that their beliefs will be violated that they will be respected.

I will concede that the one sexually liberating policy with which I do agree is the option of genderblind rooming on college campuses – but only for me. Miss Prejean, if you’re reading this, I will have two vacancies in my room next semester. Let’s make something happen.

Twenty.

2009-05-03T17:45:00.001-04:00

So, I'm no longer a teen-ager.

But I still can't drink legally.

Lame.

(Oh, and thanks for sticking with me all these years. Conservathink turns four next week!)

Is it wrong that I find this more funny than offensive?

2009-04-18T18:31:00.000-04:00

Seriously, I don't think that the desecration of the Bible is what hurts this fellow's cause so much as just how flamboyantly he desecrates it. The way he throws the torn pages is literally limp-wristed.

Oh, and did you guys catch the super-sexy slow-motion effect applied to the video as he tossed the Bible? Noice.

My friends are sick, sick people, and I love them for it.

2009-04-16T00:01:00.000-04:00

I saw this in person. It was after my university's annual erotic film festival, which neither shows films, nor is particularly erotic. Discuss.

FYI, I'm the fellow in the audience wearing the brown shirt in the far right of the frame (insert Nazi reference here).

Just a reminder this tax day.

2009-04-15T00:01:00.002-04:00

Remember, remember, the fifteenth of April.

...

Doesn't have quite the same ring as the original, does it? Ah, well.

Alleluia! Christ is Risen! He is risen indeed! Alleluia!

2009-04-12T06:19:00.005-04:00

Or, as we would say in the two mother tongues of the Church:

Χριστός ἀνέστη! Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη! (Khristós Anésti! Alithós Anésti!)

Christus resurrexit! Resurrexit vere!

Memo to Canada: Grow a Pair, Eh?

2009-04-09T00:53:00.001-04:00

Let me make this perfectly clear: I have nothing against Canada. I’ve met Canadians; they’re sweet little buggers. We don’t see eye-to-eye on everything, but I, like most Americans, don’t really mind the fun, igloo-dwelling people who live in our great Nation’s attic.
So when I found out that a segment on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, the satirical late-night FOX News talk show with a cult following which includes yours truly, had sparked outrage amongst the Canadian public, I was rather surprised. By American television standards, not that many people watch Red Eye due to its late viewing hour of 3 a.m. ET – about 390,000 viewers watched their second anniversary show.
So, what was the offending segment in question, you may ask? On March 17, Red Eye noted that Canadian Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie remarked that the Canadian military may need to take a “synchronised break” of at least one year to recover once Canada’s mission in Afghanistan ends in 2011. Host Greg Gutfeld and the other panel regulars and guests poked fun at the story.
Gutfeld remarked during the segment’s introduction, “The Canadian military wants to take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white Capri pants.” Stand-up comedian Doug Benson joked, “I didn’t even know they were in the war. I thought that’s where you go if you don’t want to fight. Go chill in Canada.”
Well, in reality, Canada does indeed have an army, some of whose members are currently fighting in Afghanistan. To date, 116 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have died in the Afghan theatre, including four soldiers who were killed shortly before the infamous segment aired (and news of the return of their bodies to Canadian soil was not made public until after the show was taped). We honour their valiant service.
That having been said, the conclusions drawn by those who likely either never saw the offending segment in question or who were so blinded by their hatred of Americans and the evil crypto-Nazis at FOX News were hyperbolic and, frankly, rather telling of certain people’s priorities. The Internet was abuzz with calls for not merely an apology from Greg Gutfeld, FOX News, Rupert Murdoch and just about everyone even remotely connected to those witty, dastardly Yanks who dared to make fun of a legitimately funny story, but there were even angry, usually ineloquent demands for the outright cancellation of Red Eye.
Let’s review the absurdity of this situation, shall we?
An actual news story comes out in which a Canadian military official says that his country’s military needs to take a break after fighting in Afghanistan. Upon learning of this, an American fake news show finds humour in this and – gasp! – makes jokes. From this we can somehow conclude that not only were Americans mocking Canadian soldiers, they were “disrespect[ing] the dead,” as faux-conservative David Frum, a Canadian with the sense to become an American citizen, put it.
Of course, this logic completely ignores the fact that Red Eye is a decidedly pro-military show. Politics aside (and it should be noted that despite its being on FOX News, Red Eye is not really a conservative show; if anything it’s quite libertine in its worldview), one of Red Eye’s key contributors, Andy Levy, is a U.S. Army veteran. Frequent contributor Kevin Godlington served in the British military. Red Eye is the absolute last show to mock the sacrifice of brave young men and women defending freedom, regardless of nationality.
What’s more disconcerting, however, is how quickly people are willing to destroy freedom of speech when they are offended. The United States Constitution’s greatest strength is the fact that it affords – in clear print – the basic, God-given protections guaranteed to every man, woman and child. Speech is foremost amongst them. Getting offended is not.
Both sides in the great culture war demand this imaginary right to get offended to make themselves feel more self-righteous. Did you just make a gay joke? You are a homophobe and should not be allowed to speak ever again. Fun fact: There was more outrage on the gay Left when Red Eye made fun of Thomas Beattie, the pregnant “man” who was biologically a woman who took male hormones and had her breasts removed, than there was when Iran hanged two teen-aged boys for the “crime” of homosexuality. Fabulous priorities, aren’t they? (Come to think of it, President Ahmadinejad was right: There are no homosexuals in Iran; they’re all dead!)
Canadians really aren’t ones to talk about free speech, though. Just ask Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant. Both of them had the nerve to publish so-called “hate speech” and were tried by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a kangaroo court which ironically seeks to trample the rights of those who dare to utter anything even remotely politically incorrect. Both men were eventually acquitted, but the fact is, there never should have been a trial at all. Speech is speech, and so long as no-one is threatened or slandered, it should be protected, no matter how “offensive” it is. What’s the point of freedom of speech if no-one will ever get offended? Offensive speech is the speech which needs the most protection.
So, to Canada, I say with the full force of the greatest legal document in the history of Mankind: Screw you. Screw you, screw your socialist health care, screw your pathetic dual language system (any country which surrenders to the syphilitic French in any way deserves no respect at all), screw Celine Dion and screw your sick mispronunciation of the diphthong ou. It’s pronounced “uh-BOWT,” you bloody savages. It’s no wonder most Canadians live within 100 miles of our northern border; most of their country is a frigid wasteland. If Canada were a woman, it would be Paris Hilton: useless from the waist up.
But let me just say a decidedly un-screw you to Canada’s soldiers. You are braver than most of us could ever hope to be, and we are proud to have you not just as allies, but as friends. And that’s no joke.
As for the rest of you canucks, you got an apology out of Gutfeld, so you win this round, but just remember: We could totally invade you, and you wouldn’t be able to do anything about it. It’s not like you could defend yourselves, what with your military on holiday and all. Sleep tight, sweet Canadians; you have awakened a sleeping giant.

An adorable way to start off your Holy Week.

2009-04-08T04:42:00.000-04:00

I concede that there is a rather child-of-the-corn vibe here, but adorbs is adorbs, people.

Here is a video of the hymn performed in a more professional setting.

As usual, you can view my more frequent rantings and ravings on my Twitter.

CHANGE comes to Conservathink! Sorta.

2009-03-21T20:55:00.000-04:00

Hey, y'all.

You may have noticed that over the last few months my blogging has been rather sporadic. Well, since taking the time to post requires time and thought and sobriety, I have decided to place more emphasis on my Twitter account than on Conservathink.

(CROWD GASPS AND MAKES DISCONTENTED NOISES)

Hey, hey! Shaddup!

Conservathink the blog will serve as a hub for longer posts and regular updates, but if you want to know what I'm thinking right now, go here.

In the meantime, here is sweet, sweet Sarah.

They aren't even trying anymore.

2009-03-15T21:23:00.000-04:00

From an actual Episcopal parish Web site:

Fr. Cathie Caimano is a graduate of Georgetown University in Washington, DC and the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church in New York, NY. She was ordained a deacon in 1999 at St. Philip's Episcopal Church in Durham, NC and ordained a priest in 2000 at The Church of the Holy Trinity in New York, NY. Fr. Cathie served her curacy at The Church of the Holy Trinity, was the Associate Rector at St. Philip's, and has been the rector of St. John's since August 1, 2007. She is married to Chris Chapman, and they live with one very cute dog and two cats. She loves when people ask her why she is called 'Father'.

It's like the Episcopal ~~Church~~ Cult isn't even trying to pretend they aren't a fraud any more.