Life Imitates Art in Saudi Arabia

Michelle Malkin points to this story about 57 men in Saudi Arabia being investigated and prosecuted for flirting. She suggests that an appropriate soundtrack would be something like "My Sharia Amour." But that's not quite right. No, this reminds me of something....

Wait, I'll think of it...

I know! It reminds me of something that an apparently prophetic playwright wrote over one hundred and twenty years ago. His name was Sir William Gilbert, and he worked with an equally famous chap named Sir Arthur Sullivan. The resulting operetta was named "The Mikado" and the incredibly confusing plot summary can be viewed here.

Although inspired by a nascent Japanese "invasion" into British culture in the late nineteenth century, it was really meant — as were most of G & S's works — as an indictment of the pompous stupidity of British aristocracy and government. Gilbert recognized the frivolity of many laws that were passed by Parliament and found no small irony in their futility. In this operetta, flirting has been declared illegal by no less than the Emporer of Japan, as evidenced by this dialogue between Yum-Yum and Nanki-Poo, the bubble-headed protagonists:

YUM. (retreating). If you please, I think your Highness
had better not come too near. The laws against flirting are
excessively severe.
NANK. But we are quite alone, and nobody can see us.
YUM. Still, that don't make it right. To flirt is capital.
NANK. It is capital!
YUM. And we must obey the law.
NANK. Deuce take the law!
YUM. I wish it would, but it won't!

To solidify this backdrop, Gilbert gives us the following terse explanation in a song that happens to be one of Sullivan's more clever compositions (note: if you can find a recording, or, better yet, attend a performance, just know that this song is my favorite, even though in three runs of doing this show I never once got to sing it!):

Our great Mikado, virtuous man,
When he to rule our land began,
Resolved to try
A plan whereby
Young men might best be steadied.
So he decreed, in words succinct,
That all who flirted, leered or winked
(Unless connubially linked),
Should forthwith be beheaded,
Beheaded, beheaded,
Should forthwith be beheaded.
And I expect you'll all agree
That he was right to so decree.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right as right can be!

This stern decree, you'll understand,
Caused great dismay throughout the land!
For young and old
And shy and bold
Were equally affected.
The youth who winked a roving eye,
Or breathed a non-connubial sigh,
Was thereupon condemned to die —
He usually objected,
Objected, objected,
He usually objected.
And you'll allow, as I expect,
That he was right to so object.
And I am right,
And you are right,
And everything is quite correct!

And so we straight let out on bail
A convict from the county jail,
Whose head was next
On some pretext
Condemned to be mown off,
And made him Headsman, for we said,
"Who's next to be decapited
Cannot cut off another's head
Until he's cut his own off,
His own off, his own off,
Until he's cut his own off."
And we are right, I think you'll say,
To argue in this kind of way;
And I am right,
And you are right,
And all is right — too-loo-ral-lay!

All of this material, by the way, is hosted by the indispensable "Gilbert and Sullivan Archive," hosted at Boise State.

In truth, the only elements missing from this Saudi story are a cheap ex-tailor, Ko-Ko (whom I played all three times), who is elevated to Lord High Executioner, and the insufferably pompous Lord High Everything Else, Pooh-Bah.

Life imitates art in Saudi Arabia, but not in a good way.

The Politics of Nasty

[Welcome to "www.Care2.com" readers! My appreciation to Care2 for quoting from this post. - Woody]

One of the basic premises of politics is the need to discredit one's foe in order to further your own agenda. This has been true since George Washington announced that he would relinquish his presidency. This simple act not only established the precedent that would enable our republican form of government to thrive, but also created the politics of nasty. Once it became clear that two or more opposing points of view would have the opportunity to attain this high office, the nastiness began. Oh, it sounded much more civilized two hundred years ago, but it could get nasty enough all the same.

To think that your side isn't as nasty as the other guy's side ("side" = "poliical party of choice") is just plain naive. Every candidate pledges initially to run a clean campaign; no dirty tricks, no negative campaigning, no torpedoing the other guy's boat! In reality, from the moment they first begin exploring the possibility of even running they are putting together reams of information about their opponents — real and potential — so they can find and exploit their weaknesses.

Of especial interest to candidates and their staffs are those items that make it appear that an opponent in fact acts contrary to their stated position on any given topic. Hence the furor over McCain's apparent lack of ethical behavior in his relationship (whatever form that relationship may or may not have taken) with a D.C. lobbyist. McCain has presented himself as a fierce proponent of ethics in Washington. This means that any situation that even has the appearance of a conflict of interest is going to be exploited hard and fast. In fact, the only surprising thing about the NY Times' report is that it waited so long to publish. This, in turn, smacks of "questionable timing," and merely perpetuates the politics of nasty. (Read, by the way, this piece in Politico.com regarding McCain's masterful handling of this drive-by politicking. McCain knows how this game is played.)

This is the part of the political game that only the masochistic enjoy. For all the theatrics of campaign managers and spokespersons who loudly decry such "underhanded tactics" and "smear campaigns," this is exactly the sort of thing for which they live. To them it's a tonic; the soothing rhythm of a political machine running on all cylinders. Do you think for a moment that McCain's handlers are losing sleep over this issue? If they are, it's only because they thrive on living on the edge 24x7, and the act of alternately creating or reacting to malicious politicking is what they eat at every meal. This is their breath of life. They would mount and frame their ulcers, if they could.

The only reason that similar dirt hasn't been flung at Obama or Clinton from McCain's side (I'm not talking about frivilous comments about Obama's lack of substance or past drug use, or Clinton's dangerous positions on the issues; I'm talking about hit pieces like the NYT article) so far is that we're probably waiting for the dust to settle when the Democrats are through cutting each other to shreds. Let them do the heavy lifting until one or the other drops out. Then go after them. This would be a logical strategy for McCain and his camp to follow, in my mind. But mark my words: the moment it becomes clear exactly who it is that will face McCain in November, the nastiness will appear.

Thus it becomes the burden of every voter in America to find enough truth in every story to be able to make an intelligent choice at the ballot box. Did McCain have an inappropriate (either politically or morally) relationship with a lobbyist? No idea. Can't really trust the Times if I believe (as I do) that they are nothing more than a liberal shill. Some papers wouldn't even pick up the story, with one editor in Seattle calling it "thin beer."

Likewise, I'm never sure what to believe about the Democrats. My opinions of Hillary were formed many years ago during her husband's facetious presidency, and those opinions — right or wrong — are not kind. I don't know Obama yet, except to understand that his positions on most of my key issues (border control, immigration policy, abortion, same-sex marriage, probable Supreme Court appointments) are unacceptable to me. As an individual he may very well be as charismatic and "hopeful" as his supporters claim him to be. Charisma and hope are not what I'm voting for in this election.

Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to hope. But hope has to be tempered by reality, and the realities of today's world call for far more than just hope. A firm commitment to defend this nation against any and all comers is mandatory. A firm plan to improve the economy without increasing a normal citizen's tax burden (preferably by reducing government interference) is most desirable. Improving health care choices without socializing our medical profession is what I want. Using tax payer money to support those who refuse to reasonably assimilate into our society and pay their fair share of that tax burden is out of the question. Unequivocal support for the traditional family unit is an absolute. Those are my benchmarks. When I measure the three currently viable candidates for the presidency, McCain comes the closest. He's nowhere near perfect, but he's closer to the mark than either of the Democrats.

So that's my personal formula for dealing with the politics of nasty. Ignore (or sneer at) the hype, measure the candidates, vote for the one that comes closest to the mark. The politics of nasty is all about inflating our normal emotional responses to any given candidate. In some cases, as with Obama, those emotions may carry one away into a swooning fit. (Note: Woody would not swoon. Not for Obama. Not for McCain. Not even for Romney. I reserve my swooning, such as it is, for Mrs. Woody.) The NYT piece on McCain was a calculated move to inflame emotions against the candidate, and it will have worked for many who read it.

The rest of us have already tuned it out and are waiting for this long national nightmare to be over.

UPDATE: I gotta be careful when writing from memory. The quote from the Seattle editor was "thin beer," not "weak beer." The Woundup apologizes for Woody's random neural firings and has corrected the quote.

Woody Reponds to a Commenter

This is in response to one of my commenters. Dennis makes the case that Mormons should support Obama, and has some well-crafted and carefully thought-out reasons why. My own response exceeded Haloscan's limit of 3,000 characters, so I'm responding here. Take a look at Dennis' post if you'd like better background on his comments to me.

Dennis,

I will have to agree to disagree with you.

Yes, fear is a powerful principle indeed. But I reject the idea that fear-mongering is a purely Republican device. Go back to any past election and tell me, exactly, where one candidate or another did NOT engage in some sort of fear-mongering in order to keep the other fellow out of office.

Your boy Obama (and Clinton, too) can talk "hope" and "change" all he wants, but there's a very real underlying message of FEAR that McCain will mean another four years of Bush doctrine in the White House. They can spin it any ol' which way they want, but it fails the duck test.

Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you or I happen to be LDS. I largely have to rely on my personal feelings and beliefs in political affairs because (news flash) the Spirit has not given Pres. Monson leave to announce from the pulpit that either McCain or Obama (or Huckabee, or Clinton II) should get the Mormon vote in this election. You and I both know it doesn't work that way. Apparently the Spirit, which should be informing our more critical decisions, has brought you into Obama's camp, while driving me into McCain's (if somewhat reluctantly). (Actually, I'd thought the Spirit had prompted me to support Romney. Apparently not.)

Or, it could just be that the Spirit is really directing me to live my life honestly, love my fellow man while hating the sin that permeates every nook and cranny of this society, raise my children to love the Lord first, and let me make my own informed decisions on who should get my vote.

Since you bring up the issue of why Mormons should support one candidate or another, let's step back a bit and take the apocryphal view: Given that the world as a whole is spiritually diseased and that the current political climate has enabled every sort of vice and contempt for eternal law imaginable, whomever we support for higher offices in this country is ultimately going to make little or no difference in how that climate evolves over the next four years. It's a joint effort, truly, and neither side can boast of supporting God's ideas over and above their own. If they were able to make that claim, there would be no law allowing abortion for any but the most serious of medical reasons, prayer would still be allowed in our schoolrooms, and the name of God would not cause shame in our courtrooms. There would be no need for universal health care proposals because we as a society would already be taking care of those less fortunate than ourselves, without need for the Government to force us to do so.

I, personally, would have preferred that Bush had waited for a Helaman-like prophet to say "thus sayeth the Lord" before marching into Baghdad. But now that we're there, I'd prefer that we do the job right and make sure that a 9/11 never happens again. As it is, I have no such confidence, whether a McCain supports the surge, or an Obama sets forth a timetable for withdrawal. Terrorists exist precisely because fear is every bit as powerful a principle as I've already alluded.

If I read the conference reports correctly, many have preached that things will only get worse before the Second Coming, and I have no expectation that either an Obama or a McCain is going to improve our lot on that score. Even Romney, inspired man that he may be, wouldn't have been able to do more than make token progress against that condition. Whether you put any credence in the "prophecy" or not, I still believe that this country is truly headed for a constitutional crisis, and that only the faith of the Church as a whole - Republican and Democrat (and Libertarian and Green Party) alike - is going to save it. I don't recall the prophecy saying anything about only Republican elders saving the constitution.

So you continue to sound the trump for Obama, and I'll continue to harangue McCain until (or unless) he gets it right. In the end, it's still a democratic - not an eternal - process in which we're engaged. We can only pray that our choices keep the Evil One at bay.

And I don't mean Clinton.

Well... maybe I do. ;-)

Memo to McCain

Okay, John, you've got this pretty much in the bag now, and it looks like it'll be Obama unless Billary pulls off a miracle before the convention. I know you don't much care for the advice of conservatives (you're really starting to annoy us with your "conservative record" meme, by the way), but I'm gonna offer a bit more anyway:

This Obama kid... you gotta take him down a road he can't build on his own, John. You've made a good start of it by pointing out the difference in "experience." But this is a problem, really. Everyone on that side of the political spectrum (and most especially the MSM) is actually counting on his lack of "insider" experience to foment this "change" they all keep harping about. So you gotta do more than just point out the obvious now. You have to demonstrate exactly how this difference in experience could mean keeping this country safe from direct assault.

The Democrats have given you a wonderful gift here, John, and you need to exploit it. When the Pelosian cowards in the House refused to vote on perfectly good legislation from the Senate to extend FISA (Pelosi's disingenuous spin aside), you were given all the ammunition you need to paint Democrats as being unwilling to do whatever it takes to keep this country safe. Period. They even handed you the brush, John. All you have to do is supply the strokes.

Now's your chance. An Obama presidency means an automatic surrender to terrorist forces across the world, no protection at our own borders, and a refusal to gather whatever intelligence is vital and necessary so we can continue to thwart attacks on our home turf.

Oh, and one more thing. Obama's wife said something the other day... I know you have your head stuck on that Straight Talk Espresso thingie most days... She said, "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Even your wife picked up on this statement, and the Obama Machine is already in full spin-mode on this one. But the fact is that what she said is felt by an alarmingly large portion of our nation.

You, Mr. Candidate, need to be out there listing and selling all the reasons why, precisely, this is a country in which we should take pride. You need to be pointing out our nearly universal outreach to many, many nations in humanitarian efforts. You need to show that being ready to defend freedoms not just for our country but for those of other countries is an honorable course, rather than an embarrassing curse. You need to remind people that, if they have democracy in their country today, it's largely patterned after our constitutional form of republican government that we implemented here over two hundred years ago. You need to help them understand that advances in science and industry that were spearheaded by the United States have held benefits for nearly every nation on earth over the years. This is not a nation of which to be ashamed, John, and you need to be throwing that in the faces of our esteemed opposition. Have we made mistakes? Certainly. Is there any nation on earth today that can claim never to have made any? Absolutely not. If we have our faults, we try to learn from them.

You might even want to bring up ol' Fidel down there in Cuba. Forty-nine years later, and people have a hard time articulating how, exactly, their country is better off for his leadership. If you disagree with Cuban leadership, you risk ending up in prison or worse. In this country, if you don't like your leadership, you at least have an opportunity to vote them out every few years. Cubans have no such guarantees. You can't get a permit in Cuba to "assemble peaceably," especially if your real purpose is to storm your nation's capital and parade around half naked to make a point. Try that in Cuba and you receive a whole new understanding of what "torture" really means. (Hint: it has nothing to do with "waterboarding.")

Time to put on the ol' smock, Mr. McCain. You can't afford to waste any time between now and November.

The Disingenuous MSM

Glen Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, makes this statement regarding Mitt Romney and his opinions of John McCain:

It always sounded innocuous enough, tucked into the adjectives Mitt Romney would rattle off when he described the qualities for the next president.

Wisdom, optimism and the right temperament, said the former Republican presidential candidate.

He goes on to make the case that what Romney has done, in effect, is give the Democrats ammunition in their future campaign against the presumed Republican nominee.

What complete, utter, and total nonsense. Romney has done no such thing. Not by himself, anyway. All Romney has done is his research. He used that research to make the compelling case that there were (and still are) huge differences between Romney's brand of conservatism, and McCain's claims to the conservative crown. McCain's temperament is renown, and has been widely reported by the MSM as well.

All Johnson could possibly be doing in writing this tripe is attempt to make Romney look like the great spoiler for the 2008 campaign. If McCain loses in November, it will have been because of Romney's apparent gaffes. Romney therefore becomes unappetizing to Republicans in any future contests, and the MSM has triumphed.

(Mr. Johnson may well complain that I'm reading things into his article that he never intended. Mr. Johnson would be well advised to look to his own purposes in writing the article. If this isn't an attempt to impugn an honorable man, then I've never seen one.)

All of the things mentioned in Johnson's missive have been reliably reported elsewhere. McCain's relative weakness on economic issues. Various flip-flops on critical issues, particularly on immigration reform. His decision to make strategic alliances with liberal members of Congress. His flaunting of his differences with the conservative hemisphere of the party. His temper. All of these things have been reported in various segments of the MSM, and many of them have been linked and/or quoted extensively by new media on both sides of the aisle.

The only thing one can really lay at Romney's feet is the statement that Democrats will soon make beginning with, "Even Romney knew about McCain's [insert McCain weakness here]...!" They would be fools not to.

To blame Romney for this, however, is a huge stretch and impossible to prove. I think this is really just another attempt by a mainstreamer to demonstrate that they can remain relevant to modern political discussions. They're still struggling to maintain their supremacy in this age of new media, and they resort to this sort of journalistic pouting when they realize they can't.

Let's be realistic about this: The Democrats have not been handed their "playbook" by Mtt Romney. They have been doing their research. They watch the blogs. They read the reports. Clinton and Obama both have worked directly with McCain in the Senate, and are both very well aware of his weaknesses. Romney did not enable them. He did what any candidate for office must do if they are to mount an effective campaign: you study your opponents, you understand their weaknesses, and you exploit those weaknesses. This is politics.

Nice try, Mr. Johnson, but you're not even close on this one. With or without Mitt Romney, the Democrats will have received the largest portions of their "playbook" by reading articles like yours.

This is Precisely Why...

...the church requires living prophets.

Okay, If I Hafta Support McCain...

... I'm sure not letting him off the hook. No conservative should do that. We need to be extremely bothersome flies buzzing around his head at all times. Keep the pressure on him to make some changes that will make him — if not acceptable — at least more palatable to a goodly portion of the GOP. Here's a few items off the top of my admittedly pointed head:

1. Clean House, Senator

Two names, John: Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio. In politics, perception is reality, and they've gotta go if you want to be perceived as being serious about border control. They serve at such high levels in your campaign that I'm surprised you don't shut down every day at about 1:00 for a siesta. Might as well build your vacation White House in Ciudad Juarez if you're going to continue to take advice from Señor Hernandez.

You can't honestly expect conservatives to believe you really want to build that fence, John, with these guys whispering open-borders platitudes in your ears all the time.

2. You're Getting Cranky With the Wrong People

Particularly, you need to quit chewing out conservatives who happen to disagree with you, and quit being so nice to Madame Clinton. Look, we just can't tell at this point whom you will be opposing in November, but fer Pete's sake, GO AFTER 'EM. Don't yarn about how "civilized" a campaign you would run if Billary gets the Dem nod... point out her liberal stances and how dangerous they are to the progress of the nation. Don't let Obama's color fool you, either... underneath that deep tan, he's still a politician, and politicians don't become politicians because they were nice to everyone, especially their opponents. But above all, don't let them get away with surrender politics in a time of war! You wanna be the battle-tough veteran and war hero? Great. Act like one.

3. Don't Forget You're Still a Senator

Even Clinton and Obama bothered to vote on the stimulus package. Right or wrong, they voted. Where were you? Trying to solidify your nomination prospects. Yes, sir, I presume to tell you how to do your job. After all, you work for me, remember?

4. Walk the Talk (and Talk, and Talk, and Talk...)

Quit telling us about how proud you are of your conservative record. We get it. You're proud. Fine. Just do us a favor and start acting like you're proud of it, will ya? Telling us to "calm down" does you absolutely no good if we find you constantly in bed with liberals in the Senate. You might have made a case for "compromise" and "bipartisanship" in ages past, but that was before your under-the-breath comments (isn't new media a wonderful thing?) revealed the inner-liberal you appear to have. You'd "draw the line at an Alito?" Not good, John. This does not give us great hope that you will, in fact, put forward truly constructionist justices for the Supreme Court.

While you're at it, do something about that temper of yours, hm? Metaphorically speaking, we can still take presidents out back to the woodshed if we have to. Job approval ratings spring immediately to mind. And you'll be facing an increasingly impeachment-happy Congress if you happen to take office next year. May want to keep that tucked somewhere in the back of your mind.

I offer these gratis, of course. My humble gift to the presumed nominee of the Republican party for 2008. No thanks are necessary, John. I'm only doing my part. Sorry I couldn't deliver these in person, but you're a busy man these days, and I understand. Even so...

Your move, John.

Romney Takes a Bow

Well, it's all over but the inevitable shouting. Romney has officially withdrawn from the race and thrown his support to John McCain. I find it both intriguing and enjoyable that he chose his appearance at CPAC to do so. His exit speech is both forceful and elegant. While fiercely defending conservative values, he also recognizes the importance of ensuring that neither a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton have the opportunity to take this country in a backward direction.

Mitt Romney is a class act, the likes of which we have not seen since (dare I say it?) Ronald Reagan. If Mitt is to become the (not "a") dedicated defender of conservative values within the Republican Party — for McCain patently refuses to do so — then I hope, like Reagan, we see more and more of Romney in the years to come. I hope he returns to run in '12 or '16. By then he will have become the kind of nationally recognizable figure that, like Reagan, is able to rise above what he was (in Reagan's case, an actor) to become one of the great Presidents in the 21st century. Reagan was an actor-turned-politician who was able to rise above the perception of Hollywood flakiness to become a master communicator and uniter of the party (again, something to which McCain can only aspire). Romney has that same potential to rise above his Latter-day Saint background that has seemed so appalling to evangelicals across the country and remain an active voice of the GOP as Reagan did between the 1976 and 1980 elections.

The difference here, of course, is that Reagan did not have to fight a Republican incumbent in 1980. We don't know if Romney will be facing a Republican or a Democrat incumbent in 2012, but that person will more than likely be seeking a second term. Even if we wait until 2016, however, I still firmly believe that Romney will be a wise choice for this country to make.

In the meantime, may I just say that I begin with a slow sautée in butter, adding a dash of onion and garlic powders, over medium heat...

On the Other Hand

Should it become absolutely necessary for me to eat my words, and ultimately vote for McCain because we need to make sure Faust, not Lucifer, makes it into the White House next year...

... at least let me cook 'em my way.

Stupor Tuesday

Well, the dust has settled and California has been counted. For interested parties (all two of you) here's how Uncle Woody fared in this primary:

President of the United States: McCain takes California. Nuts. Voted Romney.

Proposition 91: No - Good!
Proposition 92: No - Great!
Proposition 93: No - Hurrah!

Props 94 - 97: Yes - Drat.

Measure A (local issue for Yorba Linda and Placentia): Yes - Good.

Bottom line: With the results of California's gaming compacts (94 - 97) and McCain's win here, California simply has far too many gamblers living here for my taste.

Sheesh.

The Hugh Hewitt Contradiction

All throughout this campaign, Hugh Hewitt has been one of the leading voices in support of Mitt Romney. To that end, he has tirelessly pointed out the shortcomings of John McCain who now appears poised to capture and keep the GOP front-runner status.

Disturbing as McCain's victories are, there is an even more disturbing trend among the GOP faithful to believe that the party is somehow paramount to the principles for which it once stood. Here again, Hewitt serves as one of the significant voices in arguing for the sake of the party in November. Bad as McCain is, he argues, he deserves our full support lest the Democrats capture and hold the White House in this election.

But there is a moral problem with Hugh's arguments. Hewitt has done such a good job of documenting McCain's failings that those of us who now fully understand the man cannot in good conscience support him as President of the United States. Ever.

This is not a simple matter of taking our ball and quitting the game. I do not whine about what bad fortune we Romney supporters see in the race at this stage of the game, nor do I make this decision lightly. If the election truly boils down to a choice between McCain and either Obama or Clinton this fall, I will make good on my promise to write Mitt Romney's name in when I cast my vote.

There's a reason for this: Mitt Romney today represents the last (indeed, probably the only) chance for the Republican Party to stand up for what its base believes. To vote for McCain is to vote for a complete compromise of the principles that most concern me at this point in time. John McCain represents the worst in immigration reform. He has no (repeat, NO) economic credentials. His assault on political freedom of speech is inexcusable.

By the way, his status as "war hero" — which is unimpeachable — is not the reason why we should trust him to properly prosecute the war against terrorism. There are many war heroes in public office today, and many of them do not support the effort to win the war. McCain merely has the right ideas and has been unswerving in his support. This counts, however, as the only aspect of John McCain that I do support. When balanced against the other issues, McCain does not deserve, nor has he earned the right, to be the face of the Republican Party in this election.

Now Hugh is hedging his bets. Romney is officially struggling after a somewhat lackluster performance in the Super Tuesday contests (I did my part!), and Hugh is seeing the writing on the wall. McCain may not yet be "inevitable," but he is the front-runner and a force to be reckoned with leading up to the national convention. "Whoever the nominee is," opines the silver-haired wonder, "we need to unconditionally support him in November."

This from the man who has time and again pointed out the very reasons why a vote for McCain is a vote against my own conservative principles.

McCain, whatever he is saying today, has and will continue to betray the conservative base of the GOP. He cannot be allowed to sit in the President's chair while claiming to "unite the party." That phrase will prove to be the greatest political lie of a campaign rife with political lies in nearly every camp. I refuse to live that lie, as do many others who know and understand John McCain.

No, Mr. Hewitt, your argument is false and empty. If John McCain is the Republican nominee this fall, then perhaps the Republican Party deserves to lose — and lose big — in November. Perhaps we need another four years of watching the Democrats push an agenda of entitlement, socialism, and zero national security so we can awaken the Party to the harsher realities of a bi-polar nation.

Republicans have proven in the past that merely putting them in control is not enough. They refuse to learn their lessons, even when applied with a political 2x4. They fly in the face of the very conservatives who used to give the Party its distinctive flavor. Conservatism used to be the Party's defining characteristic. Now the Republicans are only distinguishable from the Democrats in their fights against abortion and terrorism. In nearly every other aspect of conservative thinking — including over-sized government — they have shown themselves far more likely to shake hands with their buddies across the aisle and ignore the voices of those who put them in office to begin with. These are not "Reagan conservatives."

When and if the GOP gets behind their conservative base and fronts a platform that defends, rather than compromises, our conservative principles, I will give them my support. Until then, they are still a long, long way from earning my vote.

Hewitt, of all people, should understand that.

P.S. Hugh, even your SCOTUS argument is flat: McCain has already shown contempt for at least one conservative voice on the bench today. Why on earth should we trust him to continue appointing conservatives? He wouldn't recognize one if they danced naked in front of him with "I AM CONSERVATIVE" tatooed on their chests.

Or maybe he would, and that truly is the problem.

Hey, California...!

Mrs. Woody and I have done our part. GO VOTE.

'Twas the Night Before (Super) Tuesday

I'm sitting here in my living room wondering what our political landscape will look like tomorrow night. I'd kind of like to stay up and see the results, as much out of a morbid fascination as of a desire to see who comes out on top. In any case, tomorrow is extremely important and, contrary to my previous thoughts on the matter, California could (finally!) be the spoiler it has always wanted to be.

California has, in essence, 54 separate presidential primary contests. Each district has a winner-take-all result, so it's still possible that any of our (so-called) Republican candidates could walk away with a hefty number of delegates from the Golden State.

For me, however, all of this is really just a numbers game. The numbers of delegates matter less to me than the ideas they represent. In other words, do the Republicans in these contests really want a "conservative" for whom to vote in November, or do they want John McCain?

More and more, as I read of McCain's duplicitous double-talk I fail to understand how any Republican can truly believe that this man will support more than 10% of the party's platform if he becomes the nominee. While McCain tells the Pavlovians what they need to hear so they'll begin salivating and throw their vote his way, his recorded history tells a vastly different story of the man who would "unite the Republican party."

He's beginning to talk as if he's "learned his lesson" on immigration. So let's assume, for a moment, that this is true. Perhaps McCain really has the seen the light on immigration and will close the borders while working toward setting appropriate caps on permanent stay visas. So tell me, PLEASE, how his buddy Juan Hernandez figures into all of this. Can anyone really believe that this "one region, no borders" panderer is advising his friend McCain to build that fence? Deport criminals who happen to be illegal aliens? Establish firm guidelines on acceptable immigration reform and enforce those guidelines?

I'm sorry, but this issue alone is dangerous and significant enough to me that I will never support McCain for president. I know Hugh Hewitt and others will be sorely disappointed with my refusal to get behind this man if he becomes the nominee, but I can't do it.

And I won't.

Romney, 2008. Even if I have to write his name on the ballot in November.

Hmm...

I don't normally throw in with conspiracy theories, but more and more it seems like the political establishment really, really want to put McCain up against Obama in November.

Or is it just me? Maybe it's time to start sweeping for bugs. And I don't mean the organic variety.

With Romney This Is Tacitly Understood

We come now to the crux of the problem that many of us on the right will have with John McCain. A seemingly insignificant thing, especially in today's society. To people of faith, however, it is an issue that should give us all pause when considering John McCain as a possible president of the nation.

The statement is the only one of its kind that I have seen attributed to McCain throughout this campaign. When asked about his chances on Super Tuesday, and whether he thinks he will capture the nomination on that day, he said:

“Do I think the race will be over on Tuesday? Not often do I ask for divine intercession, but I have asked for that. Yes,” he told reporters on a campaign flight to Chicago...

Throughout our history as a nation, presidents rise to greatness whenever they invoke the blessings of heaven. George Bush, whatever else people may think of him, has been a man of faith and recognizes the benefits of faith in the citizens of this nation. His faith has helped him weather a situation that no president should have to face — a direct attack on American soil by an implacable foreign enemy. His admittedly controversial "faith-based initiatives" have raised many eyebrows, but he has the right idea. When the people of the United States embrace the higher laws of heaven, they have an enriching influence on the nation as a whole. Not in wealth, per se, but in a higher standard of mutual welfare and respect. When we choose to ignore the higher law, we suffer accordingly.

To have McCain indicate that he doesn't "often ask for divine intercession" is a troubling thought. How will a President McCain handle the next national crisis? Will he seek for divine guidance and wisdom, or will he arrogantly assume that he and his advisors already have all the answers?

I would love to see this statement enlarged and amplified upon by the candidate. If I could somehow get a sense that he has at least some recognition of his own mortal limitations and a need for divine assistance, I might be tempted to give the man a second look.

But only if I could also see that happen without feeling that he was making such statements strictly out of political expedience. During an election year, voters can smell insincerity a mile away.

When RINOs Dance...

...conservatives get hurt.

Arnold the Governator wasn't going to endorse anyone in this primary. "It doesn't help me, and it doesn't help the state of California," he said. Ah, but that was back when pal Rudy Giuliani was still in the race. Now that Rudy has dropped out and thrown his support to McCain, Arnie appears to be ready to do the same.

I have noted before that Schwarzenegger's status as a Republican is ephemeral at best. He ran as a Republican, but he's really a centrist. In fact, on many issues — notably including support for huge government — the Governor is more of a right-leaning Democrat than a centrist Republican. Perhaps it was marrying into the Kennedy dynasty that started that slide, or perhaps he's always been there and sticks with the Republicans because he likes their money.

Whatever the case, this pending announcement should surprise no one. Schwarzenegger is a power player, and the higher up the contacts, the better he mingles. Rudy was Mayor of a near city-state, and there is mutual admiration there. McCain is a RINO who sees himself as this generation's Henry Clay. The more compromises he makes, the better the independents and left-leaning GOPers like him.

So where does this leave conservatives? Right where we've been left for several years now: fending for ourselves without a single high-powered crusader for our cause to act as our voice in the political arena. Seemingly we have that voice in Romney, but who will act as his second? Who among the Republican power elite is willing to pull for this relative outsider?

No one. Oh, he has his supporters, to be sure. Hugh Hewitt is doing his level best to sound Romney's trumpet at every opportunity. Conservative analysts and publications such as National Review are talking in terms of Romney being the only "real" conservative candidate we have in this field. But the influential endorsements and glad-handing have thus far eluded Romney.

This can be a dual-edged sword. While it doesn't help Romney to be largely ignored by powerful Republican voices, he does have one thing going for him in this race. He has kept up. Try as the mainstreamers might, they can only anoint McCain the "front-runner" by virtue of his lead in votes and delegates thus far. But they can't crown him. Not yet, and not by a long shot.

Romney and McCain have merely exchanged positions in the race so far. With Florida awarding all 57 of its delegates to McCain, the Arizona Maverick (Side note: anyone remember Ford's Maverick cars? Were they lousy, or what?) assumes roughly the same leading margin over Romney that Romney enjoyed over McCain until this past Tuesday. But that's not saying much at this stage of the race. Whether the lead is 50-something to 30-something, or 97 to 74 (CNN's numbers), we're still a long way off from the 1,191 needed to capture the nomination.

It comes to this: Romney will do well if those who consider themselves conservatives take a hard look at McCain's record. The man is no friend of the base. Yes, he may vote "conservative" 80% of the time, but on critical issues of immigration and the economy, McCain isn't even interested in throwing us a lifeline. He'd rather cut deals with his liberal buddies in Congress. So conservative Republicans need to do their best to keep this man from attaining any office higher than the one he currently possesses.

If anyone doubt's Schwarzenegger's RINO status, by the way, just look at the ballot initiatives he's supporting.

We are not impressed.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin compiled a sample of comments she's received from people who say they'd rather stay home or vote contrarian in the event of a McCain nomination. Not me. No, I don't plan to vote for McCain, but whatever happened to write-in ballots? That's still allowed in this country, isn't it? I'd much rather exercise my right to vote by writing in a viable candidate's name than toss that vote on the ground. I believe I said once that I'd even consider voting for the other side (this was in the event of a Huckabee nod), but I've come to my senses. Yes, I believe I like the write-in concept...

Conservatives to McCain: Shut Up, Sir

John McCain does not speak for conservatives, he speaks at them. We have long since stopped listening. Hence, his statement to AP that he is the "candidate who can unite the party" is the sort of self-deluded fantasy that this party can do without.

You may have won the delegates, but you did not capture a "unifying" amount of the vote. There's still a long battle ahead, and you've chosen to fight your base. What a waste of campaign breath.

On to February 5. Have your game on, McCain. You'll need it.

There's Flipping - and There's Flopping

This entire campaign has seen plenty of shifting views and "flip-flops." Romney's own abortion stance has shifted from a support of Roe v. Wade to a more pro-life position. He freely admits to having "evolved" his views, although his personal views of abortion have likely not changed. As a Latter-day Saint the sanctity of life is paramount, but it's a personal thing. The Church makes no official political statement on this issue other than to urge support for that sanctity. Romney, as a political creature, has had to walk that tightrope between what he knows to be true, and what the people he would represent want to be true. It's not an easy path, and there will be that inevitable moment when you need to define yourself in one camp or another. On an issue like abortion, there's little room (or forgiveness) for waffling. Romney has made his statements, and it now remains to be seen whether he will stay true to them. If not, political retribution will be swift.

Contrasting with this "definition" of Romney is McCain's own flip-flop on "benchmarks" for withdrawal from Iraq. No one, not even the more staunch supporters of the Iraq war and larger fight against terrorism, want the United States to stay in Iraq longer than is absolutely necessary. The primary disagreement, however, is over how best to extricate our troops from this highly volatile region. Some extremists want a timetable — now — that will begin bringing our troops home immediately. Other moderate voices want to establish measurements, or "benchmarks," that establish success criteria under which we can withdraw without thrusting Iraq into irretrievable chaos (as opposed to the potentially retrievable chaos that reigns today, I suppose).

Romney has made statements recently that indicate his support of the benchmark idea. He says — correctly — that such benchmarks should not be publicized as this gives the enemy a timeframe that they can then manipulate to their own advantage. As he loses traction in the polls, McCain has now seized upon this Romney position and placed it in his attack machine. Romney, he says, supports a defeatist position. Benchmarks, he claims, are akin to withdrawal timetables which means leaving Iraq before success is assured.

Unfortunately for McCain, he makes these statements in the age of instant information retrieval and fact-checking. Within hours of his attack on Romney, two things happened: First, Romney's campaign published an immediate rebuttal showing exactly what Romney means when he says "benchmarks," and how they cannot be misconstrued by any reasonable person as support for "timetables." McCain, however, is not a reasonable person, especially when his poll numbers are slipping in a critical state for his campaign. Secondly, fact-checking has been swift and unkind to McCain. Of primary interest is McCain's own alleged support for benchmarks as reported by azstarnet.com a year ago. While he hadn't yet decided just what those benchmarks should be, he did state that they should be "specific" and that Iraq government officials "would have to meet them."

Sounds like support for benchmarking to me.

So the issue here is not really about benchmarks in Iraq. The issue here is what happens to a candidate who needs to resort to such low-level attacks in order to bolster his poll numbers. At this point in the race, McCain needs a lot of bolstering. The base of the party to which he has attached himself has largely deserted him. Can anyone wonder why? Consider:

• His campaign director of "Hispanic Outreach" is an open borders panderer of the most dangerous sort. Dr. Juan Hernandez has no respect for the sovereignty of the United States, and openly advocates the elimination of borders of any kind. This does not sit well with Republican conservatives. Period.


• McCain's work with Ted Kennedy to ram amnesty down our collective throats means that he has alienated himself from conservatives forever. In fact, on this issue alone, as a Republican he makes a better Democrat. They can have him.


• Both McCain's "Gang of 14" and the disastrous McCain-Feingold legislation that makes a mockery of the First Amendment show McCain's willingness to kow-tow to the left side of the political spectrum. He can cloak it as "bipartisanship" all he wants. Bipartisanship is only valid in war, my friend, and is to be mistrusted in nearly all other instances.

McCain's campaign is struggling now, and it's precisely because many Republicans are trying to revive their conservative credentials. Today, more than ever before, there is a polarization between conservative and liberal voices. Those who claim centrist or moderate beliefs are more and more coming across as merely being willing to compromise their own beliefs in the name of political cooperation. There are still many of us who are unwilling to compromise those beliefs.

It may be too late for McCain to learn, or benefit, from this hardest of all political lessons.

Politics and the "Noble Argument"

I've mentioned the noble argument in politics before (see my discussion of Proposition 92 at that link). Just the other day we received our "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Ballot Proposition Voter Guide." It's actually written and backed by the California Republican Party, but Arnie is acting very "Republican" today, so his is the iconic image plastered on front.

He stands at a podium, surrounded by images of the Seal of the Great State of California. In the margin areas we see the California flag, images of the sea, hills, citrus fruit. A couple (very white, but what does that matter?) are obviously enjoying the bounties of California's natural wonders on a little day hike. And, of course, a highly visible admonition at the bottom to "Vote Tuesday, February 5th." Because, of course, what really matters is that people participate in the process.

The Governor himself is looking extremely noble. He stands as erect as an Olympian god, with a look on his face of a man who sees the far off future, and it is a glorious sight. This is what people like to refer to as a "presidential" look. "Arnie is looking very presidential today, isn't he?" is what people might be tempted to say when looking at this pamphlet.

And there, in large bold type, we see the same vision that Arnie is apparently seeing with that look:

"Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97 will give California more than $9 billion for public safety, education and other vital services without any additional taxes or any new debt. I urge you to join me in voting YES for California." [Emphasis apparently Arnie's]

That's a lot of noble argument in one sentence. But it reminds me of something. Wait a minute... it'll come to me... where have I heard this sort of thing before... ?

Oh, yes. I remember now. I see this in my email's SPAM folder all the time. "You can be rich if you'll only help me repatriate this money that belonged to some poor (I'm sorry, did I say "poor?" I meant "rich!") dead man in Nigeria!" And many a wise soul (including my Dad) raised me to believe that whenever something sounds too good to be true, it generally is.

With that expertise at hand, I decided to dig a little deeper into Arnie's claim. After all, $9 billion is a pretty huge chunk of change, and it would indeed help California solve a lot of problems. Nice of the Governor, really, to mention education in his nobility argument, since he's never repaid the $2 billion that he "borrowed" when he first took office several years ago. Or if he has, the teacher unions have certainly pretended that he hasn't. Anyway, I'm assuming that with $9 billion coming into state coffers, education would be the first to benefit from all this free money coming in from four or five (count' em!) tribes.

My quest begins — and ends, really — with the state's web site. Here we can find the information that they publish in our official voter information guides. Here's a sample that covers Proposition 97. Here is what the supposedly non-partisan Legislative Analyst (boy, wouldn't that be a fun job!) has to say regarding the "ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:"

• Net increase in annual state government revenues probably in the tens of millions of dollars, growing over time through 2030.
• For local governments in Riverside County, potential net increase of revenues due to economic growth and potential increased payments from the tribe to offset higher costs.

Hmm. "...tens of millions of dollars, growing over time..." Each of the four propositions have the same statement. "Tens of millions." Not "billions" — "tens of millions."

So it would appear that Governor Schwarzenegger's statement of $9 billion swelling the state's treasury may be just a shade overstated. In fact, if reports are correct, Schwarzenegger is referring to the gaming industry as a whole in California, not the state of California itself. From these reports and others, plus my own analysis of the propositions in question, California taxpayers may expect to see somewhere in the vicinity of $500 million in increased state revenue, plus whatever the local governments may expect to see from the increase in slot machines should these initiatives pass.

$500 million is a long, long way from the $9 billion Governor Schwarzenegger would have us believe we can expect to see. In a state that at one point had the world's 7th largest economy, $500 million is still pocket change. Yes, that money would help, but I still insist that these revenues must be offset by the costs associated with gambling that no one ever wants to discuss: the ruined lives of addicted gamblers and their families; the tribal members who get nothing — not one red cent, so to speak — from the tribe's revenues; not to mention perpetuating the idea that gambling is somehow not only acceptable, but also a desirable way to spend one's hard-earned money. Come on... dig deep. Can you honestly tell me how many of your gambling friends ever come home from the casinos more than a few dollars ahead of where they started? Me, neither.

There's more to the pamphlet (remember the pamphlet?) as well. This is an eight page, full color extravaganza complete with a tear-out "POCKET VOTER GUIDE" that will help you remember on February 5th to join Arnie in voting YES. Inside, we hear from taxpayers organizations, business leaders, and public safety associations that all happen to agree with the Governor. All of them, it goes without saying, stand to receive a chunk of that money. I suspect they're all happy to get whatever comes their way. Whether it's a piece of $9 billion or $500 million, it's still money.

Saddest of all for me is the endorsement of Tom McClintock, the most conservative voice in the California Senate. It tells me something I already knew but have long wanted to ignore in the hopes it would one day disappear. Conservative politicians are moving away from their long-held beliefs in smaller government. By endorsing this kind of socially destructive behavior merely to get their hands on a few million dollars, they have sold out on their implied promises to streamline government and decrease our need to spend hard-earned tax money. This, in my mind, is the ultimate betrayal of the Governor's message. Reading between the lines, here's what I see:

Join me on February 5th in voting for my ability to retain as much fiscal power as I can possibly muster so that I can finally deliver on some of the "noble" promises I've been making — and breaking — since running for this office several years ago.

Nice try, guys. Uncle Woody still votes NO on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97. You should, too.

A Troubling Report

Elder Bruce R. McConkie was a fearless defender of truth as an apostle of the Church. His ultimate testimony, given in General Conference shortly before his death of cancer, is unparalleled as to his witness of the Savior. Elder McConkie was also a gospel scholar of impressive lineage and learning. In General Conference of April, 1979, Elder McConkie gave a talk that impacted me deeply. The talk was titled "Stand Independent above All Other Creatures" and it gave Elder McConkie's views of the apocalyptic world immediately preceding the Second Coming. Among other things, Elder McConkie warned of "atomic holocausts that surely shall be."

To a young man who was on the cusp of adulthood and beginning his own family, while still attempting to control his childhood fears, this statement pierced my soul. It reminded me that our mortal existence is always tenuous. We likely knew exactly what dangers and challenges we would face here in this life while still safely ensconced with our heavenly parents in the pre-existence. Yet still we chose to come here, deal with the challenges, and ultimately return to live in glory with our Heavenly Father. That perspective, more than anything else, helps me deal with the horrors that this life presents on a continual basis. Natural disasters, murder (and worse), wars and rumors of wars, all tucked away in deep parts of my psyche so that I can concentrate on living the gospel. I crave world peace as much or more than any vacuous beauty pageant contestant, but I realize that "world peace" is a goal that will probably elude us until the Savior comes to reign in power and majesty.

That may sound somewhat defeatist, but I never use this worldy condition as an excuse to glory in war or war-mongering. I believe that conflict will exist so long as fanatics live on this earth. I further believe that we delude ourselves that the mantra of "can't we all just get along?" will ever resolve these increasingly global conflicts. I still hope for peace, and try my best not to further the conflict, but I also recognize the need to defend ourselves and our liberties to the best of our collective abilities.

Hence, you may understand my feelings at seeing this report as linked by Drudge today. Five former NATO senior officers, one each from the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom, have generated a proposed manifesto to help NATO redefine itself in the new century. Chief among its statements is the insistence that

a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world"

In other words, nuclear proliferation is not only real, but still a military and political hot-button. These men, one our former U. S. Chief of Staff, believe that our free-world military needs to keep this option open; actually use it on a hostile nation that threatens the same toward any of us.

To say that my old Cold War-era feelings have resurfaced suddenly would be an understatement. We still live under a threat that I once had allowed myself to believe had died with the Soviet Union. Yes, I knew that North Korea was still a loose cannon in the world. I quite agree that we can never take our eyes off of Pakistan. We should never get too cozy with the idea that Israel may develop its own arsenal. But the harshest of realities in today's world is that Iran — complete with its demogogue president — is now a player.

If my anecdotal memories are at all accurate, someone had once taught that if a nuclear holocaust comes, it would most likely be centered in the Middle East. You don't get much more "Middle" in that region than in Iran.

Heaven help us.