Day: January 9, 2010

A use for Al Gore’s writings is found!

I think this is hilarious. Sad for those reduced to enduring the situation, but hilarious. It comes from a group called Freedom Press, which is part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. They’re the same group whose “Freedom Minute” I occasionally feature on my Friday Night Videos:

It has been reported in the London press that poor old-age pensioners are having to resort to buying books at thrift shops to burn to keep warm during the prolonged bitterly cold weather in the United Kingdom.  In response to this humanitarian crisis, Freedom Action is calling on former Vice President Al Gore to join an effort to collect and airlift copies of his science fiction bestsellers to British people in dire need. 

“We are collecting copies of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Our Choice, and Earth in the Balance and will send them to Oxfam in the UK to distribute for free to vulnerable people trying to survive the cold weather,” said Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action.  “We call on Mr. Gore to co-operate in our effort to relieve human suffering by providing copies of his books for burning in stoves and fireplaces.”

“It is appropriate that Al Gore’s books should be used to help keep poor people warm,” Ebell explained, “since the principal reason the British government is totally unprepared to deal with the brutally cold weather is because they have fallen for the global warming myths propagated by Gore himself in his bestselling books.  Burning Gore’s otherwise worthless books to keep people from freezing is their highest and best use.” (Emphasis in original.)

While I’m generally not a proponent of book burning as censorship, given the current weather we are facing here on Delmarva – with much below average temperatures forecast for the next several days – those who are in such dire straits that they can’t afford wood for their stoves might be well-advised to stock up on Al Gore’s books, which are likely to be found in the bargain bin at reputable closeout stores and flea markets everywhere.

I know, there’s a larger point to be made and perhaps it’s not politically correct to use the poor to make a political statement. (The other side never does that, do they?)

Great Britain is America in 40 years (or less) if we continue on the path we are on. Like Reagan, Margaret Thatcher did her best to stem the tide of socialism in her country but all her gains were reversed by those both inside and outside her Conservative Party. While there are a few voices of sanity “across the pond” (Daniel Hannan and Lord Christopher Monckton come to mind) most British political voices rival the shrillness of our own left.

We strive to emulate their “more equitable” system of health care and green policies without realizing that they are more equitable only in their misery. Why a former industrial power has fallen on such hard times is answered easily once you consider the political path they have taken over the last half-century or so (with the exception of Thatcher’s tenure.)

There was a reason we broke away from their kingdom in the first place, so let’s not go down their path now.

Somebody’s gotta say it…

Obviously this comes with apologies to author and radio talk show host Neal Boortz. But the title fits.

There are those who have dismissed filmmaker, author, and GOP loyalist Daniel Vovak, and perhaps it is rightfully so. But in a long (and link-filled) missive I received yesterday, he makes several valid points about a topic which indeed hasn’t been well addressed by GOP leadership. Let’s see if I can do a little prudent editing while maintaining his point. I kept many (but not all) of the links as well.

Following the failed attack by the Underwear Bomber in the final week of 2009, Maryland’s Congressman Christopher Van Hollen (MD-08) stated , “In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration’s failures to deal with al Qaeda. The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security. . . . The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq.”

Mister Van Hollen is criticizing Republicans for playing politics with terrorism, making a sweeping statement about the Republican Party. In the process, he has thrown down the gauntlet for any Republican to respond. For the past two weeks, I have patiently waited for a response to Van Hollen from National Republican Chairman Michael Steele, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner (OH-08), Maryland Republican Chairwoman Audrey Scott, or former Vice President Dick Cheney. Thus far there has been no response, so I will direct my attention to America’s current top Republican, Chairman Steele.

Mister Van Hollen, as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman, made his statements on an international stage, claiming Republicans were using terrorism as a partisan issue. Michael Steele has two critical jobs he is compelled to do: 1) Respond to Van Hollen by saying that partisan politics always ends at America’s borders, and 2) Find an opponent for Van Hollen. On both points Steele failed abominably. First, his de facto response to Van Hollen’s terrorism pandering about national security was by agreeing that Republicans could not win the House or Senate. Secondly, he initiated no pursuit of a challenger to Van Hollen.

Let’s stop right here with this. I agree with Daniel regarding Michael Steele’s mishandling of the “panty bomber” situation, and was truly distressed that he stooped to the age-old Washington insider tactic of lowering expectations for the 2010 elections. (In this case he may be lowering his own book sales too – so be it.) I didn’t have a vote in the matter, but it’s a matter of record that I would have preferred Ken Blackwell as RNC Chair. Perhaps it’s a case of Blackwell being a more known quantity to me from my years in Ohio politics, but Michael struck me as becoming too much the Beltway insider once he took over GOPAC after his failed 2006 Senate bid.

However, Vovak is a little hypercritical about getting a challenger for Van Hollen. It’s difficult at best to persuade a well-known and well-financed challenger to take on an incumbent who’s regularly garnered 75% of the vote in re-election bids. The GOP has put up an opponent in each of the three elections since Van Hollen barely ousted longtime Congressman Connie Morella, but Democrats simply have too much of an advantage in Montgomery County to make this a battle. It’s practically beyond the old Edwin Edwards line of not losing unless they find Chris Van Hollen in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. As far left as some in Montgomery County are that may be just the resume enhancement he needs to move to higher office.

In the next part of his release, Vovak makes a lengthy point about partisanship, noting that 131 Democrats (including Van Hollen) have a more partisan voting record than the most loyal Republican. Based on Van Hollen’s 99.3% loyalty mark, Daniel posits that:

…any Democrat could easily do Van Hollen’s job as he has become a mere robot who sits in a political seat and thoughtlessly and repeatedly votes Democrat. Without doubt, thinking people in Montgomery County and Prince George’s County must desire their elected representatives to be free to discern issues using bi-partisanship and compromise.

Vovak then returns to his criticism of GOP candidate recruitment:

(Thursday) I phoned every member of the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee and learned there is not even a rumored candidate against the congressman! Let me make it clear that I never thought I would need to respond to Van Hollen’s bogus claims, but since no Republican leader has responded over these past two weeks, I felt ethically driven to do so. Further, some Democratic leader should have publically told Van Hollen never to mix his partisanship with terrorism. Beyond the borders of America, we need our politicians to think in a bi-partisan way, especially about national security and terrorism. By his sadly inappropriate statements, it is clear that Van Hollen views terrorism through smudged partisan glasses.

Every pundit in America says the Democrats are vulnerable in 2010. Why should Mister Van Hollen get a free pass from National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Session? Surely, Maryland Republican Chairwoman Audrey Scott and Montgomery County’s Jim Shalleck have some bigwig in mind to challenge him!

Probably not, for the reasons I state above.

Then again, this can be an opportunity. Awhile back I read Al Regnery’s book on the conservative movement (Upstream: The Ascendance of American Conservatism,) which detailed in part that there was a sense that Barry Goldwater’s 1964 Presidential campaign was doomed to be a failure because of the times and situation, so why not run as an unapologetic conservative and bring out the ideas for future debate? Obviously success wasn’t immediate but this did blaze a trail for future leaders, most prominently Ronald Reagan.

It seems like the kind of election that a bright young team of Republicans could embark on, knowing they have little to lose but a vast amount of experience to gain. Certainly working in that kind of hostile element would make things easier when they face a more mainstream crowd.