Friday, October 01, 2004

The "Cerebral" Candidate
Kerry, supposedly the more intelligent of the two Yale graduates who are competing for the presidency, seems to have made quite a few gaffs last night that, had they been made by Bush would have been heralded either as lies, or evidence of his stupidity.
And tell me, did you see mention of any of these in major media today?

What Kerry SaidThe Truth
Unfortunately, [Osama Bin Laden] escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too.At no point has the pursuit of OBL been placed in the hands of "Afghan Warlords." The area that might contain him in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan is still being searched aggressively by US, British, and Pakistani Special Forces units.
The president made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq.General Tommy Franks was on TV last night, pointing out that this was in fact not true. Troop levels increased in Afghanistan while we entered Iraq.
The president hasn't put one nickel, not one nickel into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.The subway in New York never closed. I was there, and Penn Station, directly below the Convention, had subways running through it for the duration of the convention.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told this president the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it.Actually, the "Pottery Barn rule," as Colin Powell explains it is "You break it, you bought it." (I recognize this one's a little silly, but it goes to Kerry's failure to care about getting things right, so long as they sound good.)
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban Missile Crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle.Kennedy's SOS was Dean Rusk. Dean Rusk did not meet with DeGaulle, Dean Acheson, who was a former secretary of state did.
I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.The Korean War Amistice Agreement was signed on July 27, 1953, not 1952.
And I was probably one of the first senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former senator, go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them.Treblinka was a Nazi concentration camp during World War II where countless Jews were slaughtered. The KGB was on Lubyankaya Square.

I'm watching the debate again, with the transcript in front of me, as I write this, so if I catch any more, I will add them. If you should come across any, please email me and I will include them.

Maybe Kerry has worked harder for the things in his life...
After all, Daddy really maybe have gotten W his place in the Air National Guard during Vietnam, and it's looking increasingly like Kerry may have written the report that got him his third purple heart, which in turn got him out of Vietnam early. Thomas Lipscomb (via InstaPundit) writes: "So according to this report, which now stands as the official Navy record, this swift boat mission concluded by running a three-mile gantlet of enemy fire from both banks, the detonation of three mines, and yet the only casualties occurred on the boat that hit the first mine. The boats managed to escape and, even more miraculously, retrieve the sinking boat, PCF-3, without getting a single bullet hole in any vessel or crew member.
'It is miraculous all right because it never happened,' recalls Larry Thurlow, a Kerry critic who commanded the mission. 'PCF-3 hit a mine; all of my boats directed suppressing fire on both banks, expecting the mine to be followed up by gunfire. But after a couple of minutes, we ceased firing and took steps to aid the sinking PCF-3 and its injured crew members. There was never a shot fired at us, and no additional mines went off, either. And if we had been facing gunfire from both sides of three miles of riverbank, I would have called in the standby air support. I didn't.'
After he returned to the United States the following month, Thurlow was surprised to find that he had received a Bronze Star himself because of his activities described in the after-action report. When Thurlow first saw the report last July, he didn't recognize the mission it described. The Kerry campaign pointed to Thurlow's own citation, referring to his being 'under constant enemy small arms fire,' when the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth first contested Kerry's account in August.
As the commander of the mission, normally Thurlow would have filed the disputed after-action report. But he denies writing it. And the after-action report supports his denial. It was written by someone designated 'TE'"

He then goes on to explain how this "TE" probably does refer to Kerry. Sounds a bit fishy to me. What do you think are the chances that the national media will investigate further?

Oh, and one more thing
It doesn't bother me so much that Bush says "nucular," since it seems Kerry can't get it through his fat head that our current Secretary of State's first name is Colin, pronounced like "colon," not "Collin."

As usual
Hugh Hewitt: "From spooked Bush-supporters: 'Most of the MSM talking heads are saying Kerry won on points!' True, and some of them are even Bush supporters. Which is why I watch the debates alone, which leads to a very different conclusion than my days of debate watching in television studios with their pressure of the collective voice pushes you towards 'don't be wrong.' So you overanalyze and over-react. MSM talking points thought that Kerry might pull a Gore, which would have finished him off. He didn't. He executed an excellent retreat to the left side of his party, and secured 45% in the general election. Ho-hum. The same folks that declared his Boston salute a brilliant bit of theater are now saying he's back in the race. Wrong in July, and wrong in September. Why?
Because as group three notes: 'America will never elect a man who believes in (1)'global tests,' or (2)that we can't be trusted with 'bunker-busters.'' Kerry trotted out vintage nuclear freeze thinking tonight, arguing that the United States' development of a new generation of nukes is a bad thing. No, it is not, because we are a good and responsible country. End of debate, because Kerry's distrust of our weaponry is really a distrust of our national purpose. As the president kept saying, it is about the core of the candidates, and at Bush's core is a certainty about America's purpose in the world and its essential goodness. At Kerry's core, despite many protestations to the contrary, is a deep suspicion of America with its nukes, its weapons, its preemption and its resolve to go it alone if necessary."

That's the point, folks. Kerry is rooting against American troops. Bush has thrown his lot in with the success of American troops abroad, and Kerry, by opposing Bush, has painted himself into a corner where the only way he looks good is when Americans fail. Hewitt goes on to quote an email from a former special forces guy that's right on the money:

"Kerry's comment stating that President Bush 'outsourced' the fighting in Tora Bora was a direct slap in the face of all Special Operations soldiers. The whole Afghan campaign is a classic 'Unconventional Warfare' scenario. A UW mission is one where teams of Green Berets enter a denied area (Afghanistan) and train a rebel force to overthrow a rogue government. Our Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan accomplished in weeks, what Alexander the Great and the Soviet Union could not accomplish in years. John Kerry is an idiot."

He is an idiot, and he really doesn't get it. And I know that right now I'm getting an influx of visitors from DailyKos, and I'm sorry guys, but you're just as wrong as Kerry is. The Lileks post I selected is right on target: Dictators have nothing to fear from the pandering UN, France, and Germany axis. As long as the US is the big kid on the block, terrorists and maniacs will be targetting us, and those nations have no reason to act to protect us. In the long run, sure they do, but how often does any government think in the long run?

What it comes down to is this: I think Bush won the debate, but that's moot. The real fact is, Bush is the only candidate who understands what is necessary to safeguard America. Kerry lives in a fantasy world where he can plead people who hate us, want us dead, and are willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to make it so into backing down and playing nice. Good frickin' luck.

Lileks to the rescue
So, the Dems are claiming that Kerry won, though I stick by my assertion that Bush was really on, and while he may not have stomped, he still won.

Either way, Lileks contributes an amazing post that summarizes exactly why this debate is entirely a farce, and why it didn't matter much what was said there. I'm going to excerpt what I think are the key passages, but his post is full of one after another, so I'd recommend reading the entire thing instead of my excerpts, here:

I hate the debates. I have a vision of 65 million undecided Americans tuning in and making a snap judgment for all the wrong reasons. Wow, he pounded the podium to emphasize each word - but the other guy pounded each syllable. What's this about sealing Fallujer? Is it leaking? Did they have a flood?

But mostly I hate the debates because I simply cannot abide hearing certain statements I've been hearing over, and over, and over again. I can't take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin'nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galatic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean "France and Germany," then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy. They want in? Fine. They don't? Fine. At this point mooning over France is like being that sophomore loser dorm pal who spent his dateless weekends telling his loser roommate about a high school sweetheart who stood him up for the prom. Give it up. Move on. I understand; they are wise and nuanced, we are young and dumb. We're the cowboy leaning with his back against the bar, elbows on the rail, watching the door; we need our European betters to teach us how to ape the subtle forms of Nijinsky, limbs arrayed in the exquisite form of the Dying Swan. Understood. But I don't want to be the Dying Swan. And I don't want posture lessons from a country that spent the last 20 years flopping on its back and grabbing its ankles when Saddam showed up waving stacks of Francs in exchange for bang-sticks. Don't you think I know about France's relations with Saddam? Surely the advocates of the French Touch must know, and don't care. Or they don't know - in which case their advice is useless.

Germany? Whatever.

And it took lots of dead Americans to be able to say that.

Also dead Russians. Is Russia the great ally we've dissed? If we invite Russia to help, then we have to tell them things. I don't want to tell them things. At least as they relate to the battlefield.

Perhaps the "ally" is that big blue wobbly mass known as the UN, that paragon of moral clarity, that conscience of the globe. You want to really anger a UN official? Tow his car. Short of that you can get away with anything. (Sudan is on the human rights commission, to cite a prominent and amusing detail. It's like putting Tony Soprano on the New Jersey Waste Management Regulation Board.) I don't worry that the UN is angry with us. I'd be worried if they weren't. And I find it interesting that someone who would complain about outsourcing peevishly notes that we hired HALLIBURTON to do the work instead of throwing buckets of billions to French and German contractors who sold them the jets and built the bunkers.

I've been hearing this shite for years! That's why I can't stand the debates! ENOUGH WITH FRANCE AND GERMANY! [...]

Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we're often reminded. If it hasn't occurred to these people before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there's a war against Muslims now, you ain't seen nothing yet. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely they must be asking: the United States could destroy us, completely. Yet they do not. Why?

Good question, eh?

So no, I'm not enthused about a summit, unless we get to set the agenda. Item one: get over the frickin' Jews, people. They're not going anywhere, and if they do they're taking all of you with them. Item two: You poke the hornet's nest one more time and your skies will darken with 747s. We will land in your cities and ride around with bullhorns and announce that all women are free to leave, with their children, so they can live in a society where they get to show some shin without having some gynophobic wanker whip them with sticks. Your choice! Madrassas and no women, or a live-and-let-live world with women, and cable TV and the odd cold beer now and then, if you like. Beer will not be mandatory. We're not the sort of people who impose beer on the unwilling. But we have recognized the downside of coexisting with societies that want to hang people for having a Pabst after a hot day. Your choice. Item three: we're going to play a video of the events of 9/11. And then we'll have a discussion. We're willing to entertain all sorts of commentary, with one proviso: the moment you use the word "but," you're escorted from the building and put back on a plane home. You can never come to the US again. Your nice condo in the new Trump building will be sold for five dollars to a nice Jewish lesbian couple we met the other day at parent's night at our school in Park Slope. One's an artist, the other's a lawyer. [...]

Imagine if the government had been different in 2002 - we'd have had a summit with France and Germany. End result: the sanctions would be dropped by now, and Saddam would still be in power. [...]

Ask yourself this: you're a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you've bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century

B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer[.] [...]

So, I get it. We are wrong and bad and stupid and stupidly wrong-bad. We failed to make France act as though it wasn't, you know, France, a militarily insignificant nation that is understandably motivated by self-interest, and we haven't convened a summit so we could be castigated for ignoring the extralegal use of Israeli helicopters to turn Hamas kingpins into indistinct red smears. You'd think we nuked Paris and converted everyone to Lutheranism.

Here's the thing. I'd really like to live in John Kerry's world. It seems like such a rational, sensible place, where handshakes and signatures have the power to change the face of the planet. If only the terrorists lived there as well.

Who does Zarkowi fear the most - France, summiteers, or Marines?
If the rightness of a cause is measured by the number of one's allies, would Britain have been right if the US had stayed neutral in World War Two? (emphasis in original)
Yeah, so I copied most of it (don't sue James, I swear, I do it out of love!), because it's a phenomenal screed with several great points.

Thursday, September 30, 2004

My Initial Thoughts on the Debate
First things first: most people who watched the debate have already made up their minds, so I don't expect much of a change, if any, in the polls...
2nd, it was absolutely not a blow-out in either direction, but I do think there was a winner.
John Kerry scored some serious points, mostly about 2/3 of the way through the debate. Unfortunately for him, that's when ratings dip in a debate, so a lot of people probably missed it.

Overall, I have to say that Bush won. It was not a blowout, by any means, but he controlled the discussion through most of the debate. I taped it, so I'll have to go back and watch again tomorrow, after my 11:30 test, but until then, that's my impression.

I need someone to explain this to me
Kerry says it was the "Wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."

In the next sentence he says "I did vote for the authorization because I did think Saddam was a threat. I accepted the intelligence at the time, and thought we needed to go to war."

How does that logic work out?

ADV syndrome continues to haunt Kerry
For those who aren't up on my current terminology (i.e. everyone but me), ADV syndrome is Angry Democratic Voter syndrome. I've been talking for several months about how the Dems are in "Anybody but Bush" mode, and how that'll hurt Kerry, and the current polls are bearing that out:

"Pennsylvania: Bush 49, Kerry 46 (Gallup - LV)
Pennsylvania: Kerry 49, Bush 45 (Gallup - RV)
Ohio: Bush 49, Kerry 47 (Gallup - LV)
Ohio: Kerry 49, Bush 46 (Gallup - RV)
Florida: Bush 52, Kerry 43 (Gallup - LV)
Florida: Bush 49, Kerry 44 (Gallup - RV) "

You see, the problem is, these angry Dems aren't angry enough to actually vote. More than anything, they're turned off and turned away by the system. Just look at these 3 states, which are important battle grounds. Bush seems to be winning Florida either way, but among registered voters in the other two states, Kerry has an average lead of 3.5 points. Among likely voters, however, the average is 2.5 points in favor of Bush. NOT a good sign for Kerry, agreed?

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

Wisely Said
A great piece written by my friend, Al Jiwa on why Kerry really offers no solutions to Iraq. Read it!

Kerry screams "Bush wants a draft!" and thinks "no he doesn't, I do"
In response to Kerry's recent accusation that Bush has a secret plan to reinstate the draft, Say Anything (via InstaPundit) points to a since removed page on Kerry's website which says: "On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. John Kerry believes we need to think big and do better and get more young Americans serving the nation.

As part of his 100 day plan to change America, John Kerry will propose a comprehensive service plan that includes requiring mandatory service for high school students and four years of college tuition in exchange for two years of national service."
(emphasis added by Say Anything)

And let's also remember an important excerpt from another article (I just picked one at random, as there are currently hundreds that contain this information): "Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, a Korean War veteran and author of House legislation to restart the draft [...] An opponent of the Iraq war, Rangel said that 'all economic, racial and religious groups' should share the responsibility of military service, including the risks of combat.

Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, author of the legislation in the Senate, agrees that a draft would address this 'equality factor'"

Now, let's remember folks, Hollings and Rangel are both Democrats. It's an interesting tactic to try and bring down your opponent by accusing him of things you've suggested yourself...

Monday, September 27, 2004

Are liberal elitists completely out of touch?
I was reading a piece by Ann Althouse (via InstaPundit), and it helped combine some of the feelings I've had over the past few weeks. She describes how John Kerry lost her support (it's a long post, but completely worth reading), and seems to stumble across something that I've been feeling recently. The passage that grabbed me: "I had TiVo'd the C-Span coverage of all nights of both conventions, but the Democratic Convention bored me and the Republican Convention gripped me. The speakers that made a real impression on me were: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Ron Silver. These men all spoke well and with conviction. I listened to every word they said. I will admit to feeling deeply struck by Silver's line: 'The President is doing exactly the right thing.' Silver was open about being a liberal on the social issues--as I am--but passionate and clear that national security trumps other matters. I agree! I even enjoyed Zell Miller's old-style preacher speech." (emphasis added)

It seems to me that the liberal elites, perhaps more accurately called liberal elitists, must be feeling frustrated. They are scaring away the public, the moderates and swing voters like Ms. Althouse and they don't seem to have the first clue why. They are out of touch with the American public, and they don't know how it happened.

I think the cause is isolation, created through a decade of systematic self-segregation. We hear so much about red states and blue states, so much about the urban/rural divide, so much about the liberal and conservative media biases, so much that we've decided that the country has become more polarized. Everyone has become set in their ways, and the middle is shrinking, or so we are told. Liberals are in urban centers, watching CNN and reading the NYT; you know, unbiased news sources. Conservatives are still out in the rural areas, listening to the talking points of country music, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. The problem is, these assumptions are partially true, and mostly misguided.

Yes, the elitist liberals are focused in the northeast and on the west coast, in mostly metropolitan areas. But liberals in general are found all around the country. Look at the number of battleground states there were at the start of this presidential election. The majority of Missouri is rural, but it was thought to be a toss-up. Same for Iowa. Tom Daschle, the Senate Minority (Democrat) Leader is from South Dakota, and it doesn't get any more rural than that. The fact of the matter is, while they don't make up the majority in rural districts, the majority of Democrats do still live outside of urban centers, it's just the elites who have coalesced there. They write in the big-city newspapers, they attend and teach at the liberal arts universities, and they shun anything and everything conservative.

Lileks has a great post today, about these people, as they relate to the NYT Magazine: "The Sunday Times is the weekly sermon: let us reinforce your world view, your sense of belonging to the Thinking Class, the Special Ones. Let the Red Staters spend Sunday morning in itchy church clothes at Perkins, dumping syrup all over their pancakes and yelling at little Lurleen not to pour salt down her baby brother's jumper; you're in your elegant spare little apartment with a cup of coffee (frothed on top; sprinkle of nutmeg) and a pastry from that wonderful place around the corner (okay, it's an Au Bon Pain -- hell, they're all Bon Pain now) and there's some light jazz on the radio. Morning jazz, if you had to give the genre a name. Anyway, it's a sunny fall morning -- well, noonish. Now comes the capstone moment when you lay the slab of the Times in your lap and begin the autoposy of the week. Scan the A section headlines - yes, yes, yes, appalling. Scan the metro: your eyes glaze. The arts section -- later. Travel -- Greece again? Good for Greece. Six pounds of classifieds: discard. No comics . . . there was always comics on Sunday back home. But that was IOWA, for heaven's sake, what else would you expect but Blondie and Ziggy and the rest . . . ah."

And then, a few paragraphs later, the hilarious self-awareness of this New Yorker: "Why are we all like 34 and unmarried? Christ, is it that hard? "

The thing is, as I began to say, these people are segregated. They live with others of their type, and don't experience the conservatives of the world, or even the normal liberals. They read these sermons and think that the whole world sees things in that light. But it doesn't stop at failure to understand or experience: it is a constant choice to avoid and condemn people who do not think this way, who do not embrace this lifestyle.

I take my first example from something I found through InstaPundit a while back, concerning the behavior of liberals towards conservatives. Many of my friends who know I think Bush will win this election, and who know I'm big into studying political trends and strategy have been asking me recently why they don't see more Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and lawn signs around. They say that they understand New Haven is a liberal bastion, so you can't expect much Republican support in the area, but that when they go home to St. Louis, or California (even Orange County), or other places, all around the country, they don't see anything but Kerry-Edwards support. Well, the simplest explanation is often the most accurate: "Many Republicans are afraid to put Bush-Cheney bumper stickers on their cars or signs on their lawns because they are afraid of physical retaliation from angry liberals.

It is not just that one sees few Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and lawn signs - even in areas in which one knows his support is high. I do not have such a bumper sticker or lawn sign. In fact, most Bush supporters I have asked, even those who are fairly passionate on the topic, just don't think the risk of a key-scratch or broken home or car window, or much worse, is worth whatever benefit one receives from a partisan bumper sticker or lawn sign. There are just too many personal stories of cars and homes defaced and damaged.

The sentiment is not symmetrical: One sees plenty of Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers and lawn signs - even in highly Republican neighborhoods. Indeed,one sees plenty of such stickers and signs that express left-wing sentiments much more intense and partisan than mere support of the Democratic presidential ticket. Not infrequently these stickers and signs mention some form of violence or even death with respect to Republican officials."

Of course, this makes things seem a little more extreme than they are, right? No, it really doesn't. I have an acquaintance who has asked me not to name him (and yes, I realized that I've railed against anonymous sources before, but I have no choice here) who works for the Democratic Party in New Haven. He noticed that I have a Bush 2004 bumper sticker on my car, and suggested "Man, don't park anywhere near the headquarters. My boss has a standing order for any Bush cars to be keyed. Most of us just laugh it off and don't do it, but I've seen him key at least one car. So, seriously, don't park there." There are no such concerns for liberals who proudly display their Kerry-Edwards stickers and signs wherever they want. The reason? Conservatives disagree with liberals. Many of us even think that many liberal policies put us at greater risk, particularly post 9/11, and other policies simply go to far in devaluing life, love, hard work, success, and morality. But, at the end, conservative elites and most conservatives respect the right of liberals to think that way. We may try to protect ourselves from the destructive policies, but we don't protest your right to think on your own in large numbers (6 arrests at the DNC, over 1,700 at the RNC), we don't destroy your private property when it is marked as liberal, and we don't hate you as people. Liberal elites, on the other hand, abhor that anyone could think, and especially vote, conservative. (Disclaimer: of course there are exceptions. Don't post comments about how we hate the gays, etc. because the party rank and file at the upper level do not think that way, and don't post about peace-loving, free-speech hippies, because of course there are some, but I'm dealing with generalities.) This is why I have modified the term to liberal elitists.

The reason this has been on my mind of late is that classes have been in session for a few weeks here at Yale. I'm taking one class in particular where the liberalism at this school has mattered: Current Issues in Biology. The class consists of a thrice weekly lecture, purely science-based, and then a discussion section of about 18 people once per week, focused on a specific topic of discussion. The first week was about "patient-assisted suicide," and last week about legalizing drugs, sparked by comparison between nicotine and marijuana. What I learned in these sections is that I am some lower form of human being because I don't want legalized suicide and drugs. Far and away the classic moment, however, was when a white student from suburban Richmond claimed that "the educated African American leadership has come out for legalization because the unfair prosecution of black drug offenders is destroying their communities." There were two black guys in the class, sitting near me, one of whom immediately spoke up and demanded to know what black leaders advocated drug legalization. The Richmond kid stammered "Well, maybe not national leaders, but urban minorities want legalization." Both black kids just waved their arms in dismissal, and withdrew, though they looked pretty pissed. I followed up with them after class. They both said that they are from urban areas, and that sure, some want legalization: the ones who use drugs. No one else does. In fact, if anything, people want a higher police presence. They want fairer treatment under the law, and higher prosecution rates in suburban and white neighborhoods, and they want cops who don't abuse their power, but they don't mind drug dealers being arrested.

The reason the exchange during that class was important, however, was the looks of disgust on faces around the room. The idea that these guys thought drug prosecution was a good thing, even if mandatory minimums are not, was intolerable to at least half the class. And, after only two weeks, whenever someone expresses a clearly leftish idea, eyes glare at me, as if to say "I dare you to challenge that one." If I do, they all sigh with frustration. A common response is "you really think that?" Tonight we debated stem cell research, and one said to me "so, you're against abortion and stem cell research [I am not against stem cell research, I support the ban on federal funding enacted by President Bush, as I have expressed], but you probably support the death penalty." I love that one. The two are so clearly incompatible right? But how come you never hear a conservative say, "so you don't support the death penalty, but you're in favor of abortion?" You don't, because they're not in opposition. But I digress.

The point is, liberal elitists think that they have reached their positions through a clearly founded logical reasoning, and therefore that any other position must be misguided. They pity me for my error, but more than that they are disgusted by it, and many hate me for it. The problem is, I am nowhere near alone on these positions, and they have no recognition or understanding of that fact. On each of the major issues (stem cell, abortion, death penalty, taxation, healthcare, global warming, military funding and policy, etc.) I have at least half of the population on my side, including many intellectuals, scientists, lawyers, doctors, business people and members of other intelligent groups. They fail to recognize, or even consider that this might be the case, or, taking it a step further, that this might lend some credence to my beliefs.

They voice their beliefs so loudly, and especially in colleges and universities around the country, that each of these educated people who think similarly to myself has been forced to confront their positions, and legitimately discredit them in their own minds. And liberals, by dismissing conservatism so easily as misdirected, or selfish, or whatever else they throw at it, are scaring away votes, chasing away the middle. If they ever want to retake the country, that will have to change.