When Does Dissension Become Treason?

I'm generally a pretty jovial fellow. I like to keep my life and therefore my blogging, pretty light. I'm funny, or at least attempt to be. But I saw something Thursday night that literally made me sick at my stomach. I've chewed on it for the past couple of days, because I honestly don't know how to handle it. It wasn't funny and neither is this post.

Republicans are often accused (and are often guilty) of decrying any disagreement from Democrats to the Administration's policies as counterproductive to the war efforts. Occasionally you'll hear a Republican suggest that the other side is bordering on treason. Now no one is ever brought up on charges but these comments have become commonplace. Likewise the Democrats, seemingly emboldened by the President's poll numbers and the lack of real retribution from the American people, continue to make more and more outlandish statements and accusations.

The New York (and now the Los Angeles) Times are printing National Security secrets but I expect no more from them. What I heard Thursday night though, I did not expect. Carl Levin, Democratic Senator from Michigan, says that General George Casey, top U.S. Commander in Iraq, should "...carry the message that the American people do not support an open-ended commitment, do not support the administration's position that we're there as long as the Iraqis need us." (Courtesy of Fox News) To whom should he carry this message? Sen. Levin believes Gen. Casey should explain this lack of support to the Iraqi govt. and its people.

WHAT? When did it become okay, nevermind expected for the senior military official to disregard and circumvent the authority of the President? When did the opposition party become evil? Why is this acceptable? What really pisses me off is that three days later, I still haven't noticed so much as a mention of this in the blogosphere. Did I miss the memo? If the General were to do this, wouldn't it be treason? Don't we still execute people for that?

It occurs to me that I may be overreacting. No one else apparently thinks much of this. But I am enraged. I have friends all over the political spectrum. I understand (but disagree with) the opinion that Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. I understand (but disagree with) the belief that the American military is doing more harm than good in Iraq. I understand (but disagree with) the desire to set a finite date for the return of our servicemen and women. I don't think that those who disagree with me are traitors. Disagreement, discussion and dissension are three essential components of Democracy. But there has to be a line. Somewhere there must be a point where disagreement becomes animosity, discussion becomes argument, and dissension becomes treason. What say you?

The Birth of the New Federalists?

Joseph Lieberman, my (and President Bush's) favorite Democrat is in a fight for his life. Dick Morris wrote an excellent editorial in "The Hill" about Lieberman's chances in the upcoming Democratic Primary against Ned Lamont. Ned is (like most left wing Democrats) virally anti-war. Even more so than he is anti-Bush.

Lieberman is beloved in Connecticut and much of the nation, he has a long tenure in the Senate, and is one of the best known Democrats on the national scene. He should have absolutely no trouble beating such an upstart. The problem is (as Dick points out) that Connecticut's Primaries (both Democrat and Republican) are notoriously partisan. While you and I may praise Lieberman as a thoughtful, moderate member of the Senate, the left ring of the Democratic Party see him as a lap dog for the administration, and a thorn in their side. Not to mention that the activist liberals of Connecticut see this as their only meaningful chance to vote against the war in Iraq.

There is no national referendum, Congress didn't have to pass a Constitutional Amendment that we would then get to support or denounce to our state Congressmen and women. But you can vote against Lieberman. Vote against his history of moderate (sometimes even conservative) positions. Vote against his history of bipartisianship. Vote against his support (even cheerleading) for the President and this Iraq War. It's this side of the Primary that leads Dick Morris (and me) to believe that Lieberman doesn't stand a chance.

Unless...he were to strike out on his own. In April, I wrote an article talking about the partisan divide in this country and the (theoretical) birth of a viable third party. The circumstance I imagined this happening under is very much like what is seemingly about to happen to Sen. Lieberman. Running as an Independent, Lieberman would likely slaughter both Mr. Lamont and the Republican challenger (probably) Alan Schlesinger. If he maintains his Party affiliation and loses in the Primary, he would already have allowed Lamont to gain momentum and then even in a three-way race he, and Lamont would likely lose to the Republican.

There is another situation brewing that seems to suggest there are others thinking about the birth of the New Federalist (just the name I picked). Mayor Bloomberg of New York, a man of considerable financial means, has made overtures that he is interested in the 2008 presidential race. He has vast resources available (he claims he could easily spend a half-billion), and a desire to make sure that neither a far-right wing Republican or a far-left Democrat take the office. He and Sen. John McCain are good friends, who would both appeal to a similar set of independent minded voters in both parties. Could he be hinting, not at Presidential aspirations, but at the willingness to spend to ensure that McCain gets a fair chance at running the country?

Let's imagine that in the runnup to and the beginning of the Republican primaries, it becomes clear that McCain is being edged out from the right. The conservative base after briefly toying with the idea of supporting him has decided to punish him again for open-mindedness. McCain and Bloomberg (following the lead of this years Independent campaign of Sen. Lieberman) refuse to their let party and their country be controlled by idealogues. They use their personal fortunes and their numerous connections among media barons to fund the first true third party candidacy in almost a hundred years. (Perot does not count, he wasn't a party, just one billionaire with a pointy nose) It just crazy enough to work.

Of course a lot has to happen between here and there for this fabulous new third party to be birthed. And as we've written before, even if it came to power there is no guarantee that it would have any sort of longevity. But it's fun to dream. Stereotype, in his last post, begged you to think. I believe that is exactly what this scenario would require. The candidates would have to think, "Ideas and openmindedness are more important than the Party line, or my own public image." Voters would have to think, "Do I want more of the same, two voices yelling from either side, getting little or nothing done? Or do I want discussion and compromise? Do I want my moderate voice heard in the Capital?" It's all this required thinking that makes the birth of the New Federalists highly unlikely.

Political Fatigue

I guess I'm just tired.

I'm tired of the government blaming the media (NYT, in particular) for promoting terrorism because they outed another government program, finance monitoring, which may or may not be illegal. At this point i don't really care, but if you're monitoring my finances, along with millions of others, please defend yourself with a more convincing statement then, "You media guys really shouldn't have done that." Defend it on its merits tell us a little about how this program has/is fighting terrorism--oh, and you might not want to mention those kids in Miami...they had no money and their only contact with a link to Al-Queda was the informant that turned them in...oh yeah, and they had no money or weapons. Another tactic would be to just deny it; I think I'm more for that than the loads of BS that are being shoveled into my ears by the government and media.

And I'm tired of partisanship (and, yes, I am fully aware that a level of partisanship is a vital component of our governing system, as well as a driving force on this site) I'm sick of conservatives using "liberal" as a curse word and vice versa. What does it even mean? Liberal? Conservative? I'm against an amendment to change our Constitution to ban gay marriage; I guess I'm a liberal. but wait, I think that every American citizen has the right to bear arms; I'm a conservative, right? I, and everybody, have views that are incongruent with party lines...no, you do...if you actually think about it.

Which brings me to my next point: I'm tired of people not thinking. And no, watching the news and reading newspapers and political blogs does not constitute thinking. when one thinks, he comes up with ideas that don't--no--cannot follow a party's lines (unless one forms a party of one, the one being the thinker...then I suppose your thoughts would be party lines...but I digress) because you are not your party. you are not obliged to represent at all times, at all costs the ideals of your party; your party is supposed to represent you, at least to a certain extent. here's my meaning: if you are reading this, you are not likely a paid politician, you aren't going to lose an endorsment or appointment by dissenting from the party line. so, if you're a Democrat that feels abortion is wrong, say it! If you are a Republican who thinks that a national amendment to ban gay marriage is undermining states rights, say it!

You have nothing to fear. What's the worst that can happen?

Ann Coulter and the "Just 'Cause You're Right, Doesn't Mean You Should Say It" Rule

So, I'm an Ann Coulter fan. I think she's cute, very funny and generally a nice counterpart to the Al Franken's of the world. I don't go to her for my news, but if I'm looking for a snide comeback to one of my liberal friends (yes, I have some) I know just where to look.

It seems that everyone's favorite conservative smack talker has gotten herself into a bit of trouble. In her latest book, "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" Ann paints an unflattering portrait of a group of 9/11 widows. "Godless" includes such statements as "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," and that the women were "reveling in their status as celebrities." So, what is a "compassionate conservative" supposed to think about Ann's assignation?

These ladies have suffered a terrible tragedy. We as a nation have mourned for their losses. They have a special perspective on the effect of the 9/11 tragedy on our nation, and have every right to let their voices be heard. On the other hand, these ladies have done nothing to shy away from the spotlight or protect themselves from scrutiny. Of course, what Ms. Coulter said was insensitive, rude, and mostly to stir the pot and pump book sales anyway. However, that doesn't make her wrong. This is another example of the Cindy Sheehan syndrome.

Ever since 9/11 and especially after 2004's election, the Democrats have been looking for a way to appeal to "values voters." They tried talking about God, they've tried appealing to Evangelicals new-found interest in the plight of global warming. They've tried a lot of things, but their favorite tactic is trotting out victims and pointing out how don't like Republicans. That worked so well with Sheehan, they have made it their new slogan for the 2006 Election, "Democrats: People Who are Mad at Bush." Catchy, isn't it?

As a conservative, I generally have no problem with this approach from the other side. It mostly means Republicans stay in power, as any agenda trumps no agenda. However, Ann has been drug into this and well I gotta back up my girl. This is why I'm going to explain the JCYRDMYSSI rule for Ann's sake and any of the rest of you that have to be acquainted with this important political tool.

The JCYRDMYSSI or "Just Cause You're Right Doesn't Mean You Should Say It" rule is a simple one. It holds that the truth of a statement is not, in and of itself, justification for making the statement. Here's a practical application. "My goodness, Grandma! You're turkey neck is particularly dangly today." Now, it is possible, nay, probable that Grandma's turkey neck is particularly dangly, however it gains no one anything by stating that. In fact you may find your portion under the tree at Christmas to include more socks and ill fitting underwear after such an exchange. The point is that we as special creations of God (or highly evolved monkeys as the Godless liberals would have us believe) should know better than to say anything that comes to our minds, even if it's true. *Note to self: remove the wisecrack about Godless liberals as per JCYRDMYSSI rule*

Where Ms. Coulter should have pointed her wit and wrath is at the Democratic party which, in the absence of a clue, has decided to continue to use personal pain and grief to extol the inadequacies of the current administration. You know a lot has happened on W's watch and a more able-bodied opponent could have long since put him away. The Democrats are not, by anyone's estimation, an able-bodied opponent. So Bush's numbers are down, alright they're bottomed out. We don't believe in one man, we believe in a set of ideas, conservatism, and Conservatism is doing quite well. To poke fun of the opponent when he is failing so miserably is just a fancy way of saying "NaNaNa Na BooBoo!" Uncalled for and definitely not classy.

Now that we all know the proper use and application of the JCYRDMYSSI rule we can return to our regularly scheduled polite debates about the issues. Oh, I'm sorry those have been cancelled.

To our loyal readers:

I most heartfeltedly appologize for our prolonged sabbatical; the three of us have been superbly busy saving the world for future generations.

Rogue has been tirelessly at work on his new book, A Bush in the Hand, due out in Spring 2017 (incidently, it has already been banned from Alabama Public Libraries based solely on the title). It's a facinating read, I assume. You should all pre-order a copy; I suggest the audio version read by none other than Sir Patrick Stewart (I know he's not a knight...but, dammit, he should be!!).

Mission was accidently deported because of his uncanny resemblance to a cultural demographic populating the land mass found to the south of the Rio Grande. It took several calls to INS and the American embassy to get him back to his home soil. Welcome back, amigo!

I, myself, have been acting as a visiting professor/lecturer in Zurich. Beautiful city...you should all go.

All this to say: WE ARE BACK!! And we will have some highly charged debate upcoming. Thank you all for your loyalty and i promise we'll start the revolution as soon as we can pencil it in to our schedules.