Soccer Mom: Unplugged

Required background information for the following story:

1- A few months ago I set the ring tone on my very infrequently used cell phone to the Ben 10 theme song.  This is my 9 year old's favorite cartoon and he had taken my phone with him to the park.

2- I don't wear a watch so I brought my cell phone into church to monitor the time and keep the children's nursery, where I volunteer, on schedule.

3- My children are just getting over a cold and all have drippy noses.

It was an unusually quiet church service.  Even the infants and toddlers were virtually silent as the young boys in their crisp white shirts and colorful ties brought communion to the congregants.  Deep in prayer, I was suddenly disturbed by the sound of an oddly familiar driving rock song.  Nope.  It wasn't in my head.  My cell phone had just gone off during the most conspicuous moment of the service and was playing Ben 10 at the highest volume possible.  Kids in neighboring pews giggled.  Adult worshippers tried to appear disinterested or unaware.  I got it turned off just as a freshly scrubbed 12 year old appeared beside our pew with a tray of small plastic sacrament cups.  Red faced and flushed, I returned my phone to my purse and looked up just in time to see my 6 year old son tipping back the little cup of water.  He put the cup inside his lips, being silly as boys are apt to do.  Suddenly he inhaled and the cup lodged in his throat.  He went silent and in a split second I had one hand bracing the back of his neck while the other retrieved the cup.  My 9 year old son, sitting between Sir Sucky and I burst into uncontrollable laughter so as soon as I got a hand free, I clamped it over his mouth and whispered a dire warning to which he laughed even harder. "Mom," he sputtered, "you've got my boogers all over your hand!"  Sure enough, in my attempt to quiet him quickly, I didn't even notice that I'd wiped his nose with my hand.  All three boys were laughing now and my husband was shaking from the exertion of trying to contain his guffaws.

After a quick trip to the ladies' room to wash my hands, I returned to enjoy the sermon.  As various speakers addressed the metaphysical, I tried to find some meaning - conjure some morality tale - from the embarrassing and eventful previous few minutes.  Clearly, I'm no Aesop because the only thing that came to mind as I sat there in the Lord's house was a profane two word bumper sticker.  Yep. STUFF HAPPENS.  And perhaps the best recourse is simply to laugh out loud.

If you've been on Drudgereport today, you've seen the headline linking to Ben Smith at politico.com

So, Hill repairs foreign relations by insulting Vladimir Putin and he responds with a witty (albeit off-color) comeback.  Yes. I laughed.  But for even more fun, read the comment section.  I had to stop because my sides ached! 

I'm just waiting for Ms. Blonde Ambition to demand an apology.

According to the Evening Standard, "The archbishop of Canterbury has today [02/07/08] said that the adoption of Islamic sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable' and that it would help maintain social cohesion." 

In an effort to help maintain social cohesion... where have I heard something similar?  Oh yeah, here.  And here. And here.  Sacrifice principle for cohesion - okay.  Catch you later I'm running out to vote for John McCain and to buy a prayer rug.

Okay,  I've been running trying to keep up with so many conversations here and elsewhere that I've lost my place!  EB,  we were talking about gun control and you didn't like Romney's position but are willing to vote McCain.  Obviously, the Romney question is now irrelevant but I wanted to point this out:  (copied from AnnCoulter.com)

MCCAIN ATTACKS GUN OWNERS! -

McCain "sponsored the McCain/Lieberman gun show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show."

-- Dave Kopel: 2d Amt Project

ALSO:

Supported anti-gun Schumer amendment: Sen McCain voted for an amendment offered by the anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer of New York that would have restricted the legitimate transfer of firearms over the internet. (Source: Congressional Record 5/14/99, p. S5327.)

Voted to expand The Brady Law: McCain voted to extend the restrictions of the Brady bill to pawn shops and gun repair shops.(Source: Congressional Record 5/20/99, p.S5642.)

Supported Clinton Gun Control: John McCain voted AGAINST efforts to kill the Clinton gun control package, which contained al kinds of new gun restrictions, including a ban on many kinds of private gun sales. (Source: Congressional Record 7/28/99, P. S9451.)

-- Gunowners of America

I think this issue was a draw for the GOP candidates - and like most Americans, I think gun control is responsible.  We may differ on the particulars of the regulation but very few would argue against any gun control.  Further, if you think owning an AK47 offers protection from the government, you are deluding yourself.  One man "defending" himself against the government is not a "militia", he is an outlaw.  And he doesn't need an AK47, he needs a lawyer.  Militias, since you introduced that term, were organized by the state governments.  Either the 2nd amt. is about state militias or individuals, you can't have it both ways.

Futher, the Branch Davidians amassed a large volume of automatic weapons and it didn't help them.  If you're planning on taking on the fed with a few assault rifles, you might as well just get a bottle of cyanide and go gently.  (I wish that were funny instead of just sad... but it is what it is.)

There is a falsehood making its way around Republican circles.  It is being perpetuated by partisans who are motivated by a hunger for power and it it being accepted by conservatives who are living in fear.  The lie is that we can unite behind John McCain because he really only differs from conservatives on a few issues.  Only a few votes separate the self-proclaimed maverick and chest-thumping, ex-POW from the rest of us, we're told, and better him tipping back a brew in Lincoln's bedroom that Billy boy tipping back another intern, right?

Wrong.  In her column today, Mona Charen over at townhall.com, explains why so many conservatives cannot be reconciled to McCain, myself among them.  Read it and weep.  I did.

For an even more pointed assessment - read Ann's latest.

I have said repeatedly that I would sit out the presidential election in November if McCain was the GOP nominee.  I have also said I would vote for Obama or write in Ron Paul.  I want to clarify and qualify these statements.

I will be voting in November.  At this point, I will likely write in a presidential candidate.  BUT I will be voting a straight GOP ticket otherwise and here's why:  With either a Democrat or a non-conservative in the White House, we need to provide opposition in Congress to provide some barrier to liberal lawmaking.  Rush Limbaugh was making this point today on his show and I had to laugh because I swear he's got me wiretapped.  I was explaining this very position to my husband on Tuesday night and it is the only way to limit the damage done in the next four years.  If we can't control the policy - we must impede the other guys from doing it.  It is that simple.

Yep - we've become the movement of "Obstruct. Obstruct. Obstruct"  Sad, isn't it?

Add Bill Kristol to the list of republicans who are willing to sacrifice conservatism on the anti-Hillary altar.  What do conservatives have to gain by giving their votes away to a candidate that doesn't share their concerns of value their support?  Have these pundits never heard the old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"  RINOs like John McCain have absolutely no reason to court conservatives when they act like two-bit hookers in the ballot box.  I used to think conservatives stood on principle.

Pastor Huckabee at number 6.  Check it out for youself:  http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

From the first time I heard Fred Barnes shriek the word "cult" on Fox News Channel, I knew he'd never be a Romney supporter.  Still, I expected better than the condescension he heaps upon conservatives in his article over at the Weekly Standard.  In "Let's Grow Up, Conservatives" Barnes argues that McCain is the inevitable GOP nominee and that we need to support him because after all, he's better than Hillary or Obama.  He makes the most flawed suggestion I've heard that if conservatives support McCain, we can retake the party. Hmmm.  Ever heard that old fable about the camel slowly getting into the tent, one inch at a time, to avoid a sandstorm.  Before Abdul knows it, the camel is in the tent and Abdul is outside with sand in his eyes.  Barnes thinks that if we invite the camel all the way in, he'll back right out the minute we ask. NONSENSE.  Our government is a tangible manifestation of the sad truth that when conservatives compromise, we end up outside the tent.

I responded to the article and this is the essence of what I wrote:

The inevitability argument is what Planned Parenthood uses when they say kids are going to have sex so we may as well give them condoms.  The idea that since McCain is going to be the nominee, I might as well support him is ludicrous. If my child has premarital sex, then they had better be able to afford either their own condoms or a lot of diapers and burp cloths.  I certainly won't be handing them a bottle of bubbly and a hotel key for their after prom activities. 

In the same respect, I won't aid and abet John McCain in hijacking the GOP by handing him an ballet box prophylactic.  Every vote in favor of McCain, is an endorsement of his non-conservative policies and frankly, I don't see the difference between a Republican who doesn't represent me and a Democrat who doesn't represent me.  Do you really think that a McCain in the White House is going to be thinking, "How do I reach out to conservatives?"

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/02/019710.php  and a new pol on RCP puts Romney ahead in Georgia.  Can that be right?  Zogby puts Romney up by 3 in California and it would appear that the Republicans in Mass think more highly of their governor than the citizens of Arizona do of their senator.  Romney is up 25 points in Mass while McCain is only up 16 in Arizona.

What I find the most interesting is that McCain touts endorsements of other politicians, most of whom for which conservatives hold no special love.  Romney gets the biggest names in the conservative movement behind him and voters are still confused.  Ingraham, Hannity, Coulter, Rush (for all practical purposes), Levin, the National Review - all endorsing Romney and yet the many of the same voters who decry the MSM and the GOP party failures in DC are letting the media and the nearly-dem governator guide the course of the election.  I hope conservatives are coming around to Romney and realizing that he is the better choice.  Tuesday will tell if the conservative spokespeople have effectively put McCain on the ticket by endorsing Romney too far into the contest. 

Cross you fingers.

If a picture speaks a thousand words, then let it be said:

... we will stop telling the truth about them."

Those who cast the votes decide nothing.  Those who count the votes decide everything.  - Joseph Stalin

Too many of you are talking about voting for McCain simply to counter Hillary Clinton's presidential bid.  I appreciate the anti-Clinton delirium,  I really do,  however, ask yourself one simple question, does John McCain care if you hold your nose while you cast your ballot? 

Do you believe that McCain and the GOP establishment that is now fawning over him are worrying behind closed doors because you cast a less than eager vote?  Absolutely not.  Behind closed doors McCain is not fretting over how to win your favor, he is laughing at you and saying things like "Dumba$$ conservatives will vote for anyone with an -R behind their name!"  Your vote for McCain will be seen as, and characterized by the mainstream media as, a vote for his anti-conservative policies.  Several articles, I've read just this morning are characterizing the country as "moving left".  Guess how that happens, people...  When we continue to support candidates that don't move forward our agenda, every nose-holding vote is seen as a sign that we approve of the direction these liberal politicians are moving the nation. 

Instead, we should sit out a few rounds and when a smart candidate comes along who speaks to us, we should march in droves to his side.  At that point, the party will see the power of conservatives and pull right to get our votes.  You can't push your agenda forward if you give up your only leverage and our only leverage is inside the booth.

Think.  It's patriotic.

I've just about had it with Republicans invoking Ronald Reagan's name as if he walked on water and gave sight to the blind.  Let's face it - America was horribly divided under Reagan and there is ample evidence that a significant segment of the American population believed the big R was actually the antichrist.  All this looking back as if the 80s were some grand period of pax americana is ludicrous.

Reagan was a good man with a great vision.  In that order.  That candidates seem intent on defining themselves by their relation to this man is a reflection of the lemming-like behavior of the voting population. Don't people know that Reagan is not on the ballot?  Instead of playing Six Degrees of Separation with a dead actor,no matter how beloved, how about we play To Tell the Truth and let the candidates stand on their records?

Given the field of presidential candidates, it's hard to even know where to start complaining...

Clinton (D), much like her husband, is a pandering opportunist who will say and do whatever it takes to get elected.  The fact that her husband couldn't define the word "is" speaks volumes about Bill's amazing ability to live in an alternate reality and his ingrained inability to be honest.  Hillary's anti-war pro-war vote explains why she and Bill are a perfect match.  They have pathologies in common and speak the same convoluted dialect of the English language.

Obama (D), much as I hate to say it, I like this guy.  Not his politics, since it still remains largely unclear what they are, but he is tall, dark, and handsome, striking the veritable jackpot of fairy tale physicality.  You go, boy!  If only the wizard would give him a brain.

McCain (R), every time I hear him say "straight talk" I feel like I'm trapped in that SpongeBob episode where it's opposite day.  I'm wondering if his forked tongue resulted from some torture during his POW time because it's just not natural to be able to equivocate so adeptly.  Furthermore,  I have absolutely had it with his resorting to the fallback position of "I'm a war hero" every time he gets called out for lying or his voting record.  Two words, deceptajohn, "Murtha and Kerry."  Just because someone went to war doesn't make him good presidential material. 

Huckabee (R),  ought to be selling igloos to eskimo with that silver tongue of his.  He is charismatic and articulate but that doesn't change his liberal record.  I was willing to give him a pass on most things and was tempted early on to vote for him but now that it is clear he is only in the race to be McCain's veep and his intentions are more about tanking Romney than pushing a real agenda,  I'd love to see evangelicals throw him under the bus.  They won't, however, because like Huckabee, they believe even Hillary is better than a Mormon.

Romney (R), what a waste.  This guy has experience, smarts, and a desire to reach out to conservatives but couldn't get out the gate because most of his party hesitated in supporting him.  He has a great record as governor and in the private sector which has been distorted by his detractors and left him looking like a flip-flopper.  In short, he's got Kerry-itis.  He has thoughtful positions that can't be explained in a sound bite world and that combined with Huckabee's opportunism is defeating him.

Paul (R) the best fiscal conservative on the ticket but lacks the ability to see the difference between foreign entanglements in the middle east and a 200 year old Europe-based international policy.  Although a smart guy in most respects, Paul fails to see the big picture of social policy and his libertarian ideas would legalize many behaviors that would ultimately weaken the nation.

So... I'm voting Romney in the primary and if he is not the party nominee, I'll do one of two things.

McCain v. Obama,  I'll vote Obama - hell, I've always wanted to gamble ;-)

McCain v. Hillary,  I'll stay home and and actively campaign for all of my conservative friends to do the same.