The Great, Great Grandfather of Conservatism

If Reagan was the father of modern conservatism, and Barry Goldwater was the grandfather, then William F. Buckley was it’s great, great grandfather. His activism and scholarship did more for American conservatism than perhaps any other non-politician in the twentieth century.

We lost Goldwater in 1998, Reagan in 2004, and now Buckley in 2008. As far as I see it, the last of the greats has died today.

While it is deeply saddening to know that these three giants of the American conservative movement have passed away, I am comforted by reflecting on how much these three were able to influence and shape the country’s political and intellectual atmosphere for the last half century.

I know that Buckley will continue to influence thought and politics in America for years to come. As Americans watch this November draw closer and closer with bitter apprehension or foolish excitement, Buckley’s words from 40 years ago are more pertinent and insightful than ever.

Watch both these videos (ignoring of course the second half of both featuring Gore Vidal), and marvel at the timelessness of Buckley’s assertions.

Scientific Consensus?

Here’s a new scientific consensus for you: all four major trackers of global temperatures, those being Hadley, NASA’s GISS, RSS, and UAH, have released new data that shows an incredible drop in global temperatures over the past year. Taken all together, the decrease in global temperatures is something between 0.65C and 0.75C.

Although to non “global warming” zealots this value may look miniscule, it is in fact large enough to undo all of the alleged warming that has taken place for the past 100 years. In fact, this is the most drastic global temperature change ever recorded in such a small interval.

Inevitably, the “global warming” dogmatists will scoff at this information. This is exactly the reason why the “global warming” enthusiasts of the 1990s have been (unsuccessfully) trying to spin their rhetoric as “climate change”. Because according to their twisted logic, any increase in global temperatures as well as any decrease in global temperatures represent a catastrophic symptom of an angry and vengeful Mother Earth. Oh, and let’s not forget that it’s all America’s fault. That’s the most important aspect of their ideology.

We’ve reached the point in this debate, or should I say lack of debate, where when temperatures inch up one year the Gore-heads shout, “See!?!?! We told you this would happen!”

Then when they inch down the following year, the Gore-heads shout, “See!?!?! We told you this would happen!”

Anyone who knows the first thing about climatology knows that global temperatures are fluctuating constantly. There have been enormous trends upward and enormous trends downward for thousands and thousands of years, indeed since the formation of the planet 4.5 billion years ago. They happen every single year.

Check out the graph of the past 20 years to see how pronounced the fluctuations in global climate are every year. There is no set global temperature, only a constantly changing value within a certain range.

“Global Cooling” was a crackpot theory popular in the 1970s, which apparently got some struggling scientists excited and some tree-huggers worried. Then the cooling trend reversed, and by the 1990s we were seeing a warming. So the new buzzword became “global warming”.

In 1998 the temperatures began falling again, and enviro-wackos were confused.

Convinced that their original misanthropically apocalyptic theory must have been correct, and desperate for a scientific basis for their left-wing ideology, the environmental movement began trying to use the phrase “climate change”. But most have not caught on to this new style of propagandizing, so everything we hear about in the media is about still about warming.
I wonder if the liberal mainstream media will catch on before science proves their bogus ideas wrong once and for all. After this new data has come out, get ready for more “climate change” as opposed to “global warming” rhetoric. Their obnoxiously misleading mediaspeak will only last them so long, I guess.

But, back to this new data. Some of you may be asking, “but why is the Earth getting cooler, and is this something to worry about?” The answer to both of these questions involves that big bright thing in the sky, the cause of just about everything that happens on Earth, the source of all life: the sun.

This is the most interesting aspect of this new data: it is linked with current solar activity. What’s more, anyone who has studied the topic or gotten a chance to see “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, knows that fluctuations in climate have an indisputable connection with solar activity. See this graph.

Global warming fans, please. Give up this foolish quest! Do not embarrass yourselves by trying to explain how C02, a greenhouse gas, has made the Earth cooler.

You need to convince people and governments to take care of the environment without resorting to blatantly false junk science. It will only hurt your cause in the future.

Global temperatures change constantly, and both upward and downward trends are explained beautifully by solar activity. CO2 offers a scientifically illegitimate explanation for warming, and in no way can it explain global cooling. End of story.

P.S. Read “Nobel Peace Dies” for further devastation of the theory of manmade global warming.

Warming to McCain?

 

 Well, two pieces of news have warmed my icy opinion of John McCain recently. Say it ain’t so. First, I got a huge kick of McCain’s  comment Tuesday about Obama…”I will work hard to make sure Americans aren’t deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change.”       Loved it. I couldn’t have said it better myself; Obama is nothing but eloquent emptiness. His tactics are disturbing, making grandiose promises after embellished platitudes while systematically avoiding any concrete policy suggestions. Not even a comprehensive ideological platform…just a host of positive “hope” statements tailored to make everyone think he’s a moderate leader.             You know, that’s how Hitler came to power as well. A nation of hopeless idiots rallying around a charismatic leader who promises nothing but paradise.  And, like Hitler, Obama is likely to throw the rule of law out the window and the United States Constitution with it.            I don’t know if invading Poland is going to be included in his first 100 days, but giving away half of Iraq and a nuclear arsenal to Iran sure will be. OH, and let’s not forget his planned invasion of Pakistan.  

 

          

 

 Item number 2. The New York Times has finally turned their back on McCain. They’ve opted to run the story tomorrow, which Drudge let us know about in December, about this phony oldperson drama about McCain being romantically involved with some middle-aged lobbyist.

 

Even if we ignore that this doggdamn story is a decade old, I doubt anyone will be able to discover any true scandal here. What is this article even about?

 

Although, back in December McCain seemed pretty peeved by it. So maybe I’m missing something. Let me know.  

 

Point is, he’s no longer the darling of the mainstream media. And that scores major points in my book.  

The Democrats’ Crap

 

  Well, I’ve had it. I’m done talking about the sorry state of the Republican Party, at least for now. Ann Coulter’s column last week sure makes the idea tempting. But one needs to look no further than the stupid ruckus going on with Hillary and Obama to feel proud to be a Republican.   First off, you’ve got the Clinton crew hurling wild accusations of plagiarism at Obama. It turns out Obama hasn’t been plagiarizing Dr. King ["With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope"] or JFK ["this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers"] all this time.    What was actually happening was Obama was stealing a section of a speech from Deval Patrick, who was stealing quotes from Dr. King and Kennedy to give himself a little pizazz. (In case you don’t know, Patrick is the no good governor of my surrogate home state of Massachusetts, a.k.a the Democrat who took over after Romney.)  But as it turns out, Obama and Patrick are friends, so it’s all good for Obamaphiles.  No one seems to notice that to begin with Obama has stolen his silly rhetoric from two of the most notable and influential American leaders of the 1960s.   And by now it’s just degenerated into a childish back and forth, as Obama accuses back Clinton for taking his phrases. I know that you’re relatively inexperienced in real politics Hillary, and I know you’ve never done anything remotely like this Barack, but grow the hell up. 

 

In any event, then you’ve got Bill Clinton continuing to fly off the handle, with his continuously truculent support of his wife’s campaign. He apparently got all “irate” and allegedly hit some idiot Obama supporter in the face.   The Clintons of course deny any physical contact, but their word is about as good as…well, as Bill Clinton under oath. On the other hand, I don’t believe the moron shooting his mouth off for Obama, so its kind of a tossup.  

 

Then to top it all off yesterday, there was the ridiculous comment by Michelle Obama that she hasn’t been proud of her country until her husband started running for president. I’m not even going to begin on the idiocy of this comment…here’s Jonathan V. Last from the Weekly Standard:

Do these comments provide a glimpse of her general political worldview–one that is surprisingly critical of America for the wife of a presidential candidate? Or do they suggest a certain narcissism about the Obamas and their view of themselves? Or both?           

And J-Pod at Commentary:

It suggests, first, that the pseudo-messianic nature of the Obama candidacy is very much a part of the way the Obamas themselves are feeling about it these days. If they don’t get a hold of themselves, the family vanity is going to swell up to the size of Phileas Fogg’s hot-air balloon and send the two of them soaring to heights of self-congratulatory solipsism that we’ve never seen before.Second, it suggests the Obama campaign really does have its roots in New Class leftism, according to which patriotism is not only the last refuge of a scoundrel, but the first refuge as well — that America is not fundamentally good but flawed, but rather fundamentally flawed and only occasionally good. There’s something for John McCain to work with here.     

Both writers conclude that her impressive biography alone should make her proud of her country. But apparently not, apparently she feels that she owes 0% of her success to living in the greatest country in the world. What a nice attitude for a potential First Lady.     Leave it to the Democrats to make Republicans look cool and collected right now.  

Jonah Goldberg on McCain and Bush

Jonah Goldberg’s commentary is always accurate, succinct, and insightful. He had a good article this past week in USA Today: Should Conservatives Back Mac? Needless to say, I thought the article was interesting. He presents a strong case for why conservatives should back McCain, but I think it deserves some dissecting.

 

Goldberg’s overall point is that conservatives who continue to criticize and oppose McCain’s nomination are really just frustrated with the last eight years of Bush , and are taking out that frustration out on McCain. About this he’s right, but the fact of the matter is that Bush-fatigue is a good reason to oppose McCain, not a bad one. 

 

Basically, you’ve got amnesty for illegals, uncertainty on judges, big government, and McCain-Feingold. Goldberg is largely right; McCain’s faults are almost identical to Bush’s faults.But this is precisely the whole point of opposing McCain! What conservative can truly say that they are 100% satisfied with Bush in all areas of his policy? I venture to say, none! 

 

Taken on the whole, Bush has been excellent in certain areas, and just terrible in others. So why shouldn’t conservatives oppose a candidate with at least as many faults as Bush? Defend another semi-conservative for president because we’ve had to grit-and-bear through eight years of another semi-conservative? This doesn’t make sense. 

 

How about conservatives start electing conservatives for once? Why do we keep electing semi-conservatives that inevitably put real conservatives into a position where we’re defending and apologizing for them constantly? Yes, conservatives are sick of defending Bush for being an incompetent liberal. So why would they elect another Bush, who is going to need the same tiresome defending? 

 

The Republican Party keeps making the same mistake over and over again. The “moderate, experienced” George H.W. Bush defeated by Clinton in 1992. The “electable war-hero” Bob Dole defeated by Clinton in 1992. The “compassionate conservative” George W. Bush is somehow elected twice, but brings the above mentioned liberal policies with him. 

 

And now we’ve done it again.The “electable-experienced-war-hero-compassionate-conservative” McCain. Even if he does win the presidency, it’s going to be more of the same. And conservatives don’t want more of the same, they want someone conservative. Conservatives believe that liberals, moderates, semi-conservatives, and the like simply don’t have the answers our country needs. They just don’t. 

 

I don’t know what any of this means, I remain torn about the whole thing. All I know is that in a few years, regardless of who’s in the White House, conservatives and most Republicans are going to be regretting what happened this primary.

…

The McCain Dilemma, The Hillary Question

Conservatives stand at a crossroads with the nomination of John McCain. Discussions about ideological purity and the nature of Republican party politics abound. And as my disappointment with Romney’s withdrawal from the race fades, things are becoming a bit clearer.

I as well as many others have stated numerous times that the case against McCain is strong. It’s practically bullet proof, save his war-hero status and support for the troop surge in Iraq. The multitude of reasons why McCain is a bad candidate don’t need to be repeated further.

Most conservatives concede this, but support McCain anyway; he’s our candidate, and a Hillary or Obama presidency is simply not an option. He’s bad, but at least he’s not as bad as either of the Democrats.

Yet, there is still a lot of sentiment on the right that he’s not even supportable. He’s so bad, some contend, that once elected he will destroy the “Reagan coalition”, fracture it, and end up pulling the Republican Party left. Many conservatives think he just can’t be trusted. Not no way, not no how.

Conservatives of this opinion see two options. Ann Coulter lays them out in her usual up-front and suggestive manner.

If Hillary is elected president, we’ll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. (I also predict more Oval Office incidents with female interns.)

If McCain is elected president, we’ll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by “our” president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule.

There’s your choice, America.

It’s a rock and a hard place, to say the least. I don’t know which decision is worse. But basically, it comes down to a few core issues.

Iraq. If we are to believe that Hillary and Obama are actually serious about pulling all the troops out of Iraq immediately, then conservatives need to vote for McCain. No degree of ideological purity is worth the disaster that precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would cause.

However, I would caution conservatives against being too presumptive about Hillary on this issue. Running in a Democratic Primary, sure they are saying that they disagree with the Iraq War and want the troops back home (blah blah blah). Otherwise, they’d be kicked out of the party like Joe Lieberman was.

But what a politician says during a primary and what they do during their presidency are likely to be two very different things (which of course is the whole problem with McCain). This, I think, would be especially true for Hillary; the Clintons are known for their savvy political maneuvering as well as their straight-up lying.

Hillary voted for the war, voted for the aggressive resolution against Iran, and has the foreign policy experience that Obama doesn’t. Even if she was just living in the White House, she was still the First Lady while Obama was busy getting high.

P.S. Thinking back to the Clinton administration, how many times did we bomb the Middle East again? Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan…

So I don’t know about Hillary. Maybe she wouldn’t pull the troops out because she has half a brain to know what would happen in the region if we did. Obama probably would though, because he’s a young, left-wing, inexperienced, idealist who has such terrible comprehension of international politics right now that he thinks it’d be appropriate for the US to invade Pakistan.

The question to ask yourself: are we justified in assuming that Hillary will be as unacceptable in foreign policy as is commonly thought?

Immigration. Probably more than in any other issue of major importance, McCain is a liberal on immigration. With a Democratic congress, he’d have absolutely no reason not to pass his bizarre “z-visa” legislation. Hillary and Obama are equally liberal.

Or are they?

Check this out at Slate. I found it on Ann Coulter’s blog, with the heading, “Corporate Amnesty Advocates Support McCain and Obama”…

American Apparel, giant L.A.-based maker of mostly crappy t-shirts, has apparently sent an email to its employees urging them to vote for McCain or Obama because Hillary has shown an insufficient “committment” to immigrant legalization …

Next question to ask yourself: are we justified in assuming that Hillary will be worse or as bad as McCain and Obama on immigration?

Judges. The third topic to be closely considered is appointees to the Supreme Court. It goes without saying that both Hillary and Obama would appoint Bader-Ginsburgs to the SCOTUS.

But who is McCain going to nominate? John “Gang of 14″ McCain. John “Alito-is-too-conservative-for-me” McCain. Just picture McCain dealing with a Democratic Senate a few years from now when there’s a vacancy. I somehow doubt we’re going to get an Alito or a Roberts.

Last question to ask yourself: are we justified in thinking McCain will nominate anything but Souters and O’Conners?

If you answered yes to those three questions, vote for McCain.

If you answered no to those three questions, vote for Hillary or the libertarian candidate.

Mitt Romney, Stepping Aside

Needless to say, I was devastated today when I read on Drudge around noon that Romney was about to announce at CPAC that he was suspending his campaign. I mean, I knew that he wasn’t going to get the nomination; Super Tuesday showed that McCain’s incomprehensible momentum was as unstoppable as conservatives have feared.

However, I was hoping that he’d stay in the race to send a message to conservatives, and to all voters, that he was not going to give up because he is the only conservative running. That the Republican Party still had a strong conservative voice nationally. (Notice, that bum Huckabee is promising to stick around, why, nobody knows).

But he didn’t stay in, and interestingly enough he didn’t for the right reasons. In his speech to CPAC earlier today, he said:

You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976. Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

Now, I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, and finding and executing Osama bin Laden. And I agree with him on eliminating Al Qaida and terror worldwide.

Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention…I want you to know, I’ve given this a lot of thought — I’d forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I’d make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This isn’t an easy decision. I hate to lose.

My family, my friends, you, my supporters across the country, you’ve given a great deal to get me to where I have a shot to becoming president. If this were only about me, I’d go on. But it’s never been only about me.

I entered this race — I entered this race because I love America. And because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country.

In probably his best speech since he started running for the nomination, Romney touched on every major issue that America was facing, and invoked the conservative principles needed to solve them. The impassioned speech should have once and for all shut up Mitt-critics that have called him phony, plastic, and deceptive.

As Kathryn Jean Lopez and Mark Halperin have noted, if Romney made this speech sooner perhaps he’d have gotten the nomination.

But he didn’t and he won’t, and conservatives are going to have to accept that fact this election cycle. Including me. But that doesn’t mean that McCain is suddenly a great candidate, a good candidate, or necessarily an acceptable candidate. I won’t even pretend that at this point I’m ready to morph into a McCain supporter (as many conservatives I know have).

The best thing I’ve read about Romney graciously and responsibly stepping out came from Hugh Hewitt:

Forty years later Mitt Romney’s campaign did take off, came very close to success but fell short, and unlike George Romney’s campaign then, Mitt Romney’s campaign of the last 14 months is really an opening act for a role in the leadership fo the GOP that will continue for years to come, and Senator McCain will almost certainly look for help from the Romneyroots as the GOP will this year and in the years ahead…

…There is one great similarity between the Romneys’ campaign then and today though, which is far more significant than the differences including the sad ones: Those who know, endorsed, contributed to and worked on behalf of George and Mitt Romney are extraordinarily proud to have done so, as I am, and will remain.

This primary was exciting, unpredictable, and will be influential on the party for decades to come. If you had told someone a year ago that McCain would lock up the nomination two days after Super Tuesday, with Romney suspending his campaign after making the greatest speech of his run…I don’t know, you’d sound like an idiot. But, politics are like that sometimes, and Romney supporters will have to accept that.

 

But it’s going to take me a little while.

 

I’ll never forget how proud Mitt Romney has made me to be a conservative in the 21st century, and how inspiring his campaign has been to me over the past year. Most of all, Mitt Romney has left me hopeful for the future. While it may not be possible to bring conservative change to Washington in 2009, 2012 may just be the new beginning we’ve been hoping for.

 

McCain, Bush, Reagan, and judges

I was reading over National Review’s blog The Corner, and Victor Davis Hanson provided probably the best single defense of McCain with one single sentence:

“I think McCain would be far better than Obama or Clinton, maybe not as good as Bush’s two, but perhaps better than two of Reagan’s three.”

More Hanson on McCain.

If you worship Hanson like I do, then his words will carry some weight.

But, that doesn’t make me a McCain supporter by a long shot. I still think that his nomination means the fall of the American two-party republic. He and Hillary are so similar they may as well just run together and form the Democratic Republican Party. Their symbol can be an elephant with a Stalin mustache. Or I dunno, a donkey with a Hitler mustache.

Super Bluesday

Well, surely every conservative in the country is feeling a little blue today. The tax-and-spend amnesty liberals of the Republican Party were the big winners last night, and the only true conservative running for president didn’t preform like he should have in California.

But, Romney’s speech last night was excellent. It left me feeling inspired and hopeful about the future.

McCain’s speech on the other hand, was bland and hollow. All he talked about was how great he was, how great his campaign has been doing, and thanked his family. Snooze.

Romney talked about the grave, looming issues that candidates for the presidency should be talking about, like immigration, the economy, social security, terrorism, etc. It’s not a coincidence that Romney happens to have the answers to these problems and the conservative record to back it up, while McCain has neither the answers nor a conservative record to speak of.

If I were McCain, I’d avoid the salient issues too.

The terrible weather outside (at least where I am, in Massachusetts) doesn’t help.