Smug Bastard Cabal

Woo-hoooo!!!!

We got a link from the Blogfather. Thank you very, very, very, much, Professor Reynolds. For anyone visiting, take a look around. Let us know what you think.

Fairly recently, Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu recently presented the contry with her state's bill for Katrina: $250 billion. In an earlier story, Ms. Landrieu had threatened to punch anyone who questioned the trustworthiness of local officials in the face. Now, far be it from me to question the honesty and integrity of Louisiana's leadership. So, Mary, I've got a suggestion that'll put all those silly doubting Thomases to rest. Since the leadership of your state would never dream of dealing with this money in the most upright and above-board manner, I'm sure this will just be a formality. There's been some calls for a federal oversight board for this money. Let's go with it, but add just a tiny modification. What I'm suggesting to you, Mary, is that we should bring back a modified form of the Roman practice of proscription for anyone found guilty of shady dealings with this money. Specifically, under my plan, all of the convicted's possessions: his house, any investments, his car, anything in his house, etc. will be sold off to repay the federal Treasury from the cost of the $250 billion. In short, the proscribed (and this would only happen if they were found guilty) would be left with absolutely, utterly, nothing. While the Romans usually stripped the proscribed of citizenship and any legal protection, I'm a kindhearted man, and wouldn't think of going that far. I'd only say that the proscribed should be permenantly denied any public assistance. Now, I know what you're thinking at this point: "But what about the chillllldrennnnnn....". Well admittedly that does pose a problem, I'd say we could develop special rules to simplify their adoption without the proscribed's consent. Besides, all of this is purely theoretical. After all, doesn't your threat prove how much you consider your state's leadership to be above reproach?

By and large, I'm one of those people who can be classified as highly sympathetic to a Giuliani White House run. I generally find myself in agreement with a lot of his opinions, and can at least appreciate where he's coming from where I don't agree (Plus I wouldn't be too averse to seeing some Al Queada members take a little trip to Giuliani-town). My wife, on the other hand, doesn't like Rudy very much. She thinks he's a bully. As a Republican, I've got to say, for inter-party matters, that's precisely what I think my party needs. Right now, we've pretty much let interparty discipline fall into the crapper. Pretty much half of the party's leadership is abandoning the party at whim, positioning themselves as "a maverick" or a "different kind of Republican", and, well, pretty much acting like Democrats, with pretty much no repracussions. So, we have John McCain saying infringing on free speech is just fine in his book, Chuck Hagel taking up with the Democrats on Iraqi liberation, and any Republican from New England acting like the Democratic Party is okay, just too conservative. Whatsmore, and this is the part that genuinely pisses me off, they do so very publicly and in a way that seems to most directly contrast themselves with the rest of the party. This is understandable in that the national media pretty well sides with the Democrats and is always willing to reward a Republican for "coming out of the darkness". But, it leaves the party pretty well screwed. To add insult to injury, the Republicans have been pathetic in punishing this sort of defection behavior, as I note in my last post. Look, I'm all for a big tent party that allows multiple perspectives. But when you position yourself against your own side, and market your opposition to your side, you've got to know you're screwing the side you're ostensibly on. Precisely because Giuliani might be able bully defectors into either not contrasting themselves against their own team, or at least punish them when they do so, he might not be a bad choice to head the RNC if we lose in '08.

Congratulations Guys

With this ad the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has succeeded in doing what two liberal girlfriends (one now my wife) and over a decade of living in Northeastern cities failed to accomplish: They've made me ashamed to be a Republican. When did I last hear a commercial attacking guys for having connections to the oil industry? Oh, yeah, when MoveOn.org tried it to smear the President and Vice President. So, tell me, why is their smear sleazy, while yours is legitimate? The guy they're sliming is a conservative Republican running against Lincoln Chafee on a low-tax, fiscal restraint platform. So, basically in a choice between someone who embodies the Republican ethos and a RINO legacy, they side with the RINO legacy.

At this point, I challenge someone, anyone, from the NRSC to explain to me why, at this point, voting for Hillary Clinton would be a betrayal of Republican values. Are they going to tell me she's a tax-and-spender? Chafee, who they're so eager to support has one of the worst records on taxpayer issues of any Republican in the Senate. Oh, maybe they'll tell me about how she's opposed to Social Security reform. While that's true, I've never heard her advocate, not only killing reform, but doubling the cap on Social Security taxes. I've seen their boy Chafee doing precisely that. He was on Fox News with Dick Durbin, and even Durbin wasn't going as far. (Hey, Lincoln, I've got a better idea how's about we put Social Security taxes on trust funds.) Oooh, I got it. Maybe they'll tell me how she doesn't support the War on Terror. But, while she has been critical of its execution, at least she supported to liberation of Iraq, and hasn't urged us to cut-and-run. Chafee has been critical of the entire idea of the liberation of Iraq and has jumped on the Hagel "We Gotta Get Out of There!!!" bandwagon.

The bottom line here is that if the NRSC is going to bash fiscal conservatives on behalf of a guy whose 2004 rating from the Americans for Democratic Action was higher than John Kerry's and whose 2003 rating matched John Edwards', I might as well go with the Democrats. At least, with their views on sex, there's a chance they'll kiss me before they screw me.