Republicans, not conservatives

Keep that in mind when you’re reading National Review and they’re pushing Giuliani, Thompson and now Huckabee:

RE: Paul’s Simplistic Understanding [Mark Hemingway]
I’m not voting for Ron Paul because it’s not expressly prescribed in the Constitution.

First Letter to Paul from a Federalist [Mark R. Levin]
As for Ron Paul, his understanding of the founding is simplistic and inaccurate. Yes, the Founders believed in individual liberty. But they believed in a whole lot more.

That’s It? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
I could actually watch another hour this time. Without Ron Paul.

Come on Wendell [Kate O’Beirne]
Time is short – ignore Ron Paul.

You Spoke too Soon, Levin [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Ron Paul is talking, so I’m tempted to turn to Desperate Housewives.

Kate and Kathryn Jean demonstrate once more the complete insanity of women’s suffrage. Subjects like fiat money, unconstitutional wars and utterly predictable foreign policy consequences are just too difficult and boring for their pretty little heads; these so-called professional political commentators are simply not interested in anything more sophisticated than brief sound bites about “the children” and “the future” and promises to keep them safe from the scary Islamo-bogeymen.

Hemingway is amusing, though. It’s a pity Levin didn’t see fit to expound upon what else the Founders believed, how those things ranked vis-a-vis individual liberty, and the various candidates’ positions upon them.

Mailvox: Tarvaris in Honolulu

RR worries too much:

Vox, You were right about what Ann Coulter said, and Farah is wrong in his column today…. Please don’t back down. Please don’t apologise. Please.

Yeah, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that Joseph Farah and I disagree on something. It happens, in fact, it’s bound to happen. He’s criticizing me, he’s not asking for an apology on behalf of anyone. I doubt he believes one is necessary, and in any event, he definitely knows me well enough to know that one isn’t forthcoming.

And as the fantasy football players here know, I have no problem with taking the occasional friendly fire.

So much for discourse

This is what passes for the New York Times’s idea of rational debate:

Let’s concede an indisputable point: people should not be in the country illegally. But forget about the border for a moment — let’s talk about the 12 million who are already here. What should be done about them?

A. Deport them all.

B. Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe — not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.

C. Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.

Forget A. Congress tried a version of B, but it was flattened by outrage.

And so here we are at C. It’s a policy that can’t work; it’s too small-bore, too petty, too narrow. And all the while it’s not working, it can only lead to the festering of hate.

Oh, okay. Just “Forget A”. That’s all, don’t talk about it, don’t think about it, don’t even mention it except to dismiss it… just forget it. Never mind the fact that there have been dozens of successful mass deportations that did not occasion mass violence throughout history, or that there are more than 20 million illegal immigrants currently invading the USA, not 12 million. The NYT is very eager to avoid discussing deportation because a sizable minority of Americans already support it; within five years, that sizable minority will become a majority and by that time, the deportation debate will have moved on to include a portion of the legal immigrant population, a development that has already taken place in France, the Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland.

What “ain’t America” is Mexico. This is not only true in the political and national senses, (if not the continentally geographical), it is downright tautological.

I can’t say I’m surprised

From Profootballtalk:

The talk in league circles after yet another subpar performance from Vikings quarterback Tarvaris Jackson is that the franchise plans to target another starting quarterback for 2008.

Yes, QB does tend to strike one as being a rather obvious need, followed by WRs who can hang onto the ball. In fact, the QB position struck most Vikings fans as a rather obvious need last year, although I can’t say I’m unhappy with either the Adrian Peterson or Sydney Rice picks.

I finally became convinced that Tarvaris simply won’t cut it after seeing him miss on two passes to Wade. It wasn’t his inaccuracy that was the problem, although that is certainly an issue, but the fact that he was seen trying to argue the throws after the fact with Childress and then Wade. In the latter case, there was absolutely nothing to argue about; Jackson just threw it too late and too far behind an open receiver slanting deep across the middle.

UPDATE: Aaron Schatz reaches the same conclusion:

One more note: Tarvaris Jackson is awful, just awful. He’s a walking, talking advertisement for the Lewin Career Forecast. No accuracy, awful decision-making, constantly flustered by pressure.

Oh dear

I, too, like and admire Joseph Farah. But like many, he doesn’t always quite understand my somewhat dry sense of humor:

In his enthusiasm, he goes astray here, contending, “Vanity Fair has recently announced that a remarkable 51 percent of the Vanity Fair 100 Power List are Jewish in a country in which Jews make up approximately 2 percent of the population. Jews also make up 7 percent of the current House of Representatives, 13 percent of the Senate, and, according to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, authors of ‘The Israel Lobby,’ roughly 100 percent of George W. Bush’s foreign policy advisers.”

But does Vox Day really believe roughly 100 percent of George W. Bush’s foreign policy advisers are Jewish?

Well, no, he doesn’t. I wasn’t under the impression that Condoleeza Rice was related to Sammy Davis Jr. or anything like that. While the rest of the statistics are accurate as cited, the last one was a joke, which escaped more than a few people despite its obvious absurdity. That’s fine, it happens all the time because I find few things more amusing than talking over people’s heads right to their face. Farah, meanwhile, showed his own dry sense of humor in lauding my “selfless act of chivalry”. That was funny.

As for the Israel Lobby, Mr. Farah and I shall simply have to agree to disagree, as there are many people insisting that the USA fight Israel’s battles against Iran and other enemies. Israel’s wars, it is often asserted, are the USA’s wars, even though there is no formal military alliance between the two countries. Regarding history and the fact that Jews were welcomed in a number of places prior to not being welcome, I am, of course, verifiably correct.

When I wished to make a city out of the village of Speyer, I Rüdiger, surnamed Huotzmann, bishop of Speyer, thought that the glory of our town would be augmented a thousandfold if I were to bring in Jews.

Still, I quite like Joseph’s open way of handling these disagreements, as you’ll note that despite his labling my “nonsense” as “Buchananesque”, he doesn’t hesitate to publish Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan either. This is one of the many reasons I enjoy writing for WND instead of for other, more conventional publications.