Recently in Republicans Category

John McCain has announced his choice for Vice-President. Sarah Palin is McCain's choice for the next president of the United States should something happen to him while in office.

Media outlets are buzzing with stories about McCain's interesting and unexpected nominee choice - here is a quick trip around the horn on McCain-Palin 08:

The Trumpet Resounds

Tim Grieve and Jonathan Martin give voters unfamiliar with Sarah Palin a quick history of the Republican governor from Alaska.

Trumpeting from the Left

Comparing her to Dan Quayle, Kos celebrates the end of an election about "experience," "Obama is not ready to lead" attack lines. Those are dead... Palin is also a an ideologue, on choice, on the environment, on energy -- all the way down the line. This an ideological pick...McCain has abandoned any notion of playing for the center. He's looking to shore up his right flank and hoping that the Evangelical Right can somehow drag McCain over the line."

Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo echoes Kos line about experience adding that Palin enters the race with baggage that could weigh McCain's campaign down. "It's a daring pick but I think a very weak pick. I'm perfectly happy with it. Palin is in the midst of a reasonably serious scandal in her home state. Her brother-in-law is a state trooper who is in the midst of an ugly custody battle with her sister. And she's accused of getting the state police to fire him."

Clinton campaign adviser Howard Wolfson notes the stinging question: "... you are going to have a lot of women voters wondering why Senator Obama didn't tap Senator Clinton as his running mate.

Trumpeting from the Middle

Jonathan Martin gives the upsides and downsides of a Palin pick. Upside: "Palin is a strong conservative, opposing abortion rights and enjoying a life membership in the NRA." Downside: "She has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. She's also entirely untested on the national political stage."

Klause Marre at The Hill believes that Palin is a "high-risk, high-reward" candidate. It works to her benefit that she is outside the Beltway (way outside the Beltway) but she disagrees with McCain on ANWAR and supports drilling in that region.

Trumpeting from the Right

Fred Barnes gives a celebratory narrative of the relatively unknown governor. According to Barnes, Palin was the star born in the 2006 dark night of conservative politics: "The triumph came in Alaska where Sarah Palin, a politician of eye-popping integrity, was elected governor. She is now the most popular governor in America, with an approval rating in the 90s, and probably the most popular public official in any state. Her rise is a great (and rare) story of how adherence to principle--especially to transparency and accountability in government--can produce political success."

Katherine Jean Lopez at National Review poignantly notes that any charge of inexperience leveled against vice-presidential pick Palin can be reflected back to Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama. The media is in a quandary. Lopez seems happy with the tap saying, "That's what authentic authenticity looks like."

Michelle Malkin is "impressed. Very impressed." She is tracking responses from the right.

Blowing My Own Horn

I agree with the buzz that McCain's pick re-affirms his reputation as a maverick.

I am concerned that Palin does not bring many (if any) key battleground states such as Colorado or Michigan firmly into the McCain camp which would have happened in the event of a Romney or Pawlenty nod. However, I do not resonate with celebration on the Left about the death of the "experience" attack line.

Defined by experience, clearly there is a mentor/mentee relationship occurring on both tickets. However, the Republicans are not running their mentee as the presidential candidate. The vice-presidency has traditionally been understood as a preparatory role for the presidency. Therefore, it seems appropriate that John McCain would choose to groom a young, conservative star for the presidency by tapping her to be his VP nominee.

One final thought which I have not seen in the blogosphere as of yet. I am energized. I am a young, evangelical, conservative voter and I did not expect to be so energized by McCain's vice-presidential choice. However, Palin is a woman who has a right philosophy of life and family issues. She glows with the kind of youthful authenticity that gave the pre-Rezko Obama his appeal. She fights oil companies where it makes sense to do so but does not bow before the altar of those who forget that nature is ours to steward, not worship.

I am energized. My conservative friends who are politically savvy are energized. People unfamiliar with her who find out about her story and her political philosophy become energized. Wake up Republicans, wake up conservative evangelicals, it is a new day.

The Longest Two Months-- While it seems like an eternity has passed, the Iowa Caucus was only 60 days ago. Fortunately this is the last of the significant primaries and the race has been decided on one side and all but determined on the other.

Congrats to McCain -- If winning makes you look smarter, then campaign manager Rick Davis appears to be a genius. He laid out McCain's Path to Victory in December and found a way to make it a reality.

Thanks, Governor Huckabee -- I have many reasons to be thankful for Governor Huckabee's inspiring Presidential run. But there are three other groups who should also be grateful for Mike Huckabee: social conservatives who lacked a voice in the primaries, supporters of John McCain, and Republicans.

If the Republican's hold the White House next year, Huckabee will deserve partial credit. By winning in Iowa, Huckabee derailed Romney's campaign and prevented the Massachusetts Governor's long march toward an inevitable electoral debacle. Huckabee also managed to keep many conservative evangelicals and other members of the traditionalist wing of the party engaged in the race. Their support for McCain may be listless, but Huckabee gave them hope that it may be too soon to give up on the GOP.

An Inevitable Obamination? Maybe Not. -- After the Florida primary I wrote, "An Obama/Anyone ticket would be a disaster for McCain." I still pessimistic enough to believe that it's likely, though I'm hopeful that the abomination of an Obama presidency is not yet inevitable. I'm even starting to see signs that such a disaster may be averted. The reason: people are starting to listen to what Obama says.

Take, for instance, his NAFTA-bashing which has caused our neighbors to the north to worried about the "rhetoric of protectionism." Even Andrew Sullivan, who swoons at the mention of Obama, said the NAFTA pander was "Not his finest hour." (Yes it's a tepid response and yes we all know that if Obama wins that Sullivan will spend the next four years regretting his support (as he did with Bush), but still, any relenting from his incessant Obamafawning is a huge concession.)

Obama has an uncanny ability to inspire in people an audacious hope for the impossible (Example: "The philosophy guy said that he almost always votes for Republican, but he's for Obama this time, although he can't quite explain why. His hope is that Obama will govern like a Republican.") But I'm hopeful that such people will set aside such nonsense and eventually realize that while Obama sounds like a cross between Cicero and The Rock, what he's saying is nothing more than rehashed discredited liberalism.

Rush to Idiocy -- So Rush Limbaugh is urging people to vote for Hillary. Hugh Hewitt is aghast ("If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?") but I can't say that I'm really surprised. Rush is an entertainer and for all the hype about his ratings, his audience isn't that large by show business standards (he has half the audience of Fox's reality show Moment of Truth). He needs a Clinton presidency to remain relevant and give people a reason to tune in to his daily gasbaggery.

Still, I refuse to believe it worked. I refuse to believe that Republicans in Ohio and Texas are voting for Hillary in the primary because some radio clown told them it was the optimal strategy. I refuse to believe it because (a) the fact that McCain is the nominee shows that Rush is not that influential and (b) Republicans can't be that stupid. (While I'm certain about (a) could I be wrong about (b)?)

I agree with Lars Walker: "It seems to me that if you love this country you've got to hold the electoral process in a kind of reverence. The fact that there are cynical people out there who game the system doesn't justify us, the people who say we believe in moral absolutes, in pretending to belong to a different party so we can sabotage its nomination process. If they did it to us, I'd be angry about it."

Say it ain't so, Republicans; say you didn't stoop that low.

The Most Significant Number -- In 2004, Ohio proved to be the key state for President Bush's reelection victory. In a tight race, Bush beat John Kerry in the Buckeye State by 118,457 votes. So how does it look four years later? With 81% of the precincts in Ohio reporting, the Democratic candidates received 1,745,199 votes while the Republicans received less than half that amount -- 867,000.

If the GOP is relying on a victory in Ohio to shift the Red-Blue divide toward McCain then we're in serious trouble.

According to the reports coming out of the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference, Rudy Giuliani drew "huge crowds" and was treated like a "rock star." I find this disconcerting. Are the people attending CPAC completely unaware of Giuliani's positions? If so they need to watch this video:

Supported Roe, gun control, illegal immigration, partial-birth abortion, gay rights, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, McCain-Feingold. At the end of this video he even jokes that he'd like to run "on the Democratic line." Since his positions match up so well to the Democrat's platform, he could -- and he'd probably win.

[Note: Since I’m on the road tonight, I’ve decided to recycle this post from December 2004. Although it is twenty months old, it is even more relevant today than when I originally wrote it.]

During the 1992 election season I lived in Washington D.C., surrounded by the constant buzz of political discussion. Although no one could talk about anything else, many people were unenthused about the choice between the lackluster incumbent President and the womanizing governor from Arkansas.

Knowing I was from Texas, a friend confided that she was considering supporting the intriguing third party candidate from my home state -- Ross Perot. She admitted that while she didn’t know much about where he stood on the issues she found him intriguing and wondered what I knew about him.

“He’s an incredibly fascinating man,” I admitted. “And completely out of his mind.”

Within a few weeks my friend joined many others in wondering why they every took the Dallas businessman seriously. Perot’s considerable business acumen and leadership ability, while admirable, couldn’t translate into the realm of executive branch politics. I suspect that a similar reaction will soon be coming over Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain, of course, is no Ross Perot. But he’s close.

McCain’s life story is undoubtedly one of the most incredible of our time. After being shot down over Vietnam, the Admiral’s son suffered seven years in a POW camp, an experience that helped transform him from a playboy Naval aviator to a nationally admired politician. His natural charisma charmed many during his 2000 primary run and the “Straight Talk Express”, a campaign name derived from his media-friendly campaign bus, endeared him to many in the press and made the “maverick senator” a favorite even among those prone to despise Republican politicians.

Even though the Inauguration for the last election is still a month away, McCain is already considered a serious frontrunner for 2008:

[Note: My friends at In the Agora have declared today "Breaking the 11th," in honor of Ronald Reagan's famous 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican." As they point out, "Of course, Reagan himself often broke this rule, with good reason, and so shall we." "Breaking the 11th" is a day for us to rise up and hold Republicans accountable for not upholding the principles we claim to value. In honor of the holiday (and with apologies to Eliza Kazan) I am "naming names": expressing my displeasure with certain key Republican leaders.]

In the past weeks intolerable rumors about my political position have been circulating in the blogosphere. I want to make my stand clear:

I believe that Republican activities confront the people of this country with an unprecedented and exceptionally tough problem. That is, how to protect ourselves from a dangerous and alien conspiracy and still keep the free, open, healthy way of life that gives us self-respect.

I believe that the American people can solve this problem wisely only if they have the facts about the GOP. All the facts. Now, I believe that any American who is in possession of such facts has the obligation to make them known, either to the public or to the appropriate Government agency.

Whatever hysteria exists--and there is some, particularly in the blogosphere--is inflamed by mystery, suspicion and secrecy. Hard and exact facts will cool it.

The opinions I have are sixteen weeks out of date, but they supply a small piece of background to the graver picture of Republicanism today. I have placed these opinions before the House Committee on Un-American Activities without reserve and I now place them before the public and before my peers in the blogosphere:

While it initially began in the early 1980's, for the past several years there has been an increasing concern in America that the term evangelical has become synonymous with being a Republican. I've tried to understand why some people have formed this impression. I've listened to their worries and given serious thought to how they could have developed this misperception. I've come to the conclusion that the reason many people believe that being a conservative Christian means marching in lockstep with the GOP is that many conservative Christians march in lockstep with the GOP.

Mark Byron has found a particularly egregious example of this mindset. In a recent interview on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Pat Robertson, the voice of evangelicalism, was asked to represent our views on the next presidential election:

Stephanopoulos: If the party chooses a moderate like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, do you think religious conservatives will split off and form a third-party movement?"

Robertson: "I don't think so. Rudy's a very good friend of mine, and he did a super job running the City of New York. And I think he'd make a good president. I like him a lot. Although he doesn't share all of my particular points of view on social issues, he's a very dedicated Catholic. And he's a great guy. McCain, I'd vote against under any circumstance"

While I wish we could simple dismiss this as another of Rev. Robertson's pearls of wisdom, some people actually believe that he's a serious representative of evangelical politics. Take, for instance, Jon Avlon, a columnist for the New York Sun and blogger at Real Clear Politics, who writes:

During the 1992 election season I lived in Washington D.C., surrounded by the constant buzz of political discussion. Although no one could talk about anything else, many people were unenthused about the choice between the lackluster incumbent President and the womanizing governor from Arkansas.

Knowing I was from Texas, a friend confided that she was considering supporting the intriguing third party candidate from my home state -- Ross Perot. She admitted that while she didn’t know much about where he stood on the issues she found him intriguing and wondered what I knew about him.

“He’s an incredibly fascinating man,” I admitted. “And completely out of his mind.”

Within a few weeks my friend joined many others in wondering why they every took the Dallas businessman seriously. Perot’s considerable business acumen and leadership ability, while admirable, couldn’t translate into the realm of executive branch politics. I suspect that a similar reaction will soon be coming over Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain, of course, is no Ross Perot. But he’s close.

McCain’s life story is undoubtedly one of the most incredible of our time. After being shot down over Vietnam, the Admiral’s son suffered seven years in a POW camp, an experience that helped transform him from a playboy Naval aviator to a nationally admired politician. His natural charisma charmed many during his 2000 primary run and the “Straight Talk Express”, a campaign name derived from his media-friendly campaign bus, endeared him to many in the press and made the “maverick senator” a favorite even among those prone to despise Republican politicians.

Even though the Inauguration for the last election is still a month away, McCain is already considered a serious frontrunner for 2008:

While reading Power Line I discovered that a reader named Michael Wuflestad sent them the following email:

Help, I searched your site, NRO's, Hewitt's, Joe Carter's (the evangelical outpost) for at least the lock-step GOP spin on DeLay's pardon-the-pun "pardon" in burying the Rostenkowski's indictment rules. The silence is deafening.

While I consider it an honor to be mentioned in the same league as NRO, Hugh, and the PL crew, I don't think it's surprising that I didn’t provide the “lock-step GOP spin” on the issue. Though I consider myself to be a Republican “fellow-traveler” I’m not on their payroll and hence do not feel the need to provide spin for any particular issue. [Note to the GOP: If you would like to hire me as a spin-doctor, send me an email. I work cheap.]

But since Mr. Wuflestad asked, here’s my take on the issue: the rule change was a silly idea.

I should probably clarify, however, that I’m not referring to the recent change but to the original moral grandstanding that caused the Republicans to decide that anyone who was indicted for a crime could not retain their position in the House leadership.

John Mark Reynolds*, the founder and director of the Torrey Honors Institute, and Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Biola University, has an open letter for “libertine Republicans”:

For years we have suffered from having you say that the "religious right" costs the GOP votes. Turns of that the religious right controls several hundred electoral votes. Secularists, libertarians, and others make up about ten percent of the population. You cannot win an election with Western Washington, Western Oregon, and a few other areas. Your organizations have little money and no "moms in sneakers" doing the hard work of campaigns. What you have had is a smarmy sense of academic superiority unjustified by actual arguments.

We are now about to win an election without you. You have turned on Bush, worried about him. We love him and are about to turn out eighty percent of our millions for him. When Bush wins, it will be the cultural issues which have pulled him through in places like West Virginia and Ohio. If we had listened to you, then Bush would have lost, big time. In fact, your sensible economic views are only heard, because the academic portion of the religious right takes you seriously.

…

God gave you the right to sin. He is the judge. We won't take that away from the Andrew Sullivans of the world. That is where American Christians differ from the Bin Ladens. We are happy to work with you, but you have to realize that we are on to you. Best reason and best experience are on our side. We are glad you are in our party, but it will always be pro-life, pro-family, and for God and country. That turns out to be the majority position. We are happy to help you with your economic goals.

Read the whole thing. And if you’re a liberal Republican or Karl Rove, you might want to pay attention.

[Note: One small quibble I have is with the idea that there are Republicans in Western Washington. I lived there for three years while on recruiting duty and can’t recall ever meeting another Republican, much less a conservative. The place is so cluelessly-leftist that when I wore my dress blue uniform for a visit to Evergreen State College I was mistaken for a Canadian Mountie.]

*Dr. Reynolds will soon be profiled in the “Know Your Evangelicals" series.

After Gov. Schwarzenegger's incredible speech tonight at the Republican National Convention, I thought it was fitting to update this prophetic post from February:

The stages in the regress to barbarianism…

When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 I was outraged. Reagan wasn’t just a Republican (which would have been bad enough), he was a conservative Republican. That made him even worse than the despicable and hated Richard Nixon. When I heard the election results I was shocked. I couldn’t believe so many Americans were stupid enough to choose this mean old geezer over the kind, sprightly President with whom I shared a last name.

At the time, I couldn't have explained why I held these views. In '81 I was only twelve years old and wasn’t fully aware of why the new President warranted such derision. But I took my cues from my family of yellow-dog Democrats who scoffed at the mere mention of Reagan. They scoffed, so I scoffed too. In fact, I spent the next eight years, from grade school to college, mocking the “amiable dunce" completely unaware of what I was missing.

I didn’t know at the time that this “crazed loon" with his finger on “The Button" was, in reality, the person mainly responsible for keeping a Soviet nuke from landing on my trailer park.

I didn’t know that his ludicrous “Reaganomics" was the reason that my working class family was able to move from the edge of poverty to a solid lower middle-class existence.

I didn't know that the “dangerous old man" didn't have us teetering on the brink of World War III but instead had the Soviet Union leaning toward collapse.

I didn’t know that this warmongering codger who was haphazardly throwing money into Defense spending was transforming the military into an institution that I would soon be proud to join and serve.

I didn’t know what I was witnessing -- what I was, in truth, not seeing at all -- was the tenure of one of the greatest Presidents in modern history.

I didn't know that I was going to grow to appreciate, respect, and love the old man.

Mainly, though, I didn't know I was going to miss him this much.

No doubt the Bush campaign appreciates having the support of a powerful and influential black businessmen. But that probably wish it were someone, anyone, other than boxing promoter and ex-felon, Don King. The most interesting part of the London Daily Telegraph’s story, though, isn’t about the flamboyant and controversial King. Instead it's the insight provided by a Philadelphia minister:

There are millions of black Republicans in America, according to Bishop R T Jones, a leading member of the party in Philadelphia. There is only one catch: they vote Democrat.

Bishop Jones, the black patriarch of the Christian Tabernacle church in Philadelphia, lamented: "Our family values are Republican, our social values are Republican. We think Republican, but only a few of us have the nerve to vote Republican."

From my own experience, I would say Jones is right. Almost all of my black friends, coworkers, and fellow evangelicals share the same values that I do. Yet very few of them (with the exception of those in the military) would openly endorse a Republican. Admittedly, the Republicans aren’t the most ideal choice. But while the GOP candidates are less than perfect, the Democrat's often support policies that are in direct contravention to the values we hold most dear.

I believe that the black community will eventually have the same “crisis of faith" that lead Southern Democrats to renounce their ties and vote Republican. My own family pedigree consists of a distinguished line of Texas trailer park aristocrats who were blindingly golden “yellow dog democrats." The shift to the to that despised “party of the rich" was a painful and tentative move for my family. They would have stayed with the party if the Democrats had made the slightest effort to keep us. Instead, they all but pushed us out, signaling that “our kind" (evanagelical, pro-life, etc) wasn’t really wanted any longer. Our votes were still prized, but not our opinions.

Black Americans throughout the country are in a similar situation. As GOP chairmen Ed Gillespie says, "I believe that African-American voters will benefit from a two-party system." But as long as 90% of black voter side with the Democrats -- even when it goes against their best interests -- they can't take advantage of this latent political power. The entire political landscape would face a techtonic shift if the Democrat's were to realize that the "black vote" wasn't their party's birthright. By voting for Republicans, conservative black voters wouldn't only strengthen the GOP. They'd transform the entire process.

Pundit, journalist, and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan is both strongly pro-life (“I will use the Bully Pulpit to defend the sacred rights of the unborn to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”) and vehemently against illegal immigration (“We will stop the illegal immigration in its tracks.”). So imagine what he must think about this recent ruling:

A U.S. District judge in Missouri has temporarily prohibited the deportation of a pregnant Mexican woman who falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, saying that her fetus is a U.S. citizen and may be protected under the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004.

I almost wish Buchanan were still running for office just so we could find out what he thinks about this dilemma. I suspect that either his head would explode or that he’d shut down like the computer at the end of War Games. Either way, it would be fascinating to see him tussle with which of his dogmatic priorities would take precedence in this situation.

(Full disclosure: I used to be a big fan of Pat's when he had a radio show with that milquetoast Barry Lynn. But he lost me when he aligned with the America First isolationist wing of paleoconservatism.)

(Hat tip: Christus Victor (again))

Last Sunday, Arizona Senator John McCain appeared on Fox News Sunday to discuss the Iraqi prison abuse scandal. Sen. McCain rightly pointed out that it was the Senate’s responsibility “to find out what happened, to examine this whole process that led us to this shameful moment in America's history, and to make sure that actions are taken quickly so that we can move forward…” Unfortunately, though, his next statement would makes a mockery of the very responsibility he claimed:

Look, one thing I know about scandals: They go on and on and on until the American people feel they have a full and complete picture of what happened. And to hold back these pictures, or to hold back the videos and only show them to members of Congress or something like that, first, is foolish, because they'll leak out, but second of all, it is sending the wrong signal.

For now let’s set aside the shockingly ridiculous notion that since classified information will eventually “leak out” Congress should just make it public. Instead, let's focus on the main question this statement raises: What is the “wrong signal” that McCain thinks we are sending by not making the photos public? That we respect prisoner’s rights? That we understand Muslim culture? That we value not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the Geneva Convention Rules?

As a former prisoner of war himself, McCain should be thoroughly familiar with the Geneva Convention. Yet by calling for the release of the photos and videos he shows a blatant disregard for the document. McCain should reread the last section of Article 13:

I may not always agree with the policies of President Bush. But the following story is one reason why I always respect him:

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera.

"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.'"

"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."

Craig from Lead and Gold has the best line of the week:

Jonah Goldberg generally doesn't care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home. But he is willing to make an exception when it comes to Mel Gibson and his accountant.

The Weekly Standard has published some of the highlights from Dick Cheney's remarks at last night's annual Gridiron dinner:

President Bush hasn’t kept every campaign promise he made in 2000, but it hasn’t been for lack of trying. A recent Knight Ridder News Service article shows that Bush has been able to keep 46% of the pledges he made while almost half have been blocked by Congress.

As a firm believer in the benefit of legislative checks-and-balances, I won’t criticize Congress for not rubber-stamping the President’s agenda. Still, we should look closely at what promises we’re blocked and place the credit (or blame) where it's due. Too often we place the accountability on one person in the Oval Office rather than the hundreds who sit on Capital Hill.

Social conservatives have reason to be pleased with the President's efforts. Bush had been able to keep a large number of his pledges on issues that we value. Listed below are some of the highlights:

The “Bush as Hitler” comparisions have jumped the shark. That analogy is sooo five minutes ago. What we need is a new monster that we can equate with the President. Someone hip, someone fresh, someone…British.

Fortunately for us, Arundhati Roy is on the job.

Roy is an Indian writer who I used to find charming and intelligent. In 1997 she won the Booker Prize for her novel The God of Small Things but has since focused (or shall we say squandered) her talent on political journalism.

In September 2001 Roy wrote an article for the London’s Guardian criticizing the war on the Taliban. Written just 18 days after the 9/11 attacks I thought her opinion was flawed, yet I excused it as a typical knee-jerk European reaction to American’s policy. Here we are, though, nearly three years later, and not only has she not modified her view but she’s slipped over the edge of moral relativism.

Speaking at the World Social Forum in Bombay she expressed her hope that President Bush would share the fate of Saddam Hussein:

"If Saddam Hussein deserves to be humiliated and have his fillings counted and his hair checked for lice on primetime TV, then so does George Bush.
… Saddam Hussein surely ought to be tried for crimes against humanity. But so should all his accomplices in the US and Europe. To applaud the US army's capture of Saddam Hussein and therefore justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq is like deifying Jack the Ripper for disembowelling the Boston Strangler."

Apparently, the God of Small Things is also the God of Small Minds.

(Hat tip: Uppity Negro)

Update: Leave it to fiction writers to think up every more creative "Bush = Evil man" comparisons. Scott Burgess from The Daily Ablution has a quote from Janette Turner Hospital in which she equates the President with a medieval Jew killer.

Political discourse in this country has been usurped by an emotionally charged partisanship. Anyone who doubts this will have to explain the Left's response to Bush's Thanksgiving trip to Baghdad. It is only the morning after the trip and already several bloggers are claiming that Bush was grandstanding, using the trip as just another photo op. This is a sad reminder of how a blind hatred for Bush has replaced all reason and logic from the minds of his liberal critics.

With the exception of Michael Moore, I don't assume that liberals are idiots. So I honestly don't believe the people who make such a claim are stupid. I prefer to believe that they simply didn't think before they expressed this opinion. For to impugn Bush's motives by claiming this was a "politically calculated" event requires one to believe that the photo-op would be effective means of getting re-elected.

There are several problems with this theory that liberals need to account for -- timing, audience, and effectiveness.

Andrew Sullivan has coined the term South Park Republicans for the "new breed" of conservatives:

"Andrew Sullivan dubs the fans of all this cable-nurtured satire "South Park Republicans"—people who "believe we need a hard-ass foreign policy and are extremely skeptical of political correctness" but also are socially liberal on many issues, Sullivan explains."

While Mr. Sullivan can be credited for having beaten Madonna in spotting this trend, he‘s about eight year's behind the "P.J. O'Rourke curve."

(Professor Bainbridge noticed the same thing. Guess great minds think alike...)

In an interview with The American Enterprise, Dennis Miller one-ups the Condi for vice-president crowd:

TAE: Do you think America is ready for a woman President?

MILLER: Yes. I think Condoleezza Rice would make a great President. I hope she runs against Hillary. That would be my dream ticket in 2008: Hillary Clinton versus Condi Rice; an imagined track record versus a real track record.

Let's get the "Draft Rice/Miller 2008" blogs rolling before Michael Moore‘s people get the jump on us…

(Hat tip: Nuts and Dolts)

Wizblog has a hilarious “What if the tables were turned” scenario:

*** Laura Bush has been placed in charge of the formulation of all major domestic policy legislation and decisions in the Bush White House, it was learned today. Dismissing critics' concerns that she is neither elected nor officially "appointed", and is therefore unaccountable, the Bush team emphasized the fact that Mrs. Bush is highly intelligent and capable, and that George and Laura are really now co-Presidents, working as a policy-making "team". They express surprise that anyone could be critical of granting an important policy-making role to a First Lady, especially one with such manifest intellectual gifts.

Personally, I don’t think she couldn’t do any worse than the junior senator from New York.