Thursday, January 20, 2005

The Reagan/Bush commitment to the cause of freedom. Plus: Instapundit writes one of his rare clunkers.

"George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan." PLUS: Instapundit writes one of his rare clunkers on Hillary's "sincere" religiosity. (Gag). Somebody give Dick Morris' number to the good professor.

An Inauguration for a politician who wasn't even elected? How can anyone listend to this stuff about "freedom" when ... I see dead people - dead people who voted for Christine Gregoire. More votes than voters you say? Is that wrong?

"George W. Bush has done more to advance the cause of freedom in the world than any president since Ronald Reagan. And like Reagan, the Left vilifies him for it."

Exactly so. Ronald Reagan liberated 170 million people behind the Iron Curtain. Now George W. Bush has liberated 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Reagan/Bush commitment to advancing the cause of freedom has increasingly been mocked by a bitter, misguided Left - embodied in the brazenly mendacious Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid. Indeed, the Boxer/Reid disciples on the hard-left are painful to watch.

Nor will the Reagan/Bush commitment to the cause of freedom ever be appreciated - much less praised - by the hard-left shills posing as legacy media "reporters," such as Sarah Boxer and Faye Fiore. And let's not forget Lawrence O'Donnell.

The blogosphere's capacity to expose the bias and mendacity of the Left and its legacy-media echo-chamber never ceases to amaze.

Of course, the righty blogosphere has its falls from grace too. Even the normally sage Instapundit can let his strong desire for warm, fuzzy feelings of fairness and balance totally engulf his normally well-oiled faculties.

First he wrongly sees a legal/judicial/moral basis for gay marriage where there is none. (Scroll down to his MSNBC column of February 25, 2004). Plus, there's no way around the fact that judicially-imposed gay marriage must inevitably lead to judicially-imposed legal polygamy. Legislatures make laws - courts are only supposed to interpret pre-existing laws. In short, it's about who decides. In other words, if the courts make gay marriage legal, such a decision will have to be based on judicial logic that will make polygamy legal too, inevitably. (That is, if there's no rational basis to prevent man-man or woman-woman marriage, why is there a rationale to prevent man-man-man or woman-woman-woman marriage?) The states' legislatures can divvy things up finer than the courts - whose judgments have to be taken to their logical conclusions. That's the practical reason why strict constructionist policy - legislatures make laws, not courts - is the right policy.

Then Instapundit comes down on the "pro" side of cloning.

Now he falls for the latest transparent trickery of Hillary - her new-found "sincere" religiosity. (Vomit reflex being actively restrained). Dick Morris didn't fall for it: "Hillary hides her true self behind a 'HILLARY' brand that is chatty, charming, giggly, and warm - but is far from her true personality." Glenn should know better. Dick Morris has what lawyers like Glenn call "personal knowledge" - which is what you need in court if you're going to testify about something (as a fact witness).

I mean - really - what does Glenn need to see the obvious: a bright red(-state) neon sign over Hillary's head flashing "NOW POSITIONING MYSELF TO THE RIGHT IN ANTICIPATION OF THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTION"? Newsflash to Glenn: Hillary has a luxury that Kerry never had. Hillary doesn't have to pander to the Deaniac Left. The Deaniac Left will forgive Hillary any sin, any policy, with a wink and a nod, as they whisper among themselves: "She's just being smart." They'll get it - they'll APPROVE of Hillary's transparent feint to the right. But somehow Glenn doesn't.

Obvious (to me) predicion: Hillary will position herself to the right on many issues over the next 4 years - to help her win the general election in 2008 - because she knows that her path to the the Democrat Party nomination in 2008 will be strewn with roses - not criticisms. Indeed, her feints to the right will be praised by her adoring fans on the left as *genius*. And just to anticipate the credulous question from the person crawling out of a cave, who will inevitably pop-up and ask with a straight face: "couldn't Hillary actually BE conservative": please remember that ancient history (it was a whole ten years ago) when Hillary tried to steer us down the path of socialism for our health care system. The person promoting socialsim for a large percentage of the U.S. economy is really a conservative? Next thing you know Neil Kinnock will be running for President on the Constitution Party ticket. Sheez.

In truth, the above credulous person would be unknowingly half right. Hillary's not conservative - but she's probably not liberal either. She - like many politicians, but just to a different intensity - just wants power. If someone offered Hillary an iron-clad deal that she could be President if she (1) invaded Iran, (2) privatized 100% of Social Security, and (3) signed a gay marriage ban into the Constituion ... I doubt she'd bother to read the fine print before signing with glee.

(Indeed, Hillary could also come out in favor of (1) gay marriage, (2) cloning, and (3) faith-based programs ... and then create a blog called "Instapundt" - but I digress).

I am truly saddened as I can see now that a long series of transparent Hillary strategems will be praised by the left and swallowed whole by the right as "sincere." What's the use of all these wonderful "new media outlets" if a politician really CAN fool all the people all the time?

It always saddens me when Glenn, of all bloggers, totally misses the boat. Alas, I guess that's one of the reaons I keep up this humble little blog.

Indeed, sometimes I get the sense that Glenn is doing a "slow-motion David Brock" - such as the one that left us with the new Bush-hating incarnation of Andrew Sullivan. I sure hope not. (In fairness, Sullivan is still a great writer and still worth reading. It's just that his seemingly never-ending cheap shots at Bush make his blog almost unreadable.)

Hmmm. Maybe I should change my blog title to "InstapunditWatch." Nahhh. It's not that bad. Yet.

(And also, in fairnss to Glenn, he's still the best blogger out there - which is a fair accomplishment since there's now only about a zillion blogs. Glenn's unique combo of quality, quantity and yes, brevity, make him the most heavily-traffiked blog on the, er, Internets. It's just 'cause I like his blog so much that makes his posts on things like Hillary's "sincere" religiosity seem like such finger-nails on a chalkboard).

Via Captain's Quarters, Fraters Libertas, Patterico's Pontifications, and Instapundit.


Post a Comment

<< Home