The Democrat Debates and.... Our Hillary Reconciliation (or Resignation)...?

We really wanted to watch the Democrat primary debate on Thursday but found ourselves delayed for a longer than expected time in a (southern) foreign country.

As we weren’t able to watch it live, we have been relegated to piecing together the debate via YouTube. The opening segment of the debate was about all we really needed to see, though. CNN, which broadcast the debate and which was moderated by Wolf Blitzer, was obviously aware of the Hillary licenses-for-illegals flip-flop and spent the entirety of the first 10 minutes or so encouraging confrontation between Clinton and Obama who was critical of her excruciating waffling.

We really enjoyed Obama’s accusation that Clinton was not doing enough to enforce enrollment in her universal health care program. My god. As any college-bound high school grad will tell you, one of the great joys of moving out of the crib is that Mom and Dad aren’t there to nag you about brushing and flossing, eating your vegetables, getting a good night’s sleep, etc. Well guess what, America? Depending on how things shake out next November, we’re all moving back home, so to speak. Mama Hill’ and/or Papa Back’ will be tending the premises, blowing taps, pulling bunk checks, announcing reveille and generally making us feel we are right back in Seminary. Golly, we can’t wait.

And we have a confession to make… We totally misread Hillary’s me-against-them-boys defense tactic that arose in the wake of the last debate. She ended the initial segment with a high decibel, shrill harangue about how she was fighting for America and was not going to put up with these attacks and something else and uhhh.. well, she was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore! We thought this tactic might have some traction among feminists and even after the applause she received afterwards we couldn’t help but feel how incredibly unlikeable the woman is.

Look…. You know and we know, we aren’t voting for any of these people so ironically enough, its easier to be objective about the Democrat candidates. As such, then, we have a message for Hillary that if we ever had the chance, we would love to pass along:

If you think its bad now, wait ‘til you have the actual misfortune of being elected President. You better get your act together and demonstrate you have the capacity to lead this nation rather than wasting our time bitching about how you are the lone woman in a man’s world.

Whether we like it or not, Hillary Clinton has a very good shot at being the next President and we want her to act like one. Above anything else, we are Americans and we are fiercely protective of our own and of our institutions. If she is elected President then that’s it… she’s this nation’s democratically elected President - she’s our girl.

Does this mean that we are going to go happily along with everything she decrees? Not at all. We will fight tooth and nail for our own governing principals of which we believe our President is running afoul. At the same time, though, we’re not going to threaten to leave the country, seek counseling because of CDS, call Sean Hannity and whine to him about how horrible it all is or participate in any other form of adolescent petulance we all saw and heard after the ’04 Presidential elections.

We love this country too much to start acting like a bunch of teenagers just because we don’t like who got elected and we’ll crack upside the head anyone we know who should know better themselves.

"Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Member of the Republican Party?"

Read here an article from the Washington Times on that Mecca of liberal tolerance, compassion and open-mindedness, Hollywood and its alleged treatment of Republicans and conservatives.

It’s a well-known fact that Tinsel town has been in the tank for liberalism, all manner of liberal causes and the Democrat party for years now but after reading the article ask yourself if current climate in Hollywood does not sound like quite the hostile work environment for those unfortunate enough to be suspected of harboring right-wing sentiments.

If the article is to be believed, the writer could not get a single response from the dozen actors alleged to be Republican sympathizers. In fact, some did respond but through their lawyers to the effect: “Don’t you dare print my client’s name in this story connecting him/her with this seditious movement. Do you realize what it will do to their career?”

Read here an entry from actor Ron Silver’s blog for his perspective on this matter.

Article also briefly notes the box office flops that the recent rash of anti-war flicks have been.

No one should be surprised by this.

Through the years, the U.S. military has consistently had a higher public approval rating than about any other American institution. Besides, about every one of us has a brother, sister, Dad, uncle, nephew, son, daughter, close friend, whatever… that served or is currently serving in this country’s armed forces and we are confident that for the most part they speak with great fondness and tremendous pride about that service.

And Hollywood expects to make money or make a "statement" by trashing these people?

Quickies

Honestly. We wonder if ol’ Harry Reid even thinks about what he says before saying it anymore? More unbearable whining and complaining in article here about how horribly things are going in Iraq right now and how the Iraqi government was locked in a “stalemate”. Stalemate…. hmmm… would that be the equivalent of not getting any of your legislation passed? We had to ask. And we’re confident things are going pretty well in Iraq right now without having to read any news because, well…. there isn’t any news out of Iraq in which to read. Reid is again threatening funding of the war and will again receive a thrashing at the hands of this, at once lame-duck but suddenly rejuvenated Administration.

Next round of Democrat primary debates are going down tonight in Vegas. We might even try to watch them. The “angle” on this particular round, of course, is how Hillary will respond after her shaky performance the first time around, especially regarding her incomprehensible position on driver’s licenses for hard-working, family-oriented illegals? She got a boost from New York governor, Eliot Spitzer, who a couple of days ago, after immense pressure from his constituents, dropped his push for letting illegals legally on New York’s highways. And on cue and with the predictability of the Sun rising in the East, Hillary came out against granting licenses for illegals. Pinky swear. For reals, this time.

And finally, Mexican President Felipe Calderon is concerned with what he perceives as “harassment” of Mexican illegals. In fact, the harassment is getting so bad that illegals are returning in droves to a better life back in Mexico. Uh, yeah. We wonder, though, if this harassment includes getting put into a spread-eagle and having our pockets emptied by the police as has happened to us the past 2 trips south of the border? Calderon is pushing a PR campaign documenting success stories of hard-working, family-oriented illegals and has endorsed the formation of something called League Against Discrimination Against Mexicans in the United States. This name barely beat out Coalition for the Prevention of Bad Things Preventing Mexicans Going Back to Mexico from America. Read all about it here, if you must.

I Got Mine!

You gotta love it when one of the world’s richest men doesn’t want you to leave too much money behind for your children. Article here reports out on Warren Buffet being in support of the estate tax, the repealing of which is something being bandied about in Congress right now.

Proponents of the estate tax reason that wealth passed down to the next generation unearned is an anathema to democracy and contributes to a widening gap between the haves and have nots. Here’s the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. himself going all poli-sci on us:

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

Uhhh… whatever. You can dress-up that pig any which way you want but its still just a pig and all that flowery verbage can’t disguise the fact that this “death tax” is just a good ol’ fashioned government money grab. Again, any pro-active attempt by the government to take it upon itself to redistribute wealth in the name equality, justice, income gap, democracy… whatever, is pure folly.

And it hits even closer to home because this “progressive” program was mainly responsible for the O’Malley family, the model of stability and dignity as sports franchise owners, selling our beloved Dodgers to Rupert Murdoch and the Fox empire back in the 90s and which has not coincidentally resulted in over a decade of mediocrity and irrelevance. So screw you, Warren.

We’ll credit Buffett for being perhaps the most unpretentious multi-billionaire in the greater Omaha, Nebraska area but it represents the height of gall for someone who can play “what’s a few hundred million dollars between friends?” opining on the financial legacy we wish to leave our children.

Nancy and Harry's Totally Bogus Trip

(Totally forgot the first time around but we want to thank B-Daddy for his usual great work minding the store while we were out and about entertaining out-of-town company. And, yes… we thoroughly enjoyed this cold weather-region sporting phenomena called hockey on Friday night).

Since we have been taking an absolute beating in our college picks (but oddly enough, based upon past performances over the years, doing pretty well in our pro picks), we want to take time out to point out something that we may have possibly got right besides predicting USC being a two-loss team and not winning the BCS championship.

Attached article, here, documents the litany of failures the Democrats have experienced with regards to passing any legislation regarding the war in Iraq. Well, more accurately, legislation is getting passed but that legislation is for giving the President precisely what he wants. How is this possible? How is it possible that the Democrats who swept into the majority in both Houses on a surging tide of American sentiment in opposition to this illegal, ill-conceived, poorly executed war? Its possible because the ’06 mid-term elections weren’t really about the war, that’s why. Read our thoughts previously, here.

Dick Morris gave perhaps the best assessment of these elections when he commented that the Republicans getting beat because of the War in Iraq was like saying the passing of a person afflicted with AIDS was due to pneumonia. (Paraphrasing Morris): “Yeah, pneumonia may have been the thing that finally put that person in the grave but there was a far more deep-rooted, systemic problem that was ultimately responsible for that person’s death.”

The analogy struck us as odd at the time but no matter – he was right. The Republicans, drunk with power, became the very people they raged against way, way back last century when Newt and the gang arrived in town back in (19)94.

But back to the War in Iraq for a moment: Why is it that the anti-war set has been largely unable to gain traction in the wheelhouse of America’s consciousness. This may be a subject for a separate post but we can’t help but feel there is a sentiment among Americans that perhaps because we screwed up in Vietnam, we’ve got a chance to make things right this time around in Iraq. And this extends to several different aspects of that conflict: the execution of the War, our exit strategy that only led to genocide, the protests here at home, our treatment of the troops when they came back home, etc.

There’s a lot there for which to make up and regardless of this country’s overall dissatisfaction for the logic and reasoning for going to war one gets the sense that the complementary mood is: “O.K., we’re there – let’s try to do everything we can to at least get this century’s “unpopular war” done and done right”.

The Blind leading the Clueless

In our short existence here in the blogosphere, this site has not been bound by any convention other than displaying a mild degree of taste and comportment, crediting those from whom we are stealing and not blogging while angry.

The last guideline was the reason why we didn’t post on the Chargers yesterday or late Sunday and we have found that in the past 2 days our anger has merely given way to complete bewilderment. And we don’t want to sound over-the-top or melodramatic but we are fairly confident in saying that this may be our last post on the Chargers for a while as it becomes increasingly difficult to rationalize time, money and emotion spent on a talented, yet clueless group of athletes coached by a hopelessly inept staff that hasn’t yet been able to figure out what is glaringly obvious to us. Besides, we are fully cognizant of the fact that we are starting to sound like a broken record. Jeez.... and to think the Chargers actually beat the Colts 23-21.

And speaking of broken… our personal breaking point for coming to this decision came this morning in reading a news item in the “Charger Report” in today’s San Diego U-T that reported, with Quentin Jammer returning from his injury, Antonio Cromartie would probably not start next week against Jacksonville. There is absolutely nothing else one needs to know about the Charger coaching staff and the reason why the Chargers are 5-4 than the fact that this defensive back, who in the last 3 games has 5 picks and 2 touchdowns, will not be starting next week. That’s it. That’s all one needs to know.

Then again, it’s the “logic” displayed above that nearly relegates the most versatile, durable and dynamic running back of his generation to “what ever happened to…?” status. Jumping Jiminy on a pogo stick… how do you forget about L.T? He is the NFL version of the “easy button”. Get this guy the rock early and often and things just take care of themselves. “Things” being incidental stuff like the offense, the gameplan and ultimately the win-loss record.

Its also this same inexplicable “logic” that engenders an allergic reaction among Charger defenders to the team’s opposing quarterback. This is all on Ted Cottrell, the defensive coordinator, though. We saw virtually no blitzing or stunting on Sunday evening as Peyton Manning was able to just dink and dunk his way down field whenever he wasn’t throwing interceptions. And it should be noted that none of those interceptions were a result of any pressure that was being put on Manning.

Are we jumping off the bandwagon? Hardly. We’ll still be there next Sunday morning rooting these guys on against the Jaguars but we are going to take a break from our ground hog day routine here for a while.

Immigration Persuasion

B-Daddy here. Immigration seems like such a hot button issue for this column, I thought I would try to break it down a little. Unlike your regular BwD host, I feel somewhat dispassionate about the issue. I thought I would take Deep Throat's advice and "follow the money," and look at the self-interest of the key players involved. Under most circumstances, political constituencies vote their self-interest, so analyzing it is necessary to understanding the problem and working towards a solution. (Also, we want to "Seek first to understand" and "think win-win" in 7 Habits terminology.)

On the Democrat side, I often wondered why the labor unions would favor amnesty. It seems that a steady supply of undocumented workers would cause competition for their members. However, if undocumented workers are granted legal status, then their pay would have to be raised to at least the minimum wage. This increase in pay would mean that the undocumented workers would have less competitive advantage on price than union workers. See the Cato Institute article on the union's relationship with the minimum wage. Further, bringing the undocumented workers into the legal world would make them available to be organized by the unions. For the Democratic Party in general, there is a belief that those granted amnesty would then vote Democrat because the illegal immigrant population is largely poor and Hispanic, a demographic (there's that word again) that tends to vote Democrat. Interestingly enough, it seems that the people who are harmed by an amnesty would be poor, Hispanic legal residents. However, one abstract of a study on this subject "suggests that Latino support for immigration is primarily a function of ethnic identify and symbolic politics" In simpler language, Latinos identify with the immigrants and cheer the expansion of their own group. Interestingly enough, listening to talk radio and reading other forums, this is also the reason cited by conservatives in opposing illegal immigration and for opposing increased legal immigration.

On the Republican side, the business interests that generally support the Republican Party see a steady supply of low-wage labor from continued high immigration illegal or otherwise. As a result, business tends to be on the side of working out a solution that doesn't stop the flow of workers, so the enforcement first, reform later concept is non-starter for them. However, there is a significant number of voters (mostly Republicans) who see illegal immigration as a threat to their way of life on a number of fronts. First, the widespread violation of immigration law is seen as a precursor to the general breakdown of law and order. A return to the crime rates of the 70's and 80's is not in the general public's best interest. And this theory has legs. It is akin to the "broken windows" theory of crime that Willy Bratton and Rudy Giuliani successfully applied to reducing crime in New York in the 90s. (As an aside, I trace a goodly portion of our current trouble in Iraq to the wave of looting that got out of hand after the initial victory. That created the same kind of "tipping point" from which we are only now recovering.) The second and more powerful issue appears to be cultural and linguistic. Seeing large numbers of immigrants who do not speak English and therefore seem incapable of taking part in the common dialog on what it means to be an American is threatening. Even if historically, the same charge was applied to Italian and Eastern European immigrants at the turn of the last century, this issue strongly resonates with those who have a certain cultural vision of America. And culture seems to dominate all political discourse these days, on both left and right.

So right now we have a stalemate on the issue. The anti-amnesty crowd has the passion and the numbers to prevent any amnesty legislation from being signed. (Remember that most big changes in American society require consensus.) But they are probably not a majority, (my opinion, not yet supported by research) and certainly don't have the power to get the kind of strict enforcement needed to stem the tide of illegal immigration. I continue to see hard liners on illegal immigration lose elections, even in places like southern Arizona in 2006, where illegal immigration has a high impact. Until a win-win solution is developed, I see no end to this stand off.

Poinsettia Bowl Update and Other College Action

B-Daddy here. Navy's record setting win over North Texas, 74-62, (that's not a basketball score, Navy basketball doesn't score that much) sets them up with a date in the Poinsettia Bowl on December 20th. See you there. This is turning into one of the better Navy seasons in my lifetime. Now, we just have to Beat Army!



Got to watch almost all of the USC-Cal game. Mrs. Daddy and I were hosting a party for teenagers; so once the guests arrived it was broadly hinted that I should make myself scarce. No problemo. I was struck by how inconsistent both teams looked and it wasn't just the constant rain. Pre-season, this was the marquee Pac-10 match up. Tonight, USC's defense looked incapable of stopping Cal, but then Cal would make a mistake: fumble, interception, or stupid penalty and the Trojans were spared. The Trojan offense alternated between unstoppable and inscrutable. I don't know why it happens, but these Trojans seem to lack the intensity and focus of prior years. Dean has a theory, but I really was enjoying the success of USC over the past few seasons.

With Ohio State losing, I imagine there will not be a unanimous number one in the polls tomorrow. But I wonder why Kansas wouldn't be picked for the top spot. They are the only unbeaten team in a BCS division, even with a slightly suspect schedule. No harm in voting for them as number one, because if they beat Missouri and then beat their probable opponent in a Big-12 championship, Oklahoma, who could deny that they are number one. However, given the way the unbeatens have tumbled this year, I am making the following bold prediction: Neither Kansas nor Hawaii, the only remaining unbeatens, will finish the season without a loss. So sure am I, that if wrong, I will refund the cost of your subscription to Beers with Demo. (If only Dean could figure out how to make this blogging thing pay, that would be sweet.)

It's Not Just the Issues

B-Daddy here. OK, I hate to admit this, but after taking the Select a Candidate Quiz, I am allegedly a Ronulan, the guy to his left was a very close second by a score of 33 to 32. I took the quiz again, not altering my positions but tweaking their importance to me and the same duo is one, two, albeit reversed. But no way will you find me casting my vote for either of these guys because each has some fatal flaws that I just can't live with. To me, this points up the importance of negatives, and why going negative is an important part of the political process.
First, my negatives. For Mr. Paul, he is advocating immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which would be a disaster that even the mainstream Democrat presidential hopefuls aren't advocating. Also, he makes a big point of some issues that Americans really don't understand, so he looks like a kook, the role of the Federal Reserve for example. It detracts too much from his message, that I don't trust his judgment. For John McCain, I thoroughly and completely loathe the McCain-Feingold bill from every angle, practical, moral and constitutional. Today is not the day to detail its horrors, but I just want to make the point that his bill is the single greatest assault on the First Amendment in my lifetime. This Supreme Court should go down as one of the worst since the court that ruled on Dred Scott, for upholding McCain-Feingold (in McConnell vs FEC) and its ruling in Kelo vs. New London. OK, enough ranting.

But the real bad news for me is that the candidate with the highest score only agrees with me only gets a 33 score. Now I am reduced to finding the candidate who is not a whacko and who only annoys me on half the issues.

Can somebody please help?

American Sing-a-long

(One last post before we’re out of here for the weekend. You will be in the usual good hands of B-Daddy during that time. A good friend from college is coming into town tomorrow afternoon. It’s the Anaheim Ducks on Friday evening, possibly Trojan football Saturday evening and then back down here for Chargers/Colts Sunday evening. Sheesh… whatever happened to the good ol’ days of taking your out-of-town college bros out drinking and to the strip clubs?)

Our inaugural post said that one of the things we wanted to do was post and comment upon American culture. Though we haven’t done that in a while, it is hoped this makes up for it a little and that you all have some fun with it.

A few months back we posted here on what songs would get the most enthusiastic response from U.S. tourists and expats were that song played at a pub, café’, hofbrau, yardhouse, etc. abroad. So in a change of pace from putting up polls on the serious matters of life like football, we want you to grab your passport, take a trip across the pond and settle yourself into a brew house in our ancestral homeland of Germany.

And when the oompah band in a shameless attempt to pander to the Americans in the crowd belts out an American classic, which of the following songs are you most likely to and most enthusiastically sing the chorus along with the rest of your American (and possibly European) table mates? Choices are in poll at right but feel free to browse your selections courtesy YouTube below.

American Pie – Don McLean
Sweet Home Alabama – Lynyrd Skynyrd
I wanna rock’n’roll all night (and party every day) – KISS
Country Roads – John Denver

“Politics Make Strange….” Hey, Careful... That’s Pat Robertson You’re Talking About.

We thought there might be some more time to sort all this out but it looks like a few people want to get it out of the way so they can concentrate on Christmas shopping. We were previously on the fence over the earlier dates for some of the primaries for party nominations. We weren’t comfortable with them but couldn’t come up with a real reason why so we we’re just “playing it by ear”. Well, now we have an actual reason: Pat Robertson has come out for Rudy. Read attached AP article, here.

We’ve been told over the years that Pat Robertson is one of the 3 or 4 most influential people in this alleged monolithic entity known as the “Christian Right”. And the term “alleged” is used because its always been the conventional wisdom that the “Christian Right” moved and acted as one. But as the article notes, the leading actors in the “Christian Right” are all endorsing different GOP candidates. Of course, this isn’t described as an example of “diversity” but rather as this supposed voting bloc being “splintered”.

But back to Pat and Rudy. This shacking-up represents the folly of moving primaries to the left because it, in turn, reduces the amount of time voters have to consider candidates in a calm, rational manner before they feel the need to hit the AbH (Anybody but Hillary) button as Pat Robertson has obviously done. We can see no other motive than this for a social conservative, Robertson, endorsing a man who has supported abortion rights and gay marriage.

Robertson can say all he wants about national security trumping social issues but its crystal clear why it is that he has endorsded Giuliani. And that’s a shame because the coronation of Hillary as her Party’s standard-bearer for the Presidential election is not nearly the lock it was just 2 weeks ago so its far to early to be hitting any AbH panic button just yet.

And do you know how we know its Christmastime, already? Because Starbuck’s said it is, OK?