The Repbulican "Brand"

Arlen Specter left the Republican party this week. No big loss as I see it. He never was a conservative voice or even a vote to be counted on for the republicans. Some, perhaps many, would say it is because he voted his conscience, but I don't see it that way at all.

Understand, I have no problem with, and in fact applaud, those who would disagree with their party on matters of principle. I disagreed vehemently with President Bush on refusing to veto spending bills. I would have stood up and cheered for any republican or democrat representative or senator who did the same. Unfortunately that didn't happen enough. The republicans seemed to think it was their turn at the trough.

Specter was greeted like the prodigal son and hailed by democrats as a man of principle and conscience. Someone willing to go against the current at great risk - implying that he finally got a clue (and a soul). Funny - they never said that about Joe Lieberman with his stance on the war. In fact the two situations are polar opposites.

Lieberman knew that he risked political suicide by taking the stance he did on Iraq and national defense. It was almost the case. He so infuriated the party bigwigs they refused to back him when he ran for re-election. He managed to run as an independent and win. Due to, I believe, the fact he did show he was a man of principle who had the courage of his convictions.

Specter, on the other had, is the antithesis. As little as two weeks ago he stated that he had no intention of switching parties. In fact in 2001 when senator Jeffers from Vermont abandoned the republican party to become an independent; senator Specter stated he wanted to change the rules to prohibit congresspersons from changing parties in the middle of the term. But Specter, seeing the looming specter of defeat, decided to jump ship to save his political hide. Even though he tried to parse it, he also admitted he knew it would be impossible for him to win the republican primary in Pennsylvania and nearly impossible to win the general election as an independent. So it wasn't a case of principle or being his own man. It was a case of surviving politically at any cost.

The whole thing got me thinking about the Republican brand. What does it need to be in order for the party to resuscitate itself?

Well, they need to quit talking about Reagan and, instead, act like Reagan. Reagan didn't worry about trying to
please and appease in order to bring people to the conservative movement. Instead he talked about reigning in government spending and building a strong national defense. On other issues he said that we could have our differences and just agree to disagree.

Too many republicans these days talk about widening the tent to encompass more people, but, in doing that, they end up with no identity and nothing to rally around. They need to get it down to basics. I began saying long ago - and continue to this day -

"There is a very great difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the role of government is to protect us from all enemies - foreign and domestic. Liberals believe the role of government is to protect us from ourselves."

Take it from there. Be it gun control, nationalized health care, welfare, global warming, or any other issue, the differences between conservatives and liberal positions on issues can all be followed back to that statement.

I gladly grant the right of use for that statement to any conservative politician who has the smarts to pick it up.

Like Reagan - they shouldn't worry about expanding the republican party. They should be more concerned about expanding conservative ideas and ideals.

Being Virally PC

Since Janet Napolitano told us the Candian border was a bigger problem than the Mexican border and abandoned the term "terrorist attack" in favor of "man-caused" disasters why would it surprise any of us that, instead of "swine flu", she is calling it "virus H 1 N 1". The purported reason being that it is having a a deleterious effect on the livelihood of pig farmers.

If it wasn't so stupidly sad it would be funny.

He's At it Again

Your friend and mine Iranian president, Ilostmydinnerjacket is, at this moment, speaking at the conference on racism in Geneva. He is using this opportunity to accuse Israel of being a racist country.

The representatives of Israel and Canada have walked out.

The US declined to attend the conference because of the final language in the declaration.

Australia also declined because it could not support the final text for the UN's Durban Review Conference because it reaffirmed the original Durban Declaration of 2001, which singled out Israel and the Middle East,

"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," Smith said in a statement.

He said Australia was also concerned at suggestions from some delegations to limit the universal right to free speech.

Irene and Iran

Right now I'm watching "The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler". Being Polish it maybe has a little more relevance for me than it may have for others. But it makes me think of that idiot president of Iran Ilostmydinnerjacket - because he is an Holocaust denier. The guy ought to be "Bitch Slapped" (I feel I can use this term because Jaimee Foxworthy called Miley Cyrus a white bitch - if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson has problem with that they can probably track me down).

Maybe Obama will give good ol' Ilostmydinnerjacket one across the chops when they get together for their "no preconditions" talks. Nah - probably won't - and if he did he would be immediately apologizing and asking where to send the reparations check.

Revisiting Science

I was watching 60 Minutes tonight and saw an interesting story. Scientists are going back and looking (in fact some have never stopped looking)at what used to be called cold fusion. Now days, though, they are calling it a nuclear event so as not to be confused with Pons and Fleischmann in 1989. These two scientists careers were ruined when it turned out they could not recreate their results.

I'm not going to cite names as you can find the clip and watch if you want the exact information, but to summarize the 60 Minutes anchor talked to a scientist who has been working on this for thirty years and he seems to be getting positive results. They then talked to another scientist who said he was skeptical. After that they talked to the vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri who and asked him to take a look at some of the research that was going on and study the results .

Interestingly enough his first reaction was, “I thought that question (science) had been decided long ago.” But he did agree to give it a gander. He visited a lab (in Israel I think), looked at their experiments and studied their data and conclusions. He came up with the opinion that there might be something to it and it was worth continuing the research.

The anchor asked him (the chancellor) what he had learned from the experience and he replied, “Don't let anyone do your thinking for you and don't be afraid to revisit science that people say has already been decided.”

The guy from 60 Minutes was wowed talking about how great this could be and wasn't it great that there were some scientists who were willing to face skepticism and even ridicule in pursuit of what they thought was right and possible.

At this point in the story I didn't know whether to laugh at this idiot anchor or scream. I mean these are the same folks who ridicule and deride anyone – absolutely anyone – who dares to say (or even speculate) that the science on global warming is not decided. And some of these people they are dismissing have very impressive credentials. A heck of a lot more impressive credentials than, say, Al Gore. Well that might not be saying much because I think any high school junior chemistry student has betteer scientific credentials than Al Gore – and more than likely a lot more integrity as well.

So let me repeat that for “Al and Pals” - don't be afraid to revisit science that people say has already been decided. Of course I know they won't listen because it's not about the science - it's about the agenda. It's exactly the same with embryonic stem cell research. Because the Bush administration cut off funding for new embryonic stem cell lines the science of adult stem cells lines was revisited and great strides were made.

Again, for liberals it's not about science – it's about the agenda.