Re-thinking my association...

It is impossible to really go through the last year and not to begin to re-think my decision to consider myself a conservative and to continue associating with that movement.

Perhaps my first clue was the fact that nobody in that movement seems ready to question some of Michelle Malkin's highly questionable friends that I commented on earlier. To wit, she has endorsed a web site that runs stuff from the likes of Sam Francis, Jared Taylor, and Steve Sailer. She's endorsing a site that seems to have no problem with some out-and-out racists, and gives it a one-day head start on her columns. She's endorsing something that is, to put it bluntly, evil. And nobody in the conservative movement is even stopping to ask her, "What's up with this?"

Then there was Terri Schiavo. I did not think pulling the feeding tube was the right thing to do. Not by a long shot. I had questions about whether Michael Schiavo had a conflict of interest, to put it mildly. But some people went beyond that - they demanded that efforts outside the law be taken - to include murdering Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer. Sorry, but that is something I won't support - murder is still wrong.

Then there's Harriet Miers. She never got a chance for a hearing. It was a classic case of a verdict being reached, and inconvenient facts being ignored. It was a feeding frenzy that used some of the tactics of the left (Hugh Hewitt's piece in the New York Times - registration required), they threw out common decency, not just to Miers, but to some supporters. Ultimately, she withdrew, and Samuel Alito got the slot, but Alito's successful confirmation was a matter of luck - the Democrats overreached and tried a despicable piece of character assassination, rather than focus on the hypocrisy of the anti-Miers conservatives.

Now, there's this UAE ports deal. I've written about it here. But some of the same people (Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Laura Ingraham, and National Review) who jumped to conclusions on Miers are now jumping to conclusions on this deal. And some of the same slimy rhetoric is flying at those who object to the feeding frenzy.

I'm probably someone who conservatives would agree with on some issues. I want to win the war on terror (of which Iraq is but a campaign). I oppose terminating a pregnancy except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger (under the same standards for the use of deadly force in self-defense), and in cases of rape or incest - and there might be other situations where terminating a pregnancy is appropriate, albeit not in as sweeping a generalization as I have for the three examples above there. I favor cutting taxes (ideally, a flat tax like the one Steve Forbes supports). I support the death penalty - and probably to a larger extent than most conservatives (I'd include involvement in the production of child pornography as a capital offense - and favor the old-school GRU method of execution for such offenses).

But I'm not willing to stick around the kind of stuff I have seen from conservatives over the last year or so. I'm not voting for a Democrat, not just because they raise taxes even when there is a budget surplus (as was the case in Virginia a couple years ago), and because the entire party leadership had shown a level of incompetence on the war on that makes me fear for my country's security. The other issues facing this country don't matter if we're all dead.

What is to be done about this? I'm not sure. I'm still willing to vote for Republicans, but I'm not so sure that I trust conservatives any more.

Cut and run by any other name...

The Democrats are calling for a "strategic redeployment". They claim this is not "cut and run", but I'm not sure I buy their claim. They would have us pull out of Iraq before the job is done. The only way we can leave Iraq without risking a Somalia-esque aftermath is to have destroyed the enemy. There is no other way out of this.

What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain.

I'm sorry, but this is a big issue for me. I'll admit that I am a Republican, but if the Republicans were acting this way, I would be equally harsh on them. I place my country over my political ideology and certainly over a political party. The survival of the United States of American has to be paramount. It used to be that both political parties believed in this. Now, one of these parties is willing to gain political power regardless of cost to the country. What is very clear is the Democrats have decided they want to be back in power, and they're willing to hand al-Qaeda a strategic victory to get it. There is a clear disregard for the past consequences of retreat. There is also the craven subordination of national security for political gain. In my book, that is reckless endangerment.

Cross-posted at No End But Victory.

Surviving the 14th...

My secret? Bittersweets, the Dragnet radio show from Live365 (also a second channel), and comfort food from Buon Appetito. And I made sure the comfort food was dolphin-safe. I kinda feel bad, because my favorite "comfort food" really upsets a very good friend of mine, and I promised to give it up fourteen months ago (after I nearly got my head taken off). It's just that that day wasn't very good, and to be honest, it was a little worse than usual due to a bit of a break-up (it turns out she was never that interested in me).

Still, I survived. Next year, maybe I will do more than just survive, but I doubt it.

Unacceptable...

There is just no other word to describe the use of a racial epithet by Ann Coulter at CPAC.

This is not about race-baiting. This is not about being politically correct. This is about civility. This is about common decency. This is about thinking before saying something that ticks off a large number of people, the bulk of whom have nothing to do with terrorism.

This has been tolerated for a while among conservatives, particularly with Michelle Malkin's links to VDARE that I discussed earlier. This is just unacceptable conduct that deserves nothing but condemnation.

If the conservative movement will not deal with this unacceptable conduct, then it is unworthy of my support.

YANKEE GOLF BRAVO SIERRA MIKE

That is the approved way to transmit over the airwaves my reaction to Pat Buchanan's latest screed. (It is short for "You Gotta Be S******* Me.") Pat Buchanan somehow pretends to be relevant in conservative circles as he expresses support for foreign aid to Hamas. This latest piece of dreck simply confirms that Pat Buchanan supports anyone who is at war with Israel.

Then again, we should feel sorry for Pat Buchanan. After all, he did lose an uncle at Auschwitz.

Poor bastard fell out of a guard tower.

A new link...

There is a new link on this blog, Malkin(s)Watch. It comes more from the left than where I sit (I consider myself a center-right Republican with libertarian leanings).

Here is why I am putting it up there: Malkin has some highly questionable friends at VDARE.com. Her columns run there one day ahead of Townhall or Creators Syndicate. She has defended a racialist. She also has defended the internment of Japanese-American citizens.

The fact is, she has shown at best, very poor judgement. At worst, she has sympathies towards attitudes that were rightfully rejected forty years ago. What is equally intolerable is that when this has been questioned, people get shouted down. For all intents and purposes, I'm being told that to be in the good graces of the conservative movement, I need to accept what I find to be clearly unacceptable.

I'm not going to. Some things are wrong. Bigotry and racism are two of them. That is why I am linking to Malkin(s)Watch, knowing that it will anger some people. But I cannot in good conscience remain silent about this cancer that has found a home among the conservative movement.