Donner Party Democrats

This comes from a source unabashedly pro-democrat party, from the democrat perspective. It is a wonderful read, however, once one gets past the pro-dem bias. I love the first line...

When they set out, it all looked so bright — away to the West, to the Denver convention, nothing but blue skies ahead. They had a continent to cross, a nation to convince, and they vowed to do it in a way that had never been done before. They moved briskly across the plains of the Bush presidency. There was the scarecrow president who didn’t know the price of fuel or the ways of war. Flapping in the wind, he pointed one way, while 70 percent of the country wanted to go the other.

On to the arid side of the prairie, they passed one sunbaked skeleton after another — Larry Craig and his wide stance, Scooter Libby and his breach of trust, and a man from the Arabian Horse Association, Brownie. Each had the stench of yesterday on them.

Along the way, they moved by Mitt the Muddler, who couldn’t decide which way to go, and Rudy the Robo, muttering, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11.” Dining on squirrel was a guitar-plucking Huckabee, who at least knew how to keep folks entertained around the campfire.

These refugees from the other party had their nutty preacher, Pat Robertson, who blamed fellow Americans for the big attack. It was their fault, he said: the civil libertarians, the gays, the feminists brought this mass murder upon themselves. Uphill now, through the high plains, and still the Dems held together. They would not be like that tragic Donner Party of 1846, feuding and scrapping. It would all be over before the snows were gone. They shared their rations and steeled their will, convinced that one way or the other they would make history: a black man or a woman would lead them. They were Democrats doing the impossible: moving in one line, together.

Deep in the treeless expanse of the West, they came upon one of the stragglers from the other party: John McCain. Once, he had been a maverick. Now he looked old and worn and lost. His own party had left him for dead, he explained. Called him amnesty man. He seemed harmless enough, saying he knew nothing about the economy, confused about who was fighting whom in a distant part of the world. They didn’t give him a second thought.

And then, as the snow piled high deep into March, the Dems turned on each other. One of their leaders had been hanging around the camp of another preacher man, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. — a nutball like Robertson, blaming America for bringing on the horrid attack. What is it with these men of God? Should have left them home.

The Dems grew raggedy, worn, desperate. Whereas the first Donner Party was bogged down in the snow of the high Sierra, these Dems could not get out of the Rockies. One faction wanted to declare it over, based on greater popular support. The other one wanted simply to stick around long enough, waiting for the rival to self-destruct.

Their former leader, Clinton the Elder, was kept on a leash — nothing but cards at night. He said he’d seen far worse in his time. “Will there be more animosity as this
thing goes on? Yes.” That didn’t help.

Looking for leadership, they turned to a quiet man in the rear, a doctor from Vermont: Howard Dean. Do something, Doc! Scream! But he cowered, mumbling about do-overs and going back to Michigan or Florida.

At their lowest ebb, they looked back and again saw the straggler, McCain. He was stronger, walking with renewed vigor despite his age. He was joined by a grizzled old cuss named Cheney. One strange hombre, Cheney had shot a man in the face. He’d forgotten that his country was a democracy. When he was told that two-thirds of the nation wanted to heed the founders’ advice and avoid prolonged foreign conflicts, he spit on the ground, and said, “So?”

His party was united. What had been hatred for McCain was now hatred for the other party’s preacher. They could direct all their historic resentments, their bound-up frustrations, against this preacher, the Rev. Wright. So long as they hissed and booed at his picture every night, they stayed together, saying the nastiest of things. The original Donner Party made history for one reason: by eating their dead. Cannibalism — it was all they could do to stay alive.

These modern Dems press on, tearing into each other, crawling to get to the summit, still five months away, in the mile-high city. They are now ravenous with hunger, and it is starting to show.

What are they hungering for? Power. Not service, nothing as altruistic as that. Hillary & Obama want the power, & want to make sure the other doesn't get it. How does this guy say Dean is quiet???

A Compilation of Random Musings

Needless to say, there's a lot going on in our world today. The war in Iraq to keep it out of islamist hands is going well, so it's out of the news. Economic worries are heightening with the falling dollar & the price of oil & gasoline. We're not hearing much from the presidential candidates on the economic issues, especially what can be done with oil & gasoline prices.

Regarding the presidential race, all the focus in on Clinton v. Obama. This has not been a good last couple of weeks for the Obama campaign. Clinton leads in Pennsylvania. Obama's "former" pastor Jeremiah Wright's comments that have come to light are giving him heartburn. The "super delegates" are getting a little ancy.

NY Governor Elliot Spencer's dalliance with a high-priced call girl have been in the news this week.

In Tennessee there is a push in the legislature for more openness in records, we'll see how far that goes. I've posted some issues on the Tennessean's forums which have received copious response. One is regarding Obama's record on the 2nd Amendment, Obama, No Gun Shops Within Five Miles of Schools; Porn Shops OK. Obama's words on the 2nd amendment extrapolated to all individual rights troubles me - he seems quite flippant on the importance of individual rights in regard to legislating how these rights may be enjoyed. It is fun, however, to read the back & forth between Clinton & Obama supporters. Getting back to the national race on the democrat side, it's getting nasty down in the grassroots.

I'll have more as time goes on & events play out in our world.

Possibly a Shrewd Move?

This is piggybacked from a Redstate Diary "A Sure Sign Hillary is in Trouble." The diarist does have a great point - it's easy to see that Clinton is behind in the delegate count. Both Hillary & Bill have made remarks that would lead to the thought that they see Obama as a possible VP candidate. There may be a different reason for this, however:

No one (democrat) sees her as being satisfied with anything less than the presidency. Democrats don't want the "bloodshed" of a tight campaign to go on through the convention. Obama is new on the scene. CW says that someone like him would be honored to be chosen as VP. If Clinton can get democrats to see him as VP - an alternative to the continued nasty campaign (or really nasty floor-brawl at the convention) - these democrats may lose some fire to push his presidency.

The Clintons are nothing if not shrewd & calculating political animals.

Another Bad Idea from Tennessee Democrats

Detailed in the article entitled Bill would let candidates feed poll workers.

Tennessee lawmakers are getting ready to cross a line — the invisible 100-foot boundary that's supposed to separate candidates from the inside of a polling place on Election Day.

Nashville Democrats Sen. Joe Haynes of Goodlettsville and Rep. Gary Moore of Joelton, propose letting candidates for public office enter polling places, bearing gifts of doughnuts, pizzas, beverages and other goodies to feed poll workers.

Supporters call it a gesture of good will and kindness for the poll workers, many of whom are elderly volunteers working grueling 12-hour shifts. Opponents point out that the dividing line between the candidates and the voting booth is there for a reason.

An attempt to pass the House bill Thursday was derailed when supporters weren't able to kill an amendment by Rep. Donna Rowland, R-Murfreesboro, that would block the candidates from delivering the food in person.

"We need to make sure we're above reproach," Rowland said.

Lawmaker sees problem

The motion to set her amendment aside was defeated by a vote of 46-45. Opponents characterized the amendment as "heartless."

State Rep. Frank Buck, D-Smithville, warned that letting candidates deliver gifts of any sort to poll workers "will open the door for fraud."

"If your opponent brings a meal in, that means you've got to bring a meal in," Buck said. "People will try to fudge. Historically, that's what happens."

Moore, the House sponsor, bristled at the implication.

"I'm not trying to buy anybody's vote," he said. "To think that anybody's going to buy a vote for a sandwich is ludicrous."

State Election Coordinator Brook Thompson took no official position but noted that some counties have provisions for feeding poll workers.

Frank Buck is a true conservative democrat who is not liked by the democrat machine in Tennessee.

I don't think we really need to lay out all the potential issues with this? Especially with the more local elections - I know that some democrats in counties like mine are seeing the dramatic increase in conservatives elected to local offices, & they want to "stem the tide" as much as possible. I guess it's easier to try & get around the rules than to get better candidates with better ideas?

More Freedom, More Guns; More Guns, More Freedom

Another H/T to Bill Hobbs for bringing this to our attention.

A comparative study of 59 countries finds that "the nations with the highest rates of gun ownerhsip tend to have greater political and civil freedom, greater economic freedom and prosperity, and much less corruption than other nations."

Now do you understand why liberals hate guns?

I would change "liberals" to "statists" to be more correct - otherwise, spot-on!

Guns Save Lives

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.
The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."
As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.
As for the first option, "carefully controlling guns," how many shootings at schools or malls will it take before we understand that people who intend to kill are not deterred by gun laws? Last I checked, murder is against the law everywhere. No one intent on murder will be stopped by the prospect of committing a lesser crime like illegal possession of a firearm. The intellectuals and politicians who make pious declarations about controlling guns should explain how their gunless utopia is to be realized.
While they search for -- excuse me -- their magic bullet, innocent people are dying defenseless.
That's because laws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense.
Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls.
Government may promise to protect us from criminals, but it cannot deliver on that promise. This was neatly summed up in book title a few years ago: "Dial 911 and Die." If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility.
How, then, does it make sense to create mandatory gun-free zones, which in reality are free-crime zones?
The usual suspects keep calling for more gun control laws. But this idea that gun control is crime control is just a myth. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder. When Washington, D.C., passed its tough handgun ban years ago, gun violence rose.
The press ignores the fact that often guns save lives.
It's what happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. Hearing shots, two students went to their cars, got their guns and restrained the shooter until police arrested him.
Likewise, law professor Glenn Reynolds writes, "Pearl, Miss., school shooter Luke Woodham was stopped when the school's vice principal took a .45 from his truck and ran to the scene. In (last) February's Utah mall shooting, it was an off-duty police officer who happened to be on the scene and carrying a gun".
It's impossible to know exactly how often guns stop criminals. Would-be victims don't usually report crimes that don't happen. But people use guns in self-defense every day. The Cato Institute's Tom Palmer says just showing his gun to muggers once saved his life.
"It equalizes unequals," Palmer told "20/20". "If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

Not much to add, he's right.

Emma Beck's Post Abortion Suicide

Crossposted at the Tennessean's Political Forum.

An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."Emma Beck was found hanging at her home in Helston, Cornwall, on Feb 1 2007. She was declared dead early the following day - her 31st birthday.

Her suicide note read: "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does."

The inquest at Truro City Hall heard that Miss Beck had split up with her boyfriend, referred to as "Ben" after he "reacted badly" to the pregnancy...

Much more at the link. This is not a post about making abortion illegal or making it more difficult to get an abortion. This is about the reality of what an abortion does & the effect that the realization of the reality of abortion can have on a woman.

What is wrong with making sure a woman or couple has all the information regarding alternatives to abortion? What is wrong with couseling a woman or couple before an abortion to the possible negative mental effects?