Fall Back

Didja Fall Back? I did. I’ve reset two of the three electronic clocks in El Casa Móvil De Pennington, to wit, the coffee pot and the microwave. I’ll have to dig out the DVD player’s manual to reset that clock as it’s more involved than the others. But, none the less, the time change has been made, for better or worse. Worse, in my book. I hate it when it gets dark at 1700.

I woke up sorta early this morning, but blew it by returning to my warm and cozy bed while the coffee was brewing. Two hours later I woke up again. I poured and consumed two cups of slightly burnt coffee before I thought “why am I drinking bad coffee?” and lit off another pot. The answer to that rhetorical question, if you’re at all curious, is that I’m a cheap bastard frugal individual. Mom always said “waste not, want not.” It’s really hard for me to overcome those lil homilies that were beaten into my head oh-so-many years ago. But sometimes I do…

Dick Armey is a smart man and, along with Newt Gingrich, he was a key architect and player in the 1994 Republican rout of the Democratic Congress. Everyone who is anyone is pontificating on the widely-predicted but yet-to-materialize Republican rout next week. Armey is no exception. He has an op-ed in yesterday’s WaPo titled “Where We Went Wrong,” and he’s pretty much right on the money. A key graf:

How can the Republicans respond?

The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas. The greatest threat to American prosperity today is a catastrophic fiscal meltdown resulting from long-term entitlements. Democrats have already lined up behind the solution of raising taxes and reducing benefits. But Americans want more freedom and choice in education, health care and retirement security. Republicans -- too busy dreaming up wedge issues to score cheap points against Democrats -- have lost sight of their broad national agenda.

When he says “fiscal conservatives,” that would be me. I’m not at all in tune with the social conservatives…as a matter of fact I find the social conservative agenda generally off-putting (with a couple of exceptions). But that’s another story, one I may explore someday, but not now. Were these “normal” times I’d sign on to a “throw the bums out” revolution. The Republicans have done little or nothing to advance the small government, fiscally responsible ideal fiscal conservatives, including me, believe in. They have, in fact, pissed me off mightily. But these are not normal times, this is war time. And the only alternative to the Republicans is the Democrats. The key being, of course, is that the Democrats are not a viable alternative. Based, you know, on what they say.

A common response when one is faced with a bad situation that seems intractable is to shrug your shoulders and say “Well, it could be worse.” Yes, it could indeed be worse. And there’s a pretty damned good chance things will get worse. One hopes not.

And while I’m on about what Democrats say, there’s this op-ed (“What Democrats Would Do”) in yesterday’s WaPo, as well:

But with it looking increasingly as if Democrats, after 12 years in the minority, will take over the House at least, it's worth looking at their stated agenda -- "A New Direction for America" -- for a glimpse at what a Democratic majority might entail.

On national security, the House Democrats' plan offers more goals than details. Who could disagree with promises to "eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al-Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan and end the threat posed by the Taliban" or "redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea?" But the hard part -- on which Democrats offer no details -- is how that is to be done.

On Iraq in particular, the agenda calls for "the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces," with "Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country." Again, what's missing are the details of what "responsible redeployment" might look like. "Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency," the Democrats say. Okay, what if that insistence doesn't yield the desired result?

Precisely. While “the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces” has a much nicer ring than, say, “cut and run,” there is little or no difference in the intent of the two terms. Both mean we’ve lost the will to prevail. Both are prescriptions for defeat, either immediately or deferred for a short period of time, depending on how much time we allocate for the “responsible redeployment.” Of course, it remains to be seen how a Democratic majority could actually enforce a “responsible redeployment.” The Republicans, after all, will still define and implement policy. But policy requires funding, and funding would be the Democrats’ trump card. Under funding the war effort would require a redeployment of forces, or other cut-backs in on-going operations. And then there’s the specter of all those investigations a Democratic majority would launch, and the chaos, finger pointing, and distractions from the real job at hand, which, of course, is winning the frickin’ war. The Democrats proposed approach simply doesn’t wash with me. And yeah, I’m a “single-issue voter.” National security is my issue, and the Republicans seem better equipped to deal with it.

There’s more in that op-ed other than Iraq. The Post’s bottom line is the Dems are all about focus-group approved rhetoric but short on real ideas. I agree with them completely, and that doesn’t happen very often.

The WSJ put up a similar editorial yesterday, too, titled “The Non-Contract with America,” and although it says a lot of the same things the WaPo does, I believe the WSJ editorial staff says those things better. But then again, I nearly always agree with the WSJ. Surprised?

OK, all that said, I’ll be damned glad when the election is over, regardless of who wins. I’m sick to death of watching the same political ads over and over and over again, ad nauseam. We say the same things each political season about how low the ads have gone, deplore the mud-slinging, and all that. But this year it really is getting to me. I’d love to see just one clever political advertisement. Just one. Fat chance.

Today’s Pic: After their fourth or fifth Labatts, the Boys decided to serenade the ladies with an a cappella rendition of “Cielito Lindo.” 03/2000, Brownsville, TX.