Stolen humor

First, there was Swift Boat Vets For The Truth, then there was Texans for the Truth, and now we have a new veterans group weighing in on the Bush/Kerry tussle: Family Ties Veterans For The Truth.

They've yet to incorporate under that name, of course, but in the last week I've seen three soldiers who served our country well in NBC's Must See TV Battalion go to bat for John Kerry. First, there was Michael J. Fox, lending his support by taking on the thankless task of having to sit next to Teresa Heinz-Kerry throughout the third debate. And then yesterday, I caught a few minutes of a Democratic 'get-out-the-vote' effort featuring a joint speech by Fox's TV parents, Michael Gross and Meredith Baxter-Birney.

Still no word, however, on who Tina Yothers (Jennifer Keaton), Brian Bonsall (Andrew Keaton), and Justine Bateman (Mallory Keaton) are endorsing. Or for that matter, "Nick", Mallory's doofus boyfriend on the show. (You might also remember him from his spin-off show, The Art of Being Nick. But obviously, you mustn't.)

Mind you, the stars of Family Ties are not the only sitcom actors or comedians to jettison their sense of fun in order to become shrill, humorless Kerry supporters. There's Janeane Garofolo, Howard Stern, and Jon Stewart, among countless others.

Which is why I propose the formation of an advocacy group to combat these killjoys. Some of you might be aware of Stolen Honor, the pro-Bush group of Vietnam POWs whose documentary of the same name has been the subject of much controversy. Well, now it's time for a sequel: Stolen Humor, with membership open to long-suffering comedy fans who have seen their favorite funnymen trade in their comedic talents for half-baked leftist rhetoric.

This organization will use its resources to reunite Ms. Garofalo with her fellow castmates from The Ben Stiller Show and get her to embark on a rigorous 12-step program of sketch comedy writing to take place in complete isolation from all influential liberal media outlets…and Air America.

Jon Stewart will also be held in isolation, the better to keep him from appearing on non-comedic political talk shows and getting it in his head that he’s actually a serious, respected political pundit.

As for Howard Stern, it would be unreasonable to ask him to refrain from the political talk without providing him with something to fill that dead air. So, in exchange for complete silence on political matters, Howard Stern will receive an unlimited supply of lesbians. Lesbians of all sizes, shapes, and ethnic backgrounds, including Howard’s favorite type of lesbians: midget lesbians.

So give, won’t you, to Stolen Humor? Remember, a sense of humor is a terrible thing to waste. (Unless it’s Carrot Top’s “sense of humor”, in which case, waste away.)

The 'Why' Factor

One Hugh Hewitt symposium ends, another begins. To all of Hugh's readers, welcome and thanks for stopping by! If you have a spare moment, please leave a link back to your blog in the "comments" section, so I can zero in on your take on today's question, which is:

Why vote for Bush, and what's wrong with Kerry? (250 words or less)

With Kerry, you just need to take the man at his own estimation. If you go back through the transcripts of his convention speech and the three debates, you'll notice he's fond of favorably referencing Republicans. From Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan to Nancy Reagan to Dwight Eisenhower to John McCain to yes, even George H. W. Bush!

True, Democrats like FDR and JFK pop up frequently, as does an actual living one, Bill Clinton. Harry Truman gets namechecked too. But what does it say about Kerry that he feels the need to appropriate the other party’s talent?

What it tells me, and what it should tell voters, is that the grass is greener on the Republican side, and has been since the Republican Party’s inception. So with a 140-year legacy that even Kerry acknowledges the existence of, why switch to the guy who admits his party’s only living asset is Bill Clinton?

As for Bush, let me direct you to a book entitled Presidential Leadership: Rating The Best And The Worst In The White House. Specifically, the chapter on Abraham Lincoln.

According to the book, Lincoln had virtually no military experience prior to taking office. He had never lived or even traveled abroad. Once taking office, he made tough, controversial decisions. He bravely weathered a storm of public opinion arrayed against him. He endured the highs and the lows of the war with dogged tenacity.

Now substitute “President Bush” in place of Lincoln. Reads the same, doesn’t it?

Exactly.

-Dave O'Connell

It's the Mary plan---oops, I mean the Kerry plan!

It's symposium time here at The Pursuit of Happiness and Other Sobering Thoughts (or as the kids say, TPOHAOST). Blogger and radio host Hugh Hewitt has invited his readers to "sympose away" (also as the kids say) on Kerry & Edwards' odd fascination with Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary. Hugh wants to know...

How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

Well, I wouldn't go as far as Hewitt and say that they "abused Mary's privacy". I'm not so sure it's that hideous of a transgression. But given the Democrats’ recent ‘Bush-is-going-to-bring-back-the-draft’ scaremongering, this Mary Cheney tactic cries out: “Hey, our campaign is a sinking ship and we’re flailing about desperately trying to grab onto anything that even remotely resembles a life preserver!”

How else can you explain Edwards’ remarks about Mary during the vice-presidential debate? Sure, on the face of it, the comments sound cordial and pleasant. But remember, this is a debate, and debaters are adversaries. If a debater is using innocuous-sounding language in regards to his opponent, it’s probably a trap.

In case you haven’t picked up on it, the trap is this: Edwards describes Dick and Lynne as loving parents who just want their gay children to be happy. Gullible, hapless Dick, who doesn’t see this train coming from a mile away, says something that rubs up unfavorably against Edwards’ glowing family portrait. Possibly, he utters something to the effect of “I love my daughter and I want her to be happy, but I am against something that would make her happy, like gay marriage.” Voters, shocked that Cheney could be so callous towards his daughter’s pursuit of happiness, grab hold of the swing Edwards has provided for them and Tarzan their way on over, en-masse, to the Kerry camp.

What’s truly pathetic is how obvious the trap was. Did the Dems seriously believe a skilled debater like Cheney would step onto such an obvious landmine? With such sparkling genius on display, it’s no wonder they’ve lost the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.

As for Kerry’s “shout-out” (with emphasis on the word “out”, of course), it just seems gratuitous. “Bob, if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter…” Well, he isn’t. He’s talking to you, John Kerry, and your opponent, George W. Bush. Incorporating Mary into your spiel about how “homosexuality isn’t a choice” does not serve to further clarify your point, so why do it?

Perhaps it’s to draw a distinction between the two tickets on an issue in which they have similar opinions. They both think that marriage should be between a man and a woman, except Dick Cheney would be so heartless as to deny his own daughter, who didn’t choose to become a lesbian, the right to marry a woman! How grateful John Kerry must feel, knowing that his daughters are not lesbians, and therefore cannot be used against him on this issue! Boy, he sure dodged a bullet there, didn’t he?

Really, this is such a childish move on Kerry & Edwards part. And with Mary Beth Cahill chiming in with her assertion that Mary is fair game, it’s clear that she is now a target of the Democrats, as opposed to the peripheral figure she ought to be treated as. There is a very real danger that voters will take a dim view of this “last-ditch ganging up” and see Mary as a victim of sorts. And that could very well drive the final nail into Kerry’s haughty, French-looking coffin.

-Dave O'Connell

On the wings of a dove

I've suspected as much, and last night's debate proved it beyond the shadow of a doubt: John Kerry is a pacifist. He can't come out and admit it, obviously, but he tossed enough crumbs to his fellow peaceniks during the debate to make it clear. For instance...

I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them [Iran], see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes.

Only a pacifist would seriously consider fascists and pseudo-Muslim dictators to be deserving of a presumption of innocence. Foreign leaders who do not believe in basic human rights for their people or a democratic form of government must be treated differently than those who do. A good place to draw the line is not to give these demonstrably untrustworthy characters nuclear components. Honestly, it amazes me that a Presidential candidate could say this on national television and still be in the race. Here is a man who has deluded himself into thinking that dictators have softer, more "peaceful" sides to them that need coddling. How can he be taken seriously in a time when foreign policy is of critical importance?

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

More pacifism. For anything to pass the "global test", it has to appeal to Europeans, and Europeans are, by and large, liberal. Try finding the elaborate conservative media network we have in the United States (right-wing talk radio, FOX News, The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, etc.) in any of the European countries. (Good luck to you in your hopeless task, by the way.) And countries dominated by liberalism tend to let their militaries shrink and fall into disrepair. So for any proposed military venture to pass the "global test", it needs to be a) something with a workload that can be shouldered by small, out-of-date militaries , b) something that won't involve many deaths on either side, and c) waged against somebody other than Muslims (or pseudo-Muslims, because these assholes aren't true Muslims), because that might breed more terrorists. Which makes "global test" a codephrase for "pacifism", because I don't see how those conditions would be conducive to any future operations against our current batch of enemies (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc.)

You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Pacifists, in their even-handed, don't-ruffle-the-feathers way, tend not to see a difference between democracies and theocratic dictatorships. To them, it's just another way of doing things, and to object would be culturally insensitive. I'd argue that theocratic dictatorships are being culturally insensitive to their citizens by not allowing them to define the culture in which they live through the everyday exercise of basic human and democratic rights. I'd also point out that as citizens in a democratic society, it is in their best interests to oppose non-democracies, since only non-democracies, not other democracies, attack democracies. Kerry appears to be one of those pacifists to which the above needs to be explained.

I am very surprised that so many members of the media (even some conservatives) are chalking this up as a victory for Kerry. Kerry has provided Bush with a ton of ammo for his next round of campaign ads, and if Rove and Co. handle it properly, I don't see how Kerry can recover. Kerry left the ball in Bush's court, and any time you have to rely on your opponent's ineptitude for success, you're taking the matter out of your hands. And not being in control of your own destiny is not how I would define victory.

As for the post-debate coverage, the initial reaction from the gang over at MSNBC was that Kerry had "won" the debate, though a few minutes later, they conceded that Bush was the better man in the first half-hour. Which only means that they're living in that old media coccoon, because newsflash, guys: a lot of people don't have to watch the entire thing like you do. They get up to go to the bathroom, they talk with friends and family and miss certain details, or they get bored and do something else (and there was certainly a lack of energy onstage to prompt them.) You've got to weigh what's upfront heavier than what comes after. Do it that way, and Bush definitely "wins" the debate.

Also, is there anything more useless on cable news shows than having two campaign advisers spend a segment debating one another? How enlightening is it to have two guys who are basically paraphrasing the opinions and talking points of their bosses go at it? You might as well have two tape recorders with tape loops of the candidates yacking away---at least they'd be easier to book. Really, paid opinions are no fun to listen to. Get off of it, already.

-Dave O'Connell

P.S. The above was posted at PeterDavid.net and received this response:

But there are two issues with Iraq that seem to be so obvious that no one actually mentions them.

* First, and I know I've said this in [this] forum before, armies of occupation rarely work in the long term.

* Second, a power vaccuum can be much worse than a tyrant. The tyrant has at least a superficial obligation to meet his subject's needs.

To the first comment, I'd say it's a valid concern, but occupying a country with a view to eventually giving it sovereignty is preferrable to the alternative. As for the second comment, I'd say he has it the wrong way around. The alternative to occupation would have been a power vacuum, which would have started once Saddam Hussein died or tried to hand over power to one of his sons. Only this time, the various factions would not only be tussling over control of Iraq, but control of various weapons programs. I prefer settling the matter now, under less dire circumstances, than trying to settle it years down the road, when we would be at a catastrophic disadvantage.