P.J. O'Rourke Plays Taps

One of the few reasons to read Rolling Stone during the '90s (when I read it religiously thinking it would turn me into Hunter S., when instead it turned me into someone who inexplicably owns a Live CD) was the work of P.J. O'Rourke. Smart, funny as hell, he was the main reason I loathed the Democrats during the '90s. In short, he gave me much early education in politics. When I stopped reading Rolling Stone, I stopped reading P.J. I don't even know if he writes for the Stone anymore, it has been that long since I picked one up. I digress.

From this week's Weekly Standard, Mr. O'Rourke on where conservatives went wrong. Very, very, funny. The man can still cut.

In how many ways did we fail conservatism? And who can count that high? Take just one example of our unconserved tendency to poke our noses into other people's business: abortion. Democracy--be it howsoever conservative--is a manifestation of the will of the people. We may argue with the people as a man may argue with his wife, but in the end we must submit to the fact of being married. Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy.

The real message of the conservative pro-life position is that we're in favor of living. We consider people--with a few obvious exceptions--to be assets. Liberals consider people to be nuisances. People are always needing more government resources to feed, house, and clothe them and to pick up the trash around their FEMA trailers and to make sure their self-esteem is high enough to join community organizers lobbying for more government resources.

If the citizenry insists that abortion remain legal--and, in a passive and conflicted way, the citizenry seems to be doing so--then give the issue a rest. Meanwhile we can, with the public's blessing, refuse to spend taxpayers' money on killing, circumscribe the timing and method of taking a human life, make sure parental consent is obtained when underage girls are involved, and tar and feather teenage boys and run them out of town on a rail. The law cannot be made identical with morality. Scan the list of the Ten Commandments and see how many could be enforced even by Rudy Giuliani.

God, P.J. How I wish you were on my side. Either way, it's good to read you again, and know you'll be sticking pins in the Democrats for the next eight years at least, which is what you do best.

Bringing Back Jim Crow

One of the most significant pieces of legislation passed by the Republican dominated government of 2002 was the (love the Rovian title) Help America Vote Act. The act made new requirements for state voter rolls. In reaction, important electoral college states like Ohio and Florida have thrown thousands of black voters off their rolls erroneously. Other states, like Indiana, now require photo ID to vote, a requirement which again disproportionately burdens the state's black voters. In all three cases, correcting these situation requires extraordinary patience. The New York Review of Books has a great piece explaining exactly how the black franchise came under attack during the last ten years.

For many years, the momentum was toward making the franchise universal. Property qualifications were ended; the poll tax was nullified; the voting age was lowered to eighteen. But now strong forces are at work to downsize the electorate, ostensibly to combat fraud and strip the rolls of voters who are ineligible for one reason or another. But the real effect is to make it harder for many black Americans to vote, largely because they are more vulnerable to challenges than other parts of the population.

During their reign at the beginning of the decade, the Republicans passed legislation which would game the system for them in future elections. The Republicans like to say that the Democrats are the party of lawyers. Well, why are the Republican using lawyers to take away the votes of Americans?

This election will be very close. In elections like these, every vote matters. Why does one party want to invalidate these votes? These are questions all responsible Americans should be asking.

Sarah Palin: Today's George Bush

Well, we certainly woke up to a new reality this morning. The Republicans jujitsued the anti-Bush zeitgeist, and today Sarah Palin is a rock star. Good for her! Her speech seems to have been unanimously well-received. The Republicans have their Obama. And from what I gather from her speech last night (full disclosure-I wouldn't watch the RNC convention ever, even if it guaranteed me 100,000 hits a day), McCain-Palin will make the rest of the campaign about 'likeability'.

Yes, the Republicans are about to make this an election for ' With Whom You'd Rather Have A Beer'. Again.

Tomorrow Museum has a great post on the oncoming culture war.

I don’t fear Palin is the female Quayle but potentially the female GWB: a weak leader nevertheless capable of getting elected for the likability factor, falling under the influence of the people surrounding her while moving up the ranks. Remember, Bush had “executive experience” as a governor of Texas before the presidency. And they share a speechwriter.

From the Washington Post: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and McCain campaign manager Rick Davis “suggest Palin would be able to handle foreign policy matters by leaning heavily on McCain’s staff.” You aren’t electing a person, you’re electing a party.

And finally...

It all comes back to Karl Rove’s remark, “Even if you never met him, you know this guy… He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

As Jon Stewart put it, “Doesn’t elite mean good?…This job you’re applying for — if you get it, and it goes well, they might carve your head in a mountain. If you don’t actually think you’re better than us than what the fuck are you doing?”

Why can't we elect the person who we believe will do the best job? I know I stated character is a big thing to me yesterday, and it is. But we're not talking about character here, we're talking about relatability. Jon Stewart is right-we're not electing a PTA president. Remember, this is how we ended up with W-even I got fooled. We can't let this happen again.

I guess I'm flummoxed. The Republicans have an Obama, and they are now going to run their Obama campaign. Issues will unfortunately be placed out the window.

Educate yourself, fellow voters. The campaign will now be about who you 'like'. Let's change that. We want real answers. You hear that, Obama and McCain camps? Let's have an issue campaign!

Please.