Axis of Right

Three Native Rhode Islanders Commenting From the Right on Politics and Anything Else

Archive for February 6th, 2007

Happy Birthday President Reagan!

Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007

Today would have been President Reagan’s 96th birthday.  As the greatest President of the 20th Century and an even better human being, President Reagan is now and forever will be missed.

Posted in Anything Else | 2 Comments »


Posted by Ryan on February 6, 2007

The House Dems are going to vote next week on a non-binding resolution condemning the war and Bush’s plan to try to win it.  What is the purpose of this?  The Dems have made a larger stink about voting on things that don’t mean anything than they did about minimum wage!

It’s symbolic, they say, but who’s directly impacted?

  • If they don’t defund the military campaign it’s just wasted time and our soldier’s get a mixed message.
  • If they do act on it, and no troop surge takes place, the existing troops in country have more stress put on them.
  • Also, if they do defund the surge, our soldier’s are militarily abandoned by their Congress.
  • Having this conversation at all (leaving, not winning) is being heard by all Americans, including the soldiers, and non-Americans, even those who wish us ill.

How can anyone truly take the Dems seriously on national security if they can’t make up their minds to actually act on resolutions that they feel the people elected them to make? What if a REAL, true crisis rears its ugly head tomorrow?  Who are you going to trust?  The people who at least tried to get the fight right, or those who fought against fighting our enemies and even toyed with the ideas of defunding our troops during war.  I can’t see where the Dems think this conversation is in their future best interest.

Posted in Politics | 2 Comments »

Will She Duck Her Fellow Donkeys?

Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007

This piece at Politico is mostly speculation with a little bit of news, but I find it interesting enough.  They speculate that She Who Must Not Be Named and Barrack Obama may skip a good number of expected primary debates.  After all, neither candidate has accepted any debate invitations.  Obama hasn’t been in politics long enough to detect a pattern, so his intentions are unclear.  As for the Junior Senator sort of from New York, skipping debates would conform to her playbook.

Not discussing issues is the default in her playbook.  What She needs to do is turn attention away to some other half-relevant topic so She can complain that the candidates are not discussing issues.  In the primary, She needs to turn the focus away from her original insincere support for the Iraq war.  In the general, she needs to turn attention away from her planned tax increases, retreat, and government control over people’s lives.  Not debating in the primary will allow her to avoid discussing issues, or as she will undoubtedly frame it, she will be “busy in the Senate working on the business of the American people.”

Besides, She Who Must Not Be Named can’t be bothered with her subjects at least until the eve of the Iowa caucuses.

Pic via Politico

Link via Drudge

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

We Could Nominate a Senator You Know

Posted by Mike on February 6, 2007

This is a topic that is starting to bug me. One pearl of conventional wisdom starting to gain traction is the idea that a sitting United States Senator cannot win a Presidential election. This conventional wisdom relies on the fact that no sitting senator has won the Presidency since John F. Kennedy. Although this assertion is true, it is nothing more than coincidence.

Four sitting Senators have been nominated by one of the major parties after 1960: Barry Goldwater, George McGovern, Bob Dole, and John Kerry. None of them were elected; however, the reasons for their defeats have nothing to do with the position they held.

Goldwater was defeated in 1964 by John F. Kennedy’s politically brilliant hand-picked successor in the aftermath of Kennedy’s assassination. Moreover, Goldwater was tarnished as an extremist by the MSM before there was an alternative media to defend him. These are the reasons Goldwater lost. It was not because he was a Senator.

George McGovern was defeated by Richard Nixon in the landslide of 1972. During his first term, Nixon had successfully represented the concerns of the silent majority following our national circus that was 1968. The short term forces were strongly aligned against any Democrat in 1972. The fact that the Democrats nominated McGovern turned their inevitable defeat into a landslide. McGovern was a socialist before socialism was cool. Minimum income guarantees and defeat during a time of war are not the ingredients of a winning platform. These are the reasons McGovern lost. It was not because he was a Senator.

Bob Dole was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1996. The economy was in good shape. The media was in the tank for Clinton at a time the new media hadn’t fully established itself. A conservative third party candidate was also on the ballot. Worse, Bob Dole looked like a corpse. These are the reasons Bob Dole lost. It was not because he was a Senator.

John Kerry was a loser before 2004, he was loser during 2004, and has been a loser ever since. Kerry was and remains an abrasive, left-wing dork incapable of consistently maintaining any position other than his disdain for our troops. Kerry did not lose because he was a Senator. He lost because he is a loser.

Because elections are not a everyday events, coincidences occur. The coincidences have ranged from pre-election football games, to the World Series, to fashionable hemlines. The curse of the Senators is merely the latest coincidence.

Part of the reasoning underlying this theory is the nature of the job. Senators must vote and take positions on issues. This reality, it is argued, prevents Senators from clearly articulating their vision and exposes Senators to the “flip-flopper” label. I concede that Senators must vote on legislation which contain both items they support and oppose; however, Governors have the same problem. Governors are required to sign or veto legislation containing items they both support and oppose. The same pitfalls are in play.

All one needs to do is look around to see the evidence contradicting the Senate curse theory. There are many articulate Senators who cannot be tagged with “flip-flopper” label. Senators are often the most effective advocates for their causes. No one will ever accuse Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, or Tom Coburn of being inarticulate or a flip-flopper. Heck, even the late Paul Wellstone fit into this category. (His liberalism, not his office would have cost him the Presidency had he lived).

The weaknesses of the Senators running in the Republican party stem from their convictions and/or character, not from the fact they are Senators. John McCain passed legislation in violation of the First Amendment in order to get favorable media coverage. This speaks to his character, not to his office. Sam Brownback supports a non-binding resolution opposing our troop surge. This speaks to his policy positions, not to his office. In fact, when it comes to vacillation, the repeat offender running for President on the Republican side is a recent Governor.

Opposing the Senators running for President is a legitimate position and probably the correct one. Our lot of Senators running this year is woefully unimpressive. Opposing them merely because they are Senators however, is completely different. The curse of the Senator is nothing more than superstition. It should not affect our votes.

Even if there was something to this theory, the curse would be lifted this year anyway because the Democrats will nominate a Senator too.

Posted in Politics | 3 Comments »

Quasi-Scientific Dogma

Posted by Sal on February 6, 2007

One of the great frauds of liberalism today is their dogmatic adherence to Scientific Myths.  Ann Coulter touches on this extensively in her book Godless.  A prime example of this is the case of Global Warming.  Global warming was first postulated in the late 1970s/early 1980s (following the now-defunct hypothesis of Global Cooling, which stated that smog and other man-made pollution problems were causing the earth to cool.  This was based on the observable fact that the earth’s temperature cooled slightly between 1940 and 1975.  Since 1975 it has been slightly rising, but as Climatologist Timothy Ball states in this must-read article, it is as much a fallacy to blame the rising on greenhouse gases as it was to blame global cooling on smog. 

Despite what the Drive-By Media states, the scientific consensus on Global Warming is far from universal.  However, scientists who take a contrary point of view on this (and on any quasi-scientific dogmatic postulation, such as evolution) are ostracised and ridiculed.  This is such in opposition to the true scientific method, which is inherently skeptical on all theories and requires constant inquiry, testing, and validation.  Imagine the quasi-science Nazis if Newton’s theory of gravity were part of the scientific dogma, and then Einstein came with relativity to change everyone’s perception.  This is how contrarians who question purely from a scientifc viewpoint are treated today.  The inquisition is back, this time in the form of the media, quasi-scientists, and the left. 

Posted in Culture, Politics | 6 Comments »