Random thoughts and insights – always shaken, never stirred

Posts Tagged ‘2006 Election

Thoughts on the 2006 Midterm Election

leave a comment »

A bit of a blowout.

Certainly this was an election where the Republicans deserved to lose but the Democrats didn’t deserve to win.

Of course, from my point of view, the Republicans, spending like drunken sailors though they have been, are still better than the Democrats. They’ll spend like that without the need for alcohol. Not to mention what other things they plan. Most important however, will be judges and Condi.

My preferred scenario had been that Cheney steps down sometime after the 2006 mid-term for reasons of health, and then Condi Rice is appointed VP. She can then run in 2008 as a sitting VP. That scenario is gone, as I assume that Harry Reid’s senate would never confirm her for the veep slot.

Bush will have a more difficult final two years, but at least he’s still there to put the brakes on. I don’t buy Pelosi’s notion that the people voted to end the Iraq War, but they’ve certainly voted to change Washington. I doubt anyone there is actually listening.

Written by martinipundit

November 8, 2006 at 12:22 pm

Vote Lieberman

leave a comment »

I did not vote for the Gore – Lieberman team in 2000 which should come as no surprise. I’ve known since the days of Jimmy Carter that Democrats cannot be trusted with national security, and since that’s one of the primary reasons I vote for Federal office, I simply cannot pull the lever for a Democrat. Even the rare exceptions – Democrats who get national security, and Joe Lieberman is one – are typically overshadowed on that and other issues by the Republican in the race.

Not this time.

Yesterday, the Democratic party in Connecticut had a defining moment. They chose Ned Lamont to be their candidate for United States senator over the incumbant Lieberman. Lamont represents all that is wrong about Democrats and national security. He’s the candidate of the far Left, the Cindy Sheehans, the Kossacks, and the other moonbats. Far from even thinking we’re fighting a war against terrorism, the Ned Lamonts want to sit down with terrorists and talk it out. Israel should immediately stop defending itself and pull back. The United States should never use military force anywhere for any reason. Except to do the bidding of the United Nations. I cannot take such a party seriously on this issue and I doubt very much the majority of Americans do.

However, in Connecticut, things are a little different as they are in all of New England. This is not exactly George Bush country, and that’s why Lieberman lost yesterday – he supported the President too much. Come the general election in November, Lieberman plans to run as an independent though many of his senate colleagues are asking he not do that. Yet Lamont only beat him among Democrats by 4 points – 52 to 48. Connecticut went for Kerry in 2004, but Bush garnered 44% of the vote. While it’s possible the Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger can win in November, I think it far more likely that Lieberman will win a three-way race. Lieberman has already proven he’ll stand by the President on the most important issue we face today. Current polls tend to support the view that Lieberman can win in the general election, and if he does, he’ll have no reason to thank his Democrat colleagues who’ve failed to support him in this time. He might even choose to caucus with the Republicans, though that’s not important.

For this reason, MartiniPundit endorses Joe Lieberman for senator from Connecticut, and I urge all my Republican (and Democrat) readers who live in Connecticut to vote for him in November.

Written by martinipundit

August 9, 2006 at 10:02 am

The Bigotry Card

leave a comment »

The Senate is debating the FMA again, amidst other posturing that means very little. Harry Reid is apparently upset that the Senate is wasting time on this when it could be doing that other thing – whatever it is. He seems to imply that the Senate is only capable of taking up one task at a time, which some of us think would be a very good thing if true. By all means, debate the FMA is that’s all it takes to keep the Senate out of trouble. Alas, that’s not the case and just another example of Harry Reid’s unprincipled posturing.

Note that I’ve called Harry Reid unprincipled. I think its warranted as the NOAD defines the word to mean: a person not acting or behaving in accordance with moral principles. Reid is a Mormon, and thus has rejected his moral beliefs for political expediency.

This brings me to our ostensibly Catholic senior senator from Massachusetts. Another unprincipled fellow who will do almost anything for political advantage, and sometimes personal ambition (Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment). Note once again, I’m casting aspersions on the man’s character. Does this make you more or less willing to listen to my argument? Less, I hope. I do try to avoid this sort of thing (not always possible, I admit), but today I’m deliberately employing it to prove the point of its lack of effectiveness.

Yesterday, Ted Kennedy wrote an op-ed in the Boston Herald opposing the FMA. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in this – many do, including some conservatives like Charles Krauthammer. There is indeed room to debate the issue, and even to debate whether the Constitution is the right forum to decide the issue. But not if you’re Ted Kennedy, for this is how he frames his argument:

This so-called Federal Marriage Amendment should really be called the Republican Right Wing 2006 Electoral Strategy Amendment because it is more about rallying an extreme base to vote than about solving a problem. Proponents use fear tactics and claim that marriage is under attack by activist judges. That’s simply not true. The country is divided over gay marriage; within the laws of each state, there is ongoing debate in which Congress should not intervene. A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry – pure and simple. A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnerships, and against efforts by states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law.

It’s a vote to impose discrimination on all 50 states, denying them their right to interpret their own state constitutions and to pass their own state laws. [emphasis mine]

Senator Kennedy’s argument – that the FMA will undermine the principles of Federalism – is a good one, and not surprisingly, one with which I agree. Kennedy is no real fan of the principle (just ask him how he feels about applying it to Roe vs. Wade), but his hypocritical adoption of it here while rejecting it there is not the real way in which he undermines his argument. It is the spoken use of the word ‘bigotry.’

Thus, if you oppose gay marriage you are a bigot. Any one of you reading this who opposed gay marriage now knows that Ted Kennedy considers you a bigot.

So why listen to him any further? Why would you debate an issue with someone whose stated position on it is that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot – in other words, an unprincipled, immoral person.

I recently had this card played when discussing the subject of Indian reservations. I believe they are a horrible anachronism that should be eliminated as soon as possible. They foster poverty, despair, crime, and alcoholism. They oppress people in the name of their own sovereignty – a sham. My Leftist interlocutor found this view to be racist, and said so. Where I saw people being treated horribly by the government, she saw an ethnic minority needing to be patronized. Yet, the moment she played the race card, she lost the debate. What was the point of discussing the issue further with someone who had decided she was talking with a racist? Whatever ideas we might have exchanged, whatever potential to compromise and reach a better position was lost. (I will admit to a certain mischievous pleasure in getting a Leftist to defend a reservation system set up by white men in the 19th century to keep the Indians from claiming any of the useful land.) This tactic of the Left, to demean and dehumanize their opponents is a losing strategy. Ted Kennedy is called the “Lion of the Senate” by a fawning media. Except when he roars, no one is really scared. He’s basically irrelevant, and not least because he throws around accusations of bigotry intended to marginalize his opponents. Instead, he’s the one on the sidelines.

Written by martinipundit

June 6, 2006 at 10:17 am

Bobby Byrd

leave a comment »

I’ve heard that Senator Byrd, the senior member of the senate, has lost his wife. My condolences to the senator – I’ve seen how such a loss has affected my own grandmother, and the senator has my sympathy. However, I also understand he plans to run for reeelection, stating that his late wife wanted him to do so.

To this I say – so what? It is long past time for Senator Byrd – the only member of Congress to have enjoyed membership in the Ku Klux Klan – to step down. I cannot help but recall with disgust his attempted filibuster during the first Gulf War by recounting a history of the Battle of Cannae which made those of us actually familiar with Roman history shake our heads. Go home senator. It is long past time. Frankly, if you were a Republican, your racist past would have long since finished your political career. It’s only as a Democrat that you’ve managed to stay in office. If you had recanted, that would be one thing, but you haven’t. Shame on you. Shame on the Democrats.

Written by martinipundit

April 6, 2006 at 11:03 pm

Eyeing Impeachment

leave a comment »

I noted here that the only reason the Democrats hadn’t already made an attempt to impeach President Bush was because they were in the minority in Congress. Today, the Wall Street Journal has an Opinion piece basically echoing that view:

[E]verything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwelliaan or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold’s public service in floating his “censure” gambit now. He’s doing voters a favor by telling them before November’s election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America’s enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he’s abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he’s been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let’s have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what’s really at stake.

These are the stakes. The Democrats want to impeach Bush for a lot of reasons, perhaps even a few of them stemming from genuine belief that Bush has committed an impeachable offense. But let’s be clear, most of them want to impeach him because of the 2000 election, and because he has taken the bold step of defending the nation, made hard decisions, and stayed the course in spite of all the ‘experts.’ (Who, if they’re so smart, why have they been so consistently wrong?) If the Democrats win the House in 2006, it will be payback time. And to hell with the cost to the nation.

Update Jeff Goldstein has more:

But then, today’s liberal-Democrats are nothing but opportunistic and increasingly reprehensible tin-plated Macchiavellians; to many of these people, rhetoric trumps truth; spin is paramount, and power is all.

Never before in my lifetime did I find it even remotely possible that our country could fight another civil war. But I’m beginning to think that a (non-violent) civil war is coming — and that, frankly, it needs to happen. How it transpires, I have no idea — though I suspect migration patterns and a strong move to re-affirm federalist principles could provide the groundwork.

Philosophically, we have lost our way. And we’d better find our way back to our founding principles, or — as powerful as we are — we are doomed to slip into nannystate socialism, while a feckless foreign policy permits radical Islam to spread across the globe like the cancer it is.


Written by martinipundit

March 15, 2006 at 11:14 am

%d bloggers like this: