Sunday, November 12: In today’s must-read column, Mark Steyn writes about America’s impending impeasement stance with global enemies, thanks to our new Democratic Congress:
The enemy [terrorists] aren’t a bunch of simpleton Pushtun yakherds, but relatively sophisticated at least in their understanding of us. We’re all infidels, but not all infidels crack the same way. If they’d done a Spain — blown up a bunch of subway cars in New York or vaporized the Empire State Building — they’d have re-awoken the primal anger of September 2001. With another mound of corpses piled sky-high, the electorate would have stampeded into the Republican column and demanded the U.S. fly somewhere and bomb someone.
The jihad crowd know that. So instead they employed a craftier strategy. Their view of America is roughly that of the British historian Niall Ferguson — that the Great Satan is the first superpower with ADHD. They reasoned that if you could subject Americans to the drip-drip-drip of remorseless water torture in the deserts of Mesopotamia — a couple of deaths here, a market bombing there, cars burning, smoke over the city on the evening news, day after day after day, and ratcheted up a notch or two for the weeks before the election — you could grind down enough of the electorate and persuade them to vote like Spaniards, without even realizing it. And it worked
…
What does it mean when the world’s hyperpower, responsible for 40 percent of the planet’s military spending, decides that it cannot withstand a guerrilla war with historically low casualties against a ragbag of local insurgents and imported terrorists? You can call it “redeployment” or “exit strategy” or “peace with honor” but, by the time it’s announced on al-Jazeera, you can pretty much bet that whatever official euphemism was agreed on back in Washington will have been lost in translation.
…
As it is, we’re in a very dark place right now. It has been a long time since America unambiguously won a war, and to choose to lose Iraq would be an act of such parochial self-indulgence that the American moment would not endure, and would not deserve to. Europe is becoming semi-Muslim, Third World basket-case states are going nuclear, and, for all that 40 percent of planetary military spending, America can’t muster the will to take on pipsqueak enemies. We think we can just call off the game early, and go back home and watch TV.It doesn’t work like that. Whatever it started out as, Iraq is a test of American seriousness. And, if the Great Satan can’t win in Vietnam or Iraq, where can it win? That’s how China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela and a whole lot of others look at it. “These Colors Don’t Run” is a fine T-shirt slogan, but in reality these colors have spent 40 years running from the jungles of Southeast Asia, the helicopters in the Persian desert, the streets of Mogadishu. … To add the sands of Mesopotamia to the list will be an act of weakness from which America will never recover.
——————————————————————————————————-
Tune in to MSNBC today at 5:30 p.m. EST to hear me and a liberal blogger discussing whether it’s time to start campaigning for 2008. I say yes, it’s time.
Update: Did you watch? Nah, I didn’t think so. Oh, well. I’ll get back to my quiet weekend now…
Later (6:48 p.m.)…Oh, no! Allah captured the segment. I’ve already received an e-mail about my Congressman “Tom Tancredo for president” remark. 
I also said I didn’t think John McCain would run. That’s because I didn’t know he’d set up an exploratory committee. Or perhaps it was wishful thinking…
I was on with Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left. I met her at the CNN blog party. (Nice lady!)
There was so much I thought of saying in the segment that I didn’t say, things I should have expressed differently, etc., but…I’ll try not to be too self-critical.
I’ve opened comments in case you want to, you know, comment.
Who’s your choice for president in 2008?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 31 comments }
Not enough warning, LaShawn. I read the blog entry 90 minutes after the show was over. Otherwise, I would have made it appointment viewing.
1st choice: Mitt Romney (and, no, I am not a Mormon). Handsome, articulate, knowledgeable, conservative, and apparently without a smirch on his personal record. A guy who can rescue the Salt Lake City Olympics from disaster, and a Republican who can get elected Governor of the bluest of blue states, is an amazing guy.
I was 9 minutes too late. Sorry, the Buckeyes were on and I forgot! It’s too early for me to pick someone, but I want a true conservative to run. We’ll see who that turns out to be.
Hi La Shawn-if Allah has it, I’ll see it in a bit. Romney would be a good choice, as would the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, who also has been leading a bluish state and doing a good job. He just won re-election, though, so he may sit out the next election.
If it’s McCain vrs Hillary, it will present a deep philosophical problem. What is the most honorable thing to do?
1) Move to Bolivia
2) Suicide attack against the democrat candidate
3) Suicide attack against the republican candidate.
4) Try to get them both at the same time (but likely fail)
I think Condi Rice would make a fine president. Her intelligence and grace are certainly positive assets that could win her many votes and in fact, dedicated fans, just like me. Too bad she has stated over and over again that the presidency is not a something she is after. That, to be honest, makes her even more appealing.
I missed it live, but caught it over at HotAir. I don’t know who I want to vote for. I know who I don’t want to vote for, but I guess that doesn’t count. BTW, nice job Lashawn!
The Nation had an interesting article I just blogged about. It talked about large family home schoolers, of which I am one, and their future impact on elections. They had a concluding paragraph that quoted a consultant to the DNC that said this,
Aside from the centrist tax policies…he urges a return to patriarchy–properly understood, he is careful to note, as not just male domination but also increased male responsibility as husbands and fathers–on more universal grounds.”
So even though the Dem’s won this round, it looks like the long term outlook might not be as favorable do to the large voting block these large families will have. This consultant suggests they adopt a slightly different message. However, I can’t see people like Hillary Clinton adopting a return to “patriarchy” not as he understands it, but as many evangelical home schoolers understand it. Or giving up their pro-abortion position. But politics and the lust for power does strange things to people.
Also, consider that the Republicans having weakened on some conservative issues. As a result, they have lost a lot of clout with evangelical home schoolers and conservatives in general. So if we do have an impact the way that The Nation believes we do, it may not be as solidly Republican as one would think. Voting for a Mormon will not be attractive to a lot of people in my circle. Personally, I haven’t decided yet how I feel. But I know that a pro-abortion Republican would lose almost all of us, so that rules out Gulliani. If the Dem’s put up a pro-life (dream on) candidate that could have an impact. The consultant in The Nation seemed to think the Democrat abortion stance needed to be toned down a bit.
My pro-life Reagan Democrat turned Republican dad, told me today he would vote for a pro-life Dem over a pro-abortion Rep in 2008. If they were both pro-abortion he would not vote in the Presidential race. He lives in the Michigan county that coined the term “Reagan Democrat” and I’m sure he’s not alone in how he thinks. We’ll see how that plays out.
It’s too early to say who I would choose, but since you asked that gives you a little idea of how this large family, evangelical, home schooler thinks.
“Campaigning for 2008 starts now.” So saith LaShawn.
It should start with new leaders in the minority positions; leaders who understand the meaning of: “I’m mad as H*** and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
Leaders who understand that “bipartisanship” means giving in to the Democrats. Leaders who understand that “Congressional Oversight” is transparent code for smear, entangle and impeach.
Leadership that will stand and fight for secure borders, judicial nominations, and the necessary tools to win the war on terror on the battlefield, in the homeland, in the web of international finance and in the face of Islamist extremists.
Leaders who will not taste the perks, the power, and the prestige and they go underground like termites to feast on the good life inside the beltway.
Call me quaint and stupid, but Michael Steele should take over the Republican National Committee and he (gasp!) should jam conservative black, Hispanic, women and heartland whites into every Congressional race. That includes races with safe Republican seats where the incumbent isn’t engaged in working up an honest Republican sweat.
And George Bush should get a loud and clear message that he is NOT the head of the Republican Party. For my money, that position belongs to Newt Gingrich who is the last Republican since Ronald Reagan to nail his position statement on the foreheads of smug incumbents.
Republicans need to clearly understand that the United Nations is not our friend and that we are not “getting what we pay for.” They must also awaken to the fact that the US Department of State is a local chapter of the United Nations. It is time for the UN to head for Sweden or Beijing or Rwanda where the arrogance and corruption of their delegates will have a better audience.
Let the Demowhackycrats try the “big tent” formula. They can not help but eat their own since at heart they are socialist, government as religion, plutocrats.
A 2008 Republican White House comes down to Rudy Giuliani. His credentials are not sterling for many Republicans, especially his abortion views. However, he is tough on most areas of concern to conservatives and Hillary is no match for his grace under pressure. Personally, I think he has a lot of rat-like tendencies, but he is our rat! I think he would be tough on immigration, smart on homeland security and no lap dog to the Saudis, the French, the UN or the Banana Republics of Hollywood and The Hamptons. He knows he is used toilet paper to the liberal elite, but he has a certain threatening vengeance about him that wins their “respect.” (Sort of the Tony Soprano of “real clear politics.”)
Campaigning for 2008 starts NOW! And, boy, am I ever spoiling for a fight! My check book is open and my nostrils are flaring. Come on Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Emanuel, and MSM: you have nothing to lose but your one fingernail hold on credibility! When this is over, all of you will be nothing more than a Ben & Jerry’s flavor of the week. (With no re-runs.)
The candidates church will be the last thing I am concerned with. I am more interested on what their stance is on the issues than what they do on Sunday.
They could be from the “1st Ecumenical Church of St. Mary’s Baptist Methodist Kingdom Hall of Lutheran Christ Scientists” for all I care, as long as they give me the correct answers on the issues.
First of all, Richard R, that’s unhinged and nobody should do a suicide attack on any political candidate. How do we let things like that go by in these comments, I don’t know.
I’m leaning towards John Cox. I’m finishing his book, Politics, Inc. right now and I’m liking what I hear.
Whoever the republican nominee is, he or she can’t be in the mold of George Bush. The era of the moderate republican is over. I don’t know why McCain is setting up an “exploratory committee”. I can save him the money and tell him the results right now. McCain, your the one of the main reason why Republicans lost the Senate. You have a snowball chance in hell of winning. So quit while your behind. Newt will never win the nomination, so he should also quit while he’s behind. He is a brilliant thinker, don’t get me wrong. He will never win the women vote after what he did to his ex wife. Rudy can also hang it up before he tries. He has two strikes against him. He divorced his wife, and he’s a liberal. Can’t win in the south and can’t get the women vote. Mitt Romney is interesting, but he can’t win the nomination. His Mormon faith won’t be looked upon kindly by Evangelicals which make up a stong part of the conservative base. The best bet for Republicans is an outsider with a strong conservative background. I would run, but I don’t need the headaches. I’m also afraid of what I might do to liberals if I was president. It wouldn’t be a good day in the neighborhood;-)Where’s the red button?
Dang I missed it too LaShawn. Well, I’ve been checking out Romney for some time. He doesn’t just talk the talk, he walks the walk. To his credit – the Olympics, an honest to God health care plan for everybody in the whole state (granted brand new and not proven yet), pro-life, lots of charisma and good hair (laugh, but it’s true people like good hair lol) Even though I’m a pretty fundamental Christian, I’m not concerned that he’s a mormon. I would be concerned if he was a Muslim or an Aethiest, but I can live with a Mormon.
Someone who I was talking over with my 81 YO Dad (Marine Corps, South Pacific) was Gen. Tommy Franks
Rudy for President!
Yeah, he’s relatively liberal, but he’s honest about it. And he knows how to kick ass and take names, which is what we need in a war-time President.
No, he’s not Reagan, but neither is anyone else.
Adam, I’m afraid you misread my comment. I wasn’t proposing a suicide attack against a corrupt or insane presidential candidate. I was asking if it was more honorable than moving out of the country.
If it is McCain v Hillary we’ll have an interesting match. One has a proven track record of corruption, selling out the interests of the US for cash and the favor of a foreign government. The other has demonstrated willingness to strip the bill of rights from the constitution, commit federal crimes for their own benefit, and a disdain for the US and it’s citizens.
I’m not sure which is which.
Re-create a version of the Bull Moose party and nominate someone that is in the mold of Teddy Roosevelt. As for out present situation…what is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. We need different. Going back and forth between the Dems & Reps is insane. Surely there are enough folks that hover somewhere close to center to form a formidable bloc.
FYI, I’m not some angry white guy. My profile:Hispanic, age 53, two MAs, speak 3 languages, teaching at an international school in Italy.
I would vote for McCain over any Democrat (given the leftist state of the Democrat party today), but I would not be at all happy doing so. McCain is a loose cannon and an egomaniac. It’s very risky to stand is between John McCain and a TV news camera; you’re likely to get trampled as he races Chuckie Schimer to see who can get more face time.
I’m hoping that a freash face arises sometime in 2007, a real conservative with a clean history and a good moral backbone, someone who people will feel good supporting. The current limelighted hopefuls all miss the mark in one way or another, by being RINOs, having closet skeletons, or just being unlikeable.
Heliotrope has the right mindset, the necessary mindset, of being a latter-day Howard Beale. I’m going to the window, opening it up, sticking my head out, and…..
Too early in the morning; couldn’t spell Schumer.
1. Am I the only one that noticed the lefty calling the illegal aliens, “undocumented residents”. Now that is gall. It also reveals how they are going to defend them and why they believe they should vote.
2. For anybody that is worried about Rudy, I suggest reading his book. I believe he would be an outstanding choice and yes I am a conservative, retired military officer.
“McCain is a loose cannon and an egomaniac”–agreed, but of course, he is off limits to criticism given his pow status. I’ve often wondered what folks would say if they saw the full “uncut” version of what Bush said to McCain about that infamous ad. Truly, the coverage was one of the media’s quintessential Michael Moore moments.
As to this notion that folks who have suffered can enter the political arena, say what they want, and remain untouchable, is an insidious direction and rivals the worst ploy I have ever seen for cynicism.
Do not fall into the Rudy trap, to me he represents the same problem the Democrats faced with Kerry, he looks presidential, and many believe he can win. If the election starts now we need to look outside the box for a true Reganite / Goldwater disciple. Currently my dream ticket would be either a Romney / Rice or Santorum (sp) / Gingrich ticket, I apologize for any spelling errors. While I fear either of these ticket will be taken down well before the general, because I believe many Republicans will fall into the Kerry Trap, which is unfortunate, but politics is all about perception, of course it has me supporting two tickets that will take more study than I really have time for. I guess the best bet if find out who the press hates most, and they will be the best for a Republican Resurgence
BTW…Where are all of the cries about the corrupted voting machines and the lack of a paper trail…Oh wait, the Dems won; no need to worry about voter fraud and pristine elections.
I just spoke with a guy who ran for county judge in a rural area with one large urban district. At 3pm, down in the polls, the Dems went into the urban area with buses and rounded up voters off of the street (who got a fried chicken dinner for the herculean effort of pulling the Dem. lever) I am so glad that we go to such great lengths to preserve the integrity and privilege of voting in this country. I hope that everyone enjoyed their fried chicken.
Anyone who thinks that the Dems did this out of the goodness of the heart because they love the poor so so much, I have a bridge I want to sell and yadayadayada…
“Let the Demowhackycrats try the “big tent†formula. They can not help but eat their own since at heart they are socialist, government as religion, plutocrats.”
For the record – I’m a Democrat and I don’t eat my children. I’m not now, nor have I ever been a Socialist, government should keep it’s nose *out* of religion; it’s freedom *of* religion, not *from* religion, btw; and I’ve never, ever been to Pluto. :p As for the ‘big tent’ – I’m sick of politics being a negative media circus. Keep the tent.
“the electorate would have stampeded into the Republican column and demanded the U.S. fly somewhere and bomb someone.
The jihad crowd know that. So instead they employed a craftier strategy.”
This implies that the author has some knowledge that we don’t regarding Islamic terrorist’s care for human life, be that life Middle-Eastern or not?
And terrorists, scared of bombs? They strap them to themselves. Think again.
While I have yet to do any real research into who’s a decent choice out of potential ‘08 candidates- and saying that, I haven’t thoroughly researched Condi either- she’s my choice for now, no question. Everybody in the MSM seems to think McCain is the only Republican with a chance of getting the nomination. They are out of touch with reality, as per usual. Condi seems to have a take-no-crap-from-anybody attitude. Given the Republican Party’s recent history of constantly capitulating to the Dems (can’t wait to see how much they bow and scrape while the Dems are in control the next two years), Condi seems, to me anyway, to be the only candidate willing to tell everyone else where to get off.
Maybe I just have a thing for strong black Christian women. I married one, after all…
I agree with Army NCO Guy – Condi in 2008! The MSM hates Condi, so she is worth a look by Republican voters. And like the aforementioned poster, I married a beautiful, strong, intelligent black Christian woman (great minds think alike, maybe?).
Come to think of it…..were it not for the fact that my wife is an immigrant, I would urge her to run for President. Where is the Living Constitution, now that I really need it?
Lest I forget my manners – here I am posting on the website of a beautiful, strong, intelligent Christian woman! La Shawn, I always enjoy reading you blog. Although sometimes I disagree with what you say, I nevertheless always find your writing both intellectually profound and personally challenging. In fact, I prefer to read the blogs of conservative women bloggers over male bloggers. I admit it – women are smarter and wiser then men.
Mark Steyn nails it, when are the men going to step up and start running for office? We need someone that has a pair of stones that is not a milquetoast, feckless quisling that gets his hair done and a manicure and sips espresso at Starbucks. We need ass kickers not bootlickers. I hate what is going on with my country, I am active duty and you don’t think that this doesn’t have an effect on our morale. We should have made parts of Iraq an Owen Corning glass factory. When when when are we going to really cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. It gives me pause that when I retire from the military that I should run for office and punch out some of those chickens*%t bastards. Those people want us DEAD no ifs ands or buts. They are going to rain terror on main street USA. Personally I enjoy being the visiting team when is comes to making war. At the rate we are going ladies are going to be converting to Islam and wearing burquas. It is always the usual suspects I don’t give a rats a$$ on how Mitt Romney look and if he is a Mormon can he kick some a$$. We need to get rid of PC and bring back KITA. I am so p.o.d LaShawn I can’t see straight. I don’t want McCain, Rudy, Romney give me a proven ass kicker like Tommy Franks to run the country. That would be a great slogan I am Tommy Franks proven a$$ kicker and I approved this message. We need to drain the sewer that is the Republican party and start putting up people that can win and bust up those scumbags on the hill. I guess I am not getting enough sleep b/c I am really gorked about this stuff.
“impeasement”?? is that a cross between appeasement and impeachment?
A Reagan-type will never come along again. Either it’s going to be a moderate Republican or Democrat.
I’m throwing my vote in for Rudy. His background as a fearless federal prosecutor with a record low number of reversals is enough; his leadership during 9-11 seals the deal.
Incidentally, Glenn Beck is doing a special tonight, Wednesday, on Islamic Extremism on CNN Headline. There’s a promo on his website: http://www.glennbeck.com.
“When when when are we going to really cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.”
When killing people becomes more profitable than wrong? Just a guess of course.
How many (insert People) do you think should be killed before the ‘dogs of war’ are sated?
Comments on this entry are closed.