Main Forums > Politics

Why the Banzai charge? [Vin Suprynowicz]

(1/2) > >>

MicroBalrog:
Why the Banzai charge?

Im considering voting for a major partys presidential ticket this year, for the first time in decades. As a matter of fact, it would mark the first time Ive voted the top of the ticket for this particular party, in my life.

Ive met the presidential nominee. Hes got character. Hes also a likeable guy  most politicians share that asset  though hes clearly a creature of the Senate, where respect for freedom and limited government, for any set of philosophical principles that might lead one to refuse to spend tax dollars for purposes not specifically delegated in the Constitution, are laughed at, deemed a handicap in making the deal.

Over the past year, though, hes run a come-from-behind Cinderella campaign that could become the stuff of legend. And then last week, he did something that made our enemies afraid.

That made me take notice. For the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Mind you, theres a good moral case to be made for not voting. If you believe its unconstitutional and morally wrong for anyone to send police officers to bust down the doors and murder the dogs and kill the occupants of houses where they believe someone may be in non-violent possession of the wrong kinds of medicinal plants or unlicensed firearms, you should be troubled to help choose which one of two (or four) people get to do that job.

By participating in the election, you tacitly acknowledge the winner has the right to do all the awful, unconstitutional, morally wrong things they now do in our names.

I still vote largely because the Libertarian button is available. This year, though, the Libertarian Party has nominated Fearless Drug Warrior Bob Barr, a man who has opposed medical marijuana initiatives, opposed needle exchanges, a man who zealously locked up for years those seeking to peacefully medicate themselves or help others to do so, shoving them into small cages where theyre subject to anal rape by guys named Bubba.

Does Mr. Barr now believe, with us Libertarians, that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, as well as hopeless, counterproductive, and morally evil? If its unconstitutional now, then its never been constitutional, and efforts must be made to roll back its effects and compensate its surviving victims. How much of Mr. Barrs ill-gotten fortune has he devoted to seeking releases, pardons, and financial restitution for the men he locked up on drug charges  including financial restitution for their stolen agricultural products? Has he even apologized?

Its tempting to stay home on Nov. 4. But theres now at least a 50-50 possibility  higher, given Americans demonstrated reluctance to elect ultra-socialist Big City senators over the past 40 years  that when Americans wake up Nov. 5 theyll rub their eyes and wonder what kind of a shuck job the Leftist Mainstream Press has spent the past year peddling them about some Chicago ward heeler whose silver tongue seemed to tie up pretty quick when he strayed from the prepared script and the Teleprompters, and how this same press corps largely missed the come-from behind Cinderella story of a guy they declared dead in the water in August of 2007.

Wishing wont make John McCain a small-government libertarian. But think back to how the defeatist fellow-travelers in the media ridiculed him when he said The Surge could defeat al-Qaida in Iraq.

Think back to when the genius political analysts told you McCains campaign was dead, that this guy was broke and so clueless he had no remaining plan but to spend the entire autumn in New Hampshire, hanging out and gabbing with the locals at Dunkin Donuts.

And then last week my former senator, John McCain, threw the entire race into a maelstrom, confounding all expectations and common wisdom by choosing Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

If Democrats believed what they say  that Gov. Palin is such a poor choice that John McCain might as well fold his tent and go home  they should be condescendingly patting the little lady on the head right now, saying, Oh, how cute.

So how are we to explain the way the Democratic Party is now going after Sarah Palin and her perfectly lovely pregnant daughter, for all the world like the frenzied final holdouts on some Japanese-occupied Pacific atoll, shrieking Banzai! as they level their bayonets and charge the machine guns in their loincloths?

Ive already lost count of the ways the ululating harridans have attacked this anti-corruption reformer. She cant be president because she lives too far from Washington. Because she bore a child with Downs Syndrome instead of aborting him. Because a woman with young children shouldnt put them through the strain of a campaign for high office. (Is the Democratic position now that only sterile old men should be president, or does that one apply only to women?)

Her husband wants Alaskas federal land turned over to the state (oh, the horror!) and had a DUI some decades back, before they were even married. (I dont believe the Democrats actually used the phrase drunken Indian, any more than they specifically said a woman still of child-bearing age cant be president because she might be irritable during that time of the month, though they sure went right up to the line. My, how thin is their veneer of Political Correctness.)

Although her daughter plans to keep her baby and marry the father, Gov. Palin isnt qualified to run for high office because her teen-age daughter is pregnant. (This from the DEMOCRATS, mind you, who see no problem making it our national policy to subsidize repeat unwed births with your and my tax dollars whether we approve or not.)

Why the desperation?

Because Vice President Sarah Palin would mean Americans could actually end up electing a woman president without tapping a manipulative, soulless, stay-married-just-to-stay-in-power socialist.

How DARE the Republicans threaten to do that? Only the progressive party is supposed to be allowed to put the first articulate woman in line for the White House! Why, its just like when the Republicans dared to put a CONSERVATIVE black man on the Supreme Court. Its so WRONG!

Sarah Palin is a gun owner and Westerner who seems to still understand the core American notions of Freedom and the Frontier, a woman who vetoed a half billion dollars in proposed state spending and put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

Yes, it bothers me that she might outlaw other womens abortion choices if she could. But she cant.

What these screeching attacks on Sarah Palin are really all about is not a pregnant daughter or a 20-year-old DUI. And the no foreign policy experience red herring would have barred Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as well as Barack Obama.

What this is really all about is that she is the first everyday American in generations, the first person who is not an Ivy League attorney, not a career Washington insider, not vetted by the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations and the CIA and Ellen Goodman, a person who works her husbands fishing boat and drives her own car to work and buys her own groceries, to be given a shot at leading this nation.

And that appears to have a certain element of the political power structure terrified.

Why do you suppose that is?

Gov. Sarah Palin cant save American all by herself. Thats the underlying absurdity of this near-religious frenzy to pick a new Guy On A White Horse every eight years.

But an America that could elect Sarah Palin might still save itself.

Thats why.

Because they know their guys already absurd claim to be the best and only available agent of change ran out when he tapped graying political plagiarist Joe Biden  and John McCain decided to roll the dice and go the other way.

Because the chances are now better than even that when Barack Obama awakens on Nov. 5, the song theyll be playing is We used to love him, but its all over now.

http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=104

macadore:
Good article. I frequently hear that McCain just nominated Sarah Palin to pander to women. Then did Obama nominate Biden to pander to white people?

Perd Hapley:
Or did the Democratic big-wigs preen Obama for the Oval Office, just because he's a likable, clean, articulate minority fellow?  (My apologies to that condescending cracker, Joe Biden)


--- Quote ---
I dont believe the Democrats actually used the phrase drunken Indian, any more than they specifically said a woman still of child-bearing age cant be president because she might be irritable during that time of the month, though they sure went right up to the line.
Ouch.  Hurty.   

If McCain pulls in the conservative base, the "moderate" Republicans who already liked him, a healthy chunk of Hillary supporters, and the odd libertarian or three - America might just dodge a bullet this year. 

yesitsloaded:
When he figures out that 4473s are done at gun shows anyway, and that private sales happen anyway, he will get alot of the small l libertarian vote. He already has mine after Palin. When his VP pick is compared to their POTUS pick's experience I had to laugh. Biden is a joke and turned off a bunch of the hope/changers as they see him as being from the establishment.

roo_ster:
I wish Vin would loosen up and tell us what he really thinks.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page