There is a palpable anti-ubran prism in the American Consrvative Magazine — what, the cities being the home of those damned blue people — and so… TAKE ONE!

Imagine two cousins, one with a graduate degree making $50,000 per year in a creative industry, living alone in a small apartment in a “vibrant” (i.e., dangerous and expensive) metropolis. The other with a bachelor’s degree earns the same income in an unglamorous business and lives with a spouse and children in a home on a quarter acre lot in a “boring” (i.e., safe and moderately-priced) suburb. Which one is more likely to vote Democratic?

Yes. “Dangerous” as substitute for “vibrant”.

Which makes the appearance of Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, of North Dakota, a rather liberal Senator in one of those red states that if you peel a bit beneath the surface wily things pop out at you, and an essay on the Dangers of Wal-Mart to the economy surprising. Taking into account this motley crew of self described “paleo-conservative”s’ disregard for the doctrines of Free Trade, I’m still hit up against the wall of the weary belief that the Over-educated Elitists and elitists are secretly anti-Walmart for elitist nose-thumbing reasons.

But whatever. Publish excerpts from books from the head of the Democratic Party’s “Policy Committee”, and publish away, American Conservative magazine, as you solve the problems of the Democratic Party by proposing they emulate William Jennings Bryan.

So we have a Vinn Diagram here of three articles. The overlap for this issue’s articles go from “What Ails the Democratic Party” to “appreciations of William Jennings Bryan”. I don’t quite know what to make of their desire to create the Democratic Party in the image of William Jennings Bryan, except I don’t believe that the bulk of those “Secular Humanists” are ready to give ground on the Theory of Evolution just yet. Populism is all good and well, except I’ve found that basically everybody is a populist when one’s opinion is in the majority — or are in tune with whatever particular rabble being referred to — and an elitist when one’s opinion is in the minority — or are working against that rabble. Cue the insoluble Democratic problem in the South:

Yet modern Democrats seem to have forgotten that they once owned the allegiance of “the Solid South.” Here’s DNC chairman Howard Dean, a Vermonter, explaining it to The New Yorker: “The Democratic Party was built on four pillars—the Roosevelt intellectuals, the Catholic Church, labor unions, and African-Americans.” In other words, white Protestant Southern Democrats such as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson have been tossed down the memory hole. One suspects that Southerners have noticed this disrespect, resolving to return it in kind.

While we’re at it, toss in the next two Democratic presidents after Truman and Johnson, so we can look at the Missourian (tis a border state) Truman, Texan Johnson, Georgian Carter, and Arkansan Clinton. All four were Democratic candidates selected to solve the crushing down of the South for the Democratic Party, and I can go into how in individual cases if asked. All four ended up being thought of as Yankee imposed facades — still fighting the Civil War in the Age of Reconstruction. In the first two cases, Civil Rights for black Americans stands as the defining issue of the South’s abandonment. I suspect such would occur if Virginia Governor Mark Warner is nominated and elected.

Curiously, the American Conservative Magazine has high hopes for the Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia — Jim Webb, a man I can point out is probably in the end is probably more “progressive” (I hate that term) than was his more standard Democratic opponent. We shall see. Everything permeates from Virginia, it seems. Tom Kaine, the current Democratic governor, will quote Jesus at you as surely as Bryan…

… though, you know, that just means that those Liberals are trying to fool us all with that Jesus thing.

(Oh, and Hubert Humphrey is the problem.)

The story went, back when Bush was trumpeting the Democratization of the Middle East by showcasing Lebanon’s elections, and some vague stirrings in Syria, which was picked up by bloggers of the Instupundit variety (and for that matter The Economist Magazine) with images of attractive women perhaps in clothing appropriate for hot weather, which you presume it tends to be in the Desert (as opposed to a burka), occasionally placed next to an image of a harsh militant with a grimacing face.

The idea is simply: see, these women are LIBERATED! AND HOW!! Hubba Hubba!

Or something.

Looking at this photograph, standing on the Israeli flag, it occurs to me that Israeli bombs flying over Beriut wouldn’t endear anyone in Lebanon to Israel. Throwing it in with how we can Americanize the experience is difficult, and what the “Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigade” would be doing comprable to Hezbollah simply escapes me. Okay, so some members of The Minutemen kidnaps two Mexicans, and Mexico — in order to weed out the Minutemen… where can you find a large conglomeration of Minutemen members, or organizers?, Oh, I know! The nation of Mexico starts bombing Denver suburbs, home of Representative Tom Tancredo.

Which leads to somebody standing on the Mexican flag and using same as toilet paper.

Rumors about a Clinton visit circulated two weeks ago after the former president, in a speech in Colorado, asked why Democrats are trying to end Lieberman’s 18-year Senate career.

“If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress, that’s the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life,” Clinton said.

[…]

“It’s a hell of a comment on the . . . sincerity of Lieberman’s assessment of Clinton eight years ago that he’s the man he turns to at this point,” Goshen-based political analyst and author Kevin Phillips said.

[…]

Phillips speculated another reason for Clinton’s appearance was his own administrations’ concerns about Iraq and now imprisoned dictator Saddam Hussein’s suspected arsenal.

“I’m not a Clinton admirer, but I remember the reason the whole ‘weapons of mass destruction’ (in Iraq) got so far advanced was because the previous runner with the baton was William Jefferson Clinton,” Phillips said. The Bush administration found no weapons after the invasion and has been accused of manipulating intelligence and misleading the public.

The worm turns.

Incidentally, I really hope Steve Laffey defeats Lincoln Chaffee in the Republican primary in Rhode Island — over the objections of the Republican National Committee, mind you. Not just for strictly partisan reasons, ie: Lincoln Chaffee is the only Republican who could possibly win (or, as the case is, maintain) a Senate seat in the state, but because maybe, just maybe it’ll shut up:

Morton M. Kondracke:

If former Greenwich Selectman Ned Lamont beats Lieberman in the Democratic primary, it will represent a signal victory for the MoveOn.org-Michael Moore-DailyKos left wing of the Democratic Party and for vicious name-calling as a political tactic. […]

And it’s now up to Connecticut voters to decide whether hatred- politics will prevail.

And… the like.

Front page news in the Oregonian on this Sunday, published names of famous Oregonians who did not vote in May’s primary election, I assume to embarrass and shame them.

This annoys me utterly. What is next? A published list, come election day, of those who voted and those who did not vote? Maybe, when the combed through the records, they could tell us other strange secrets — apparently Lars Larson is a registered Democrat.

Art Alexakis, lead singer of the band Everclear, who has a half dozen hits in the past decade — or perhaps the same hit half a dozen times, and prominent advocate for the Democrat Party in Oregon… did not vote. He was content to … um.. live beside the ocean, Leave the fire behind, Swim out past the breakers, and just go ahead and Watch the world die. Um… Yeah! Now that I armed with the information that Art Alexakis did not vote in this May primary, I will be sure to picket his appearance at an Oregon Bus Project event with a sign pointing to Art Alexakis’s now not-so-secret shame of not voting. Speaking as a youth, or a yute, I ask the time-honored question: If Art Alexakis does not vote in a May primary, why should I vote at all?

Apparently Oregon’s sports stars do not vote. The University of Oregon’s football coach does not vote. The individual Trailblazers players do not vote. Coach MacMillian does not vote. This is understandable. They’re all probably going to be traded shortly, or will bail out on the team when their contracts expire, so why should they care about the direction the state of Oregon heads?

Nay. I object to this Oregonian article. It smacks of a violation against that which we call a “Secret Ballot”, if not technically than just in spirit. Sure, anyone can pursue these records, but why would they want to?

Cal Thomas, September 1998, after Lieberman made a speech decrying Clinton’s actions as “immoral”. 24 Years after Barry Goldwater led a delegation of Republicans to the White House to tell Richard Nixon his time in office had expired, Mr. Lieberman may soon find himself in a similar position, walking “the last mile” to inform President Clinton of the ultimate in political capitol punishment. […]

Soundings from the White House indicate Mr. Clinton will reach into his familiar trick bag and may try to pick a fight with congressional Republicans again over self-described efforts to “protect our children” and shut down the government. It won’t work this time, not only because we’ve seen this tired act before, but because the Ken Starr report is about to land on Capitol Hill with an impact that will send shock waves throughout the nation. There are reports circulating in Washington of imminent disclosures about affairs the president might have had with other young women under his authority.
Despite his reluctantly offered apologies, Mr. Clinton is damaged goods, and increasing numbers of Democrats know it. The only instinct natural to all politicians is survival, and Democrats see themselves an endangered political species this fall, perhaps losing between 15 and 30 and seats in the House and enough in the Senate to give Republicans a veto-proof majority of 60.

No kidding, the Washington Times even laid out a scenario under the headline “Draft Lieberman!” where the new President Gore will have to pick Lieberman as his new vice presidnet, the only pick sure to get past the newly fortified Republican Senate, and because of — you know — that Buddhist Fundraising Scandal, Lieberamn will get to run in 2000! Praise be to Allah!

The irony of the idea of “Clinton reach[i ng] into his familiar trick bag” “try[ing] to pick a fight with congressional Republicans” is that, for the sake of making sure this does not happen, the Congressional Republicans basically rubber-stamped Clinton’s omnibus budget bill so as to run the 1998 midterm elections on Impeachment. Revisionist history in conservative journals has it that the Republicans succumbing to Clinton’s budget cost them that election. Either way, it kind of puts a damper in the idea of Newt Gingrich as “Idea Man” and pretty well confirms Clinton as master of Political Jujitsu.

From the New Republic of the time, 11-4-1998: And why did Lieberman speak when he knew that the Republicans would exploit his words? “The president wasn’t dealing with this openly,” Lieberman says. “Among Democrats, nobody was talking about it, and, worst of all, nobody was saying anything directly to him. My feeling was that, unless the president and Democrats spoke of these things openly, the situation could only get worse. If the president would speak of this openly, he might be able to rebuild enough trust to finish his term.” On this point Lieberman appears vindicated. Clinton has confessed his errors and expressed penitence; polls show most Americans are giving him a break. Perhaps Clinton would have switched to the contrition strategy without a push from Lieberman. Still, the fact remains that White House humility commenced in the days after Lieberman’s speech.

I think the mass of public opinion wanted little more from Clinton that something that looked like an apology… just something for a ritual cleansing, reminscent of a mother demanding a petulant child to “say it like you mean it.” Thus harping of Clinton’s first comment, and applause for Clinton’s “I have sinned” comment. I, ever the contrarian, was disappointed with the second and happy with the first. Perhaps Lieberman helped facilitate this political advantageous item with his speech, perhaps not.

Lieberman spoke against the president just before the Starr report was delivered to the Hill–a time when the Democratic leadership was pressing party members to echo the White House line or, if they could not, simply to say nothing, avoiding throwing oil on the fire. Instead, Lieberman tossed on napalm. After Lieberman’s speech, two other Democrats, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, rose to second him; most Democrats winced. His remarks were then praised by Republicans, as Lieberman knew they would be. His best friend in the Senate, Republican Connie Mack of Florida, crossed the aisle to sit next to Lieberman as others debated the speech. Mack was merely making a gesture of camaraderie, but, given the atmosphere, it looked like he was embracing a GOP convert.

Remember that moveon.org’s first mission was to have us “censure the man, than move on.” Clinton himself was aiming for censure. I don’t think you can rightly criticize Lieberman on that score.

I’m sort of obliged to carry these two items forward, even though it’s a sort of blog redundancy. This president is embarrassing. I wonder if we should make his performance at the G-8 an impeachable offense. Thinking about it for a second, that doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. Forget everything else you will see if you type “Impeach Bush” into a search engine (and I note that Portland, Oregon is second only to Madison in googling for Bush’s Impeachment, perhaps there are worst things than alerting future presidents that there will be severe punishment if you do either of the following.

Item #1:

BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

See? Why would you even say that? What world does Bush live in?

II:

That’s Germna Chancellor Angela Merkel that Bush is giving an unwelcome back rub to.

I am reminded of the HBO docu-show “Journeys with George”, or interviews regarding, where the (female) journalist says that George Bush in private was … nice, but … (not her words) kind of creepy, always saying “Let’s get you a boyfriend!”

Which translates into this in real life.

Focus on the Family is starting a new campaign targeted at the Born Different campaign which features a dog that moos like a cow.

As of right now, both campaigns are only going to be targeting Colorado Springs, but if it becomes a heated election issue over the next month, both might expand to state wide.

My question for “Focus on the Family” and their pet dog Sherman (who barks because, “that is what dogs do”) is simply “There’s a dog that moos. Is there anything you can do about it?”