The blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians featured an interesting piece today (h/t reason.com) on requiring a license to rear children. The basic argument made by the author, Andrew Cohen, is thus:

The state should require parents to be licensed. That is, there is no moral right to raise a child, and we would do well to think of it as a privilege that the state grants and can refrain from granting to certain individuals. If you don’t like that way of putting it, I am comfortable with a weaker claim: whatever moral right to raise a child there might be is defeated when the parent-to-be is significantly likely to cause the child substantial and avoidable harm, or, of course, if the parent does cause the child such harm. Those that should be refused a license to parent a child are those who are likely, in parenting, to harm the child. Those that should have a parenting license revoked are those who do harm the child. (In our society, the latter is called “termination of parental rights” because there is an assumption of such rights. Its worth pointing out that I have not seen a good defense of the claim that natural biological parents should be assumed to have the right to raise the child they create.)

This and the arguments made in favor by the author were clarified by another blogger on the site (Jacob Levy):

He’s engaging in what I think is a problematic kind of supposedly ideal theory.  He can answer all of our as-applied objections by saying that his question is  ”What authority should a state have, assuming that it’s an ideally just libertarian state?

I’m not going to discuss the merits (or lack of) to the arguments in the piece. I’ve made my own comment on the article in question already. However, these ideas do raise what I think is an interesting question: Should any government — including an “ideally just libertarian state” — have the right to place such laws upon her constituents as to attempt to prevent criminal behavior? That is, as there are already penalties in place for mistreatment of fellow citizens, should the State have the right to impose further regulation to stop the potential of commission of such a crime?

In the case noted above, for example, Cohen suggests that, even though there are clearly laws against child abuse, endangerment, neglect, and murder, such acts still occur. To better deal with the problem, he says, the State should perhaps impose mandated psychological tests, a financial survey, and licensing before an individual is allowed to even raise a child?

Let us not forget how often infanticide has been linked to postpartum depression. So, as the author is suggesting this tack, ostensibly, to combat such things, it can be assumed that a person with a tendency toward deep bouts of depression would be denied the right to raise her own child.

So, a mother-to-be would, in Cohen’s world, sit down with a psychoanalyst who would determine her “fitness” to be a mother, based upon a psychological profile.  In essence, you have The State determining whether somebody is able to raise his or her own child because of what a bureaucrat believes he or she might do.

This is the essence of preventive law: restrictions against a particular group of people based, not upon past actions, but upon the determination by a third party of actions they may or may not take, according a particular set of parameters. But in fact, the tendency of individuals to act individually is intrinsic to libertarian philosophy.

Law, in a just society, is necessarily reactionary and punitive. Individuals who act in bad faith are punished, while those who do not harm their fellow citizens are left alone. Preventive law, such as the example above, is built seemingly upon the belief that “justice” requires for all individuals to be equally inconvenienced, in order for bad actors to not be given the chance to break the law. All are treated as guilty — or at least potentially guilty — until they have proven otherwise. This is not justice.

To impose regulation designed for the prevention of crime can only be antithetical to the concept of Liberty.

The reality is, liberty is hard. In practice, it is callous. Liberty is the risk that the innocent may sometimes be hurt by those who act in bad faith. However, liberty also includes the right to defend one’s own life and property against those who would do harm. A just society is one in which the citizens have agreed to live under that set of guidelines which prevents their taking advantage of or wounding those with whom they have established community. When that trust is broken — and not before — is when a just society will step in to limit the freedom of that individual (and only of that individual) who has acted in bad faith.

So, like many, I look for information. I check the candidate websites, I scan the news, but even more importantly, I look to see what other Conservatives are saying about them.  And every year, I notice the same thing (this year being no exception): a whole lot of people have chosen a candidate, and are doing what they can to talk him (or her) up, but with next to no meat, be it in blog form or in the comments section. And often what there is simply lacks focus. 

Now the old salts — the guys (and ladies) who have been doing this for a while — tend to represent their candidate pretty well, where they’ve picked one. I’ve actually noticed, though, that a lot of those to whom I often look are just as nonplussed by this year’s lineup as I have been.

So you want to get people to notice your candidate. And not just notice, but maybe even convince them to vote for your guy. First, there are a couple of things you should know:
1. If you’re on a political website, you’re going to deal with a lot of people who know politics. Just because they aren’t in office or working for a candidate doesn’t mean they haven’t spent a LOT of time studying history, political strategy, and issues. Most of the people who’ve been around RS more than a year or two, have been doing exactly that.
2. Red Meat talks. Bulls__t walks. If somebody has already chosen a candidate, the chances that you’re going to change his or her mind are slim to none. The people you want to convince are those who haven’t chosen a candidate, but don’t assume it’s because they’re ignorant of the facts. Chances are, in this Primary season, if somebody is undecided, it’s precisely because they have been paying attention.

And finally, as a public service, here are a few things I would LOVE to finish out the Primary Season never having heard again. They’re split into two primary categories: Givens and Fluff.

Givens:
“He’s better than Obama.”  – This is true for all(!) of ‘em.

“He can beat Obama.” - The same could be — and has been — said about pretty much every candidate in the Republican field. Unless you have new information, let’s just take it for granted.

Of course, generally, when somebody says this of their candidate, the implied meaning is that it is true only of their candidate. Which brings us directly to…

Fluff
Fluff falls into several types. Most of it is little more than masturbation – the kind of thing you find all over unofficial candidate fan sites, designed to make other Candidate X supporters feel good.  There are also the Epic Generalities ((s)he is the ONLY ONE who…), like this one:

“He’s the only one that CAN beat Obama!” There’s simply no way this claim can be reasonably made. You can’t possibly know that. If you’re going to say it, back it up and prepare to argue at length with somebody who has said the same thing about their own guy.

“He is the ONE” (variously stated as ‘the Name Above All Names‘) – Seriously, without further comment, this statement not only borders on blasphemous, but just reads downright silly. Most of us remember with clarity the last candidate about whom that was said; and we didn’t vote for HIM, either. Again, it may be nice for the Candidate2012 fan forum, but not out in public.

“The ONLY TrueConservative(tm).” Bull.  If it were true, all the Conservatives would already be convinced. Get it in your head that Conservatism, while having standard core principles, is varied in execution.

How about the rest of the gallery? What are you sick of hearing when it comes to candidate pimping?

As for the Primaries, if you’re excited about a candidate, that’s awesome. And I’m not just saying that. Help the rest of us get excited too. Take this post in the spirit in which it was intended, and remember, you’re not selling us a car, but trying to get us on board with the policy, experience, and overall quality of a candidate for President.

See, this is what happens when I ignore the news for a while. Generally, I like to keep an eye on educational news because, children are, after all, our future. But, I somehow missed news over last weekend about this 11-year-old kid being suspended for comparing somebody to Obama. And it wasn’t even Hitler.

Now, if you don’t have time to hit the link, allow me to sum it up: a local celebrity (a newscaster for the local tv station, actually) went to have lunch at his daughter’s school. Chris Schauble, the newsman, happens to be a person of color, and, for his job, is generally dressed in a suit. He also has short-cropped hair, a huge, friendly smile, and is tall and thin. I think you can see where this is going.


5th grader Grayson Thomas noted the similarity between his local newsman and President Obama, and, according to Grayson’s dad, told a friend that, “President Obama’s here at our school.”  


Somebody heard the comment and told Chris’s daughter, who was interviewed by the principal, who then told the Superintendent, Chris Winger. Oh – but this was after the Principal was told by all the witnesses (except the girl who told Schauble – and who evidently doesn’t like Grayson anyway) that the statement was simply a joke, referencing the fact that the two men have a similar appearance.


Now, the Superintendent has gone on record saying that it wasn’t exactly what the boy said, but how he said it, that was the problem.  According to Grayson’s father, when Winger explained the situation to him, the issue was that “what he was saying is that all black men look alike and that is racist.”


But let’s take a step back for a second.  Winger wasn’t there. He has no idea how Grayson actually said anything. He wasn’t even the person who interviewed the witnesses – that job fell to Principal Candace Fleece.  The result: He said/she said, in which Grayson and his friend told her what he said and meant, one girl said what she thought she heard, and one girl had nothing but hearsay from the other. So, not only was Winger acting on a third-hand account of what actually happened, but it was a third-hand account with two completely different interpretations of the event. 

Raaaacist! (photos from The Blaze)

I’m not suggesting the kid’s an angel. What kid is? He got into trouble earlier for stealing, and was accused of making inappropriate comments to another girl (an unproven accusation, as it turned out, and one for which no action could be taken because witnesses all said it didn’t happen that way).  No matter: even if the kid had punched another kid in the mouth, if he was punished for that incident, there is simply no way you can make the case that he should be expelled for this one based on two completely different interpretations of an event, and no evidence.


But the issue is far more troubling, to me, than a simple case of bad school policy.  On the surface, I’d say you could make the case that Winger is simply pandering to a local celebrity and trying to save a little face for the school.


The real problem here is that what we seem to be looking at is a school that not only will punish kids for having unsanctioned thoughts and feelings, but also for a mere inference of such attitudes as interpreted by other students. In other words, at this school, a kid can be punished for being a racist. But, since that tends to be open for a bit of interpretation, the school will use what other students and faculty think you think as the basis for discipline.


The very idea that a child can be expelled or in some other way punished for what somebody perceives as racism is, as I said, troubling. For starters, racism is, itself, subject to interpretation. Somebody like Jeanine Garofalo would tell me I’m a racist just for having a fundamental difference of opinion with a person of color.  Others will say I’m a racist simply by virtue of having been born white. So whose version of racism is the school going to punish? 


Ironically, the school seems to be worried about their actions in this matter being misinterpreted. According to a press release: 

The Newhall School District regrets that untrue statements have appeared in the media. 

And by now, of course, there are those who will have noted this fundamental irony in this very post. “You are being unfair,” they are declaring, shaking their fists at their computer screens. “You weren’t there, and cannot possibly have all the facts! How dare you rush to judge this school, based only on hearsay and on just one side of the story?!” 


To which I can only humbly reply, “Good point.”

(cross posted at r2streu.blogspot.com)

Some on the Left seem to be arguing that, because “the rich” hold such a high portion of the nation’s personal income, perhaps they should pay more than those who hold less.  It is somehow unfair, they argue, that “top 1% [of earners] grabbed more than 20% [of the nation's wealth].  Well, then, let’s assume they should be taxed accordingly then.

Oh… wait…

According to the IRS (via reason.org), that same top 1% of earners who “grabbed” about 20% of the all personal income are already paying 38% of the tax burden.  The top 25% earned 67.4% of the total income , but paid in 86.3% of all taxes.  If this is the standard, it’s pretty safe to say that “the rich” are paying “their fair share” and then some.

So, we have a pretty good idea, I guess, of what the President and other Democrats aren’t talking about when it comes to “their fair share.”

So what is it?  Well, many on the Left also like to point out that our tax dollars fund important government services.  Which is valid.  So perhaps one’s “Fair Share” is based upon services rendered.  Maybe more government spending benefits the rich disproportionally to the amount they pay in.

Do the Rich get more military protection than the poor?  Conspiracy theories aside, they do not.  Do they get more use of the roads, or the police, fire and other emergency services?  Again, discounting conspiracy theories…

But, hey, let’s not leave anyone out.  Let’s say, just to include the absurd, that the top 25% benefits disproportionately from infrastructure, defense, emergency services, etc.  Let’s say they get twice as much benefit from these things as the average non-wealthy person.  Very well.  In that case, one would expect that these elites would be responsible for 75% of the tax burden — twice as much as what the rest of the citizens pay — accordingly.  But again, even in the face of this supposed inequity in service, this top 25% still pays beyond their “fair share,” at 86%.

And of course, that’s not even factoring in government health services and welfare, which is 36% of the current budget — and which, while it could be argued, I suppose, that the wealthy do benefit on some level, from these line items, we can certainly agree it is the actual recipients who benefit the most.

So the “fair share” demanded by Obama and company isn’t a portion of income.  It isn’t payment for services rendered.  So what is it?

If “fair share” is the be the liberal narrative, it’s high time some Republicans started demanding a definition.  And I don’t think most Americans will much like the answer.

Obviously, the most immediately troubling thing about all of this is the willingness of goose-stepping “civil servants” to harass children for the horrifying crime of doing what kids have done in the summertime since the invention of Lemonade.

However.

Depending on where you read the story, you may have missed this on the periphery, from the girls’ mother:

“I’m gonna let it go,” said Amy Roberts, the mother of one of the girls. ”I don’t think if I keep on and on and on its gonna teach them a good thing.”

I get what she’s saying. She doesn’t want to make trouble.  She’s worried that making a fuss may teach her kids to…

wait a second.  Exactly what is it she’s worried about teaching her kids?  Important lessons about how government works?  How questioning authority is both a civil right and the duty of every taxpayer and voter?

I’m not saying Ms. Roberts is wrong, really.  But I do believe she’s missed a valuable opportunity.  She deserves kudos for teaching her kids about business, and yes, even for teaching them about obeying the law.  On the other hand, she’s also taken another step in the production of a generation that will always assume, to its detriment, that whatever the government says must be what’s best for them.

If, for example, she’d dug a bit deeper on this issue, she may well have discovered this nugget, hidden inside the same regulations which allegedly gave these cops the authority to shut down this private activity (hat tip Imperfect Parent commenter Dustin C.):

Section   7-1-8            Casual and isolated activity.

Except as otherwise provided in this title, nothing herein contained shall be interpreted so as to require any person who may engage in casual or isolated activity and commercial transactions, where they involve personal assets only and are not the principal occupation of the individual, to obtain a business license and pay a fee therefore. Garage sales, involving the exchange or sale of personal items are considered casual or isolated activities for the purpose of this chapter.

I’m no lawyer, but it looks to me like not only were these girls not breaking the law by having their little lemonade stand without a business license, but indeed the Chief of Police directly violated it by enforcing a code that doesn’t exist.

Yes, we must teach our kids to respect the law.  But even more importantly, we must teach our kids to become a part of the process of law; to vote responsibly.  And, more and more, we must teach our children sometimes, even the little things are worth fighting for.

OMG, you guys!  Random Politician just spoke at a random event and blew me away!  And this comes on the heels of his Random Action for which he was specifically elected.  I think I just found my dream candidate for 2012!

Conservative Bona Fides? Did you HEAR his speech?  Did you WITNESS the carrying out of his specific mandate  by doing the exact Random Thing he did?

And that Thing he said at the Rally?  It was just SO perfect!

I mean, sure, he’s enacted job-killing universal health programs, begged for tax increases, championed amnesty for illegals, abandoned his elected position, and slaughtered multiple neighborhood cats –but he’s already made promises to go completely against his demonstrated nature!  What more could you ask for?!

The Establishment is already wetting themselves and spreading lies about the guy, based solely on things like witness testimony and signed confessions, so what does THAT tell you?  Obama and Company had better be VERY afraid — the MSM is even now working hard on a smear campaign involving Saturday Night Live and an upcoming episode of Handy Manny!  I’m telling you, THIS is the GUY.  And if we can team Random Politician up with Guy Who Won An Election Once, they’ll be UNSTOPPABLE!

RP/GWWAEO 2010!!!!!!!!!

Somewhere in the recent comments, a much smarter poster than I suggested to a fellow poster that (and I’m paraphrasing), if you can’t sell your candidate to Conservatives, there’s no way you can sell him (or her) to your neighbors and coworkers.

If I could make a suggestion: We’re still very early in the election season.  You have some time to understand your candidates, and what they mean to the important issues.  Bone up.  And when you come to RedState — or, really, any political blog — to sell them, whether it’s in a blog of your own, or just in the comment section, come prepared with real and actual facts.  Not big words.  Not talking points from the ’08 election.  Not mere enthusiasm.  Come with meaningful reasons for other Conservatives to be excited.

Don’t take criticism or skepticism personally, but see it as a challenge to do better.  We’re Conservatives.  We’re predisposed to support Conservative candidates.  If something about said Candidate is rubbing somebody here the wrong way, look at the situation and decide whether or not it’s worth debating.  If it is, then debate.  Lead off with the goods.  Tell me the important stuff.  I’m not looking for a date to the prom; I’m looking for somebody to lead our country.  I don’t want to hear that a candidate is “fearless” or “solid” or even “has a good personality.”  I want details.

We’re skeptical because we’re Conservatives.  If we could be sucked in by personality cult or vapid, pie-in-the-sky prose, we’d have voted for Obama.

In short, think of RS as your training ground for the big event.  Once the pre-game’s over, and the actual elections start, you’re gonna have to be on your game.  Anything less is a waste of your time.

And remember, once the primaries ARE over (and from the looks of things, it’s gonna be brutal, and we’re ALL gonna be more than a little sick of it all), the men and women of RedState are your brothers and sisters in arms.  And if they’re going into battle with you, it’d be nice if they didn’t have to worry about whether you came unarmed.

Except that, just like the Special Election, we’re saddled with a Candidate who can neither accept the will of the Republican voters nor see the writing on the wall.  But in this episode, instead of being the ill-fated heroes, Hoffman and the New York Conservative Party have turned villain.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Hoffman can’t win like this.  It doesn’t even take a Sixth-grade repeat truant to figure out that, with Hoffman in the race, Doheny can’t win either.

So, what’s this all about, then?  Obviously, it’s not about winning.  It’s clearly not about getting somebody with Conservative fiscal principles in the seat, to be able to stand up to the Obama/Pelosi agenda.  It should be about the latter.  But if it was, Hoffman would step down and back Doheny as he should.  That he won’t says there’s something else at work.  That something else?  Mike Long.

Mike Long is the chairman of the Conservative Party of New York (CPNY) — a group that usually provides an extra line on the ballot for the Republican candidate, but occasionally — as in the NY23 Special Election — also provides a balance and alternative.  Normally, this is a good thing.  But before I get into the intricacies of the Conservative Party’s setup, their recent ideological disconnect, and the ultimate reasons that they are playing hardball, I should first mention a couple things.

First is the admission that, yes, I endorsed Hoffman over Scozzafava in the Special Election.  Indeed, most of RedState did.  Further, I would do it again.  Unlike Doheny in this year’s election, Dede Scozzafava was selected, not by New York Republican voters, but by the party heads in the district.  She was actually to the left of the Democrats’ Owens on many issues and, finally, in a TEA party era, I was among the many looking to send a very strong message to the Republican Establishment.

But this ain’t ’09.  This year, the voters got the chance to choose a candidate from among Doug Hoffman and Matt Doheny.  In the post I linked above, I outlined how Hoffman lost the first time.  It was this, along with my fear that he was in this for the wrong reasons (a fear that has proven itself, I think), and the character and ability of Matt Doheny, which made me not vote Hoffman this time around.  Doheny does run a little to the left on some social issues (still to the right of Owens, however), but is actually better than Hoffman on many of those issues which are coming to the forefront now: health care, education, free market values, etc.  Doheny was elected — not selected — by Republican voters.  Hoffman lost.  This is why I’m among those calling for him to step down.

Second, it’s important to mention the other monkey wrench Mike Long and the Conservative Party have thrown in the NYGOP works this year: The Gubernatorial election.  For reasons I stated in an earlier blog, Lazio, in spite of support from the GOP elite and endorsements from the CPNY, managed to lose spectacularly to Buffalo businessman Carl Paladino.  Like Hoffman, one would hope he ran on principles, with an eye to defeating the Democrat candidate.  Like Hoffman, one would hope that, upon losing, Lazio would man up and support his primary opponent to defeat the liberals.  And, Like Hoffman, it appears that Lazio has chosen instead to split the vote, all but giftwrapping the election for his Democrat rival.

So, once again: Clearly, it’s not about winning.  It’s not about principle.  So what is it about?

Ultimately — sadly — it is about Mike Long’s ability to keep the CPNY automatically on the ballot for the next four years.  To do that, he needs 50,000 votes on the Conservative Party line.  To do that, he needs to keep his candidates.  And that’s really all it is.  There are fears, to be sure, that, without those votes the CPNY would fade back into obscurity.  Unfounded fears, to be honest, but fears, nonetheless.  There are ways back onto the ballot.  Ways that don’t include undermining the chances of good candidates.  Ways that don’t include handing elections to the wrong team.

I remember — can’t forget, in fact — a basketball game I played in the sixth grade.  I was a mediocre player, I suppose.  Still growing into my height and broad shoulders, I wasn’t among the most coordinated of players, and believed I’d never be the hero of any game.  That was for the cleft-chinned uber-athletes; not for large but awkward, bumbling left-handers.  That night was different, though.  I knew it as soon as my hands touched the pocked rubber of that orange ball.  I remember clearly the feeling as I stripped the ball from my opponent.  The hush — that righteous silence that filled my ears as I pivoted toward the basket.  I remember, it was as if the lane cleared, just for me.  This was my moment, and as I dribbled up the court, I knew I wouldn’t let myself down.  I never once looked for my opponents.  They didn’t matter.  There was me, there was this ball, and there was that net just up ahead.  I stopped, the soles of my high-tops squeaking on the hardwood — I still love that sound — and hefted the ball.  I watched as I released, and as it sailed unerringly toward the goal.  Held my breath until the swish of rubber through the net.  And smiled a smile that would probably have broken my face had it not been tempered by sudden realization: I’d just had one hell of a play — for the wrong damned team.

Mike, that ain’t glory.  When the Dems win — again — that easy Congressional seat… when they win the Governor’s chair in a race that could have gone to someone who would actually do something about the corruption and ineptitude of Albany… you’ll know the feeling well.  That brick that settles in the pit of your gut, as the color rises to your cheeks.  That small pounding behind your temple as you feel the eyes of those who were counting on you to do the right thing.  That knowledge that you could have helped stop the Obama/Pelosi agenda by supporting the right candidate.  That knowledge, as the taxes keep going up, and job-creating businesses keep feeling the state, that YOU could have helped change it.  No… it’s not glory.  It’s shame, and it’s defeat.

But, hey, at least you’ll still have that line on the ballot.

And it is exactly this attitude that handed wins to the likes of Paladino and O’Donnell.  Moderate Republicans have ignored or denegrated TEA Party Conservatives as extremists — echoing familiar liberal talking points — while failing to realize the fundamental fact that most TEA partiers are just people who want to be left alone.  Voting Republicans have always had an independent streak.  It is, indeed, this streak that has made them identify with the GOP for so long.  They have never liked being told what to do, be it by Government mandate or intra-party dictum.

Incumbent Republican legislators were warned time and again about the consequences of bowing to liberal causes.  When Mike Castle voted for Cap and Trade as a Congressman, the outcry of his constituents was in no uncertain terms, that his days were numbered.  They weren’t bluffing.  They were warned before that, when they voted for the so-called stimulus package.  They were warned when they voted for the unconstitutional penalty tax on large corporate bonuses.

They failed to listen.

They failed to act.

They stuck their fingers in their ears, denying the majority voices, and plugged their ears to the shouts of those sign-carrying “extremists.”

And they lost.  Big.

Rick Lazio, a shoo-in for GOP Governor candidate made it clear early and often that the spot was his.  That calls for a primary — a chance for the people to speak — were pointless.  He refused to even acknowledge his primary opponant, let alone debate him and give the voters a chance to learn what he was about.  He had bigger fish to fry.  The Republican voters would fall in line and do as they were told, and he had a general campaign to plan.  He, too, learned the hard way.  You have to listen to the voters.

The shoo-in — the sure thing — was defeated with 62% of the vote.  Lazio and the State GOP believed, right up to the end, that this election was in the bag.  THAT is monumental failure to listen.

You can call it a mandate from the TEA party, if you wish.  You can chalk it up to anger over the economy.  But what the Paladino win — and O’Donnell’s — suggests to me is that voters are tired of being ignored.  We’re tired of being ignored by the Obama administration and his rubber stamps in Congress.  We’re tired of being ignored by an agenda-driven press.  We’re tired of being ignored by our own party.

Republican voters will not heed marching orders from On High.  But the National GOP had damned well better learn to heed ours.

On the other hand, New Yorkers are angry.  They are frustrated.  A majority favors a repeal of the health care bill.  A whopping 58% oppose the mosque at Ground Zero.  Meanwhile, Andrew Cuomo, favored to win the Gubernatorial election, supports building the mosque and, though he pays lip service to shrinking the size of the State government, remains firmly encamped in a party known for exponential government growth.

For a GOP win in this election, the candidate must be willing and able to go toe-to-toe with the Dem candidate, to take the message to the people of New York, and show that, what is needed for growth in New York, is a regime change — not merely a trade from one Democrat party stooge to the next.

For a few reasons, which I will outline below, I believe the person most capable of that job — and of the job of governing the State of New York — is Carl Paladino.  Now, I have to admit before going any further, that there are several less-than-intellectual reasons for this choice. First, Paladino reminds me in many ways of my favorite for the role: Rudy Giuliani.  Since Rudy has gone and refused to enter the fray (for which I may never forgive him), I find some comfort in a candidate with a similar take-no-prisoners attitude.  Second, I have not yet cleared my pallet of the bile left over from Rick Lazio’s spectacular defeat, clutched at the last second from the jaws of victory, against Senate rival Hillary Clinton.  There are more… I’ll get to them as we go along.

But let’s use Lazio’s loss to Hillary Clinton as a jumping off point.  During the campaigns for NY’s junior Senate seat, Lazio was actually beating Clinton.  And then came the debate. The debate where Lazio didn’t so much debate Clinton as browbeat.  The debate where Lazio came off looking like such a jerk that people actually pitied Clinton.  Enough to pull the (D) lever, in fact.  This points to two major problems in Lazio as a candidate: First, when you hate him, you really hate him.  And second, the guy can’t debate.  He’s got all the debating skill of Sean Hannity, which is to say: he pretty much relies on his ability to just talk louder than the other guy.  And unless he’s got his hand on the volume control, I honestly don’t see that happening in a debate with Cuomo.  Or, for that matter, with the folks he’ll be in charge of keeping in check at the State House.

Basically, when I’m looking for somebody to run New York, I’m looking for a guy who eats bull___t and craps truth to power.  I see that quality in Paladino.  Carl is a fighter — and not a clean-cut high school wrestler.  Paladino is a bare-knuckle, back-alley brawler.  The kind of guy I feel I can trust to throw down for his constituents and have the muscle to back it up.  Maybe you want a guy who’s a little more reserved in, say, California.  But this is New York, where even the products of the PS Candyass districts in NYC bleed attitude from their eyeballs.  Albany is corrupt, and the corrupt separate easily from neither power nor money.  Albany needs a leader with the will and fortitude to stand up to the Legislature and demand they do the jobs for which they were elected.

Which brings us to my next reason to support Paladino.  I know where he stands.  I know what he’s about.  His positions may or may not be the most popular, depending upon where in New York you happen to be voting, but he’s clear and he’s unapologetic.  It helps immensely that I happen to agree with him on many of his stances — even those deemed “controversial.”  Lazio, by contrast, doesn’t even have an issues page on his website.  The only issues Rick will openly discuss are the NYC mosque, the jobless rate, the mosque, general disparagements against Harry Reid (not sure what THAT has to do with anything) and Cuomo (largely about the mosque), and the mosque.

Now, you may have noticed, I’ve spend nearly as much time disparaging Lazio as I have praising Paladino.  It’s true, and I’m a little saddened by this: In general, I don’t like trashing primary opponents — there’s always the chance, after all, that we’ll still need them (see McCain 2008).  However, as much as I like Paladino — and, faults and all, I really do — it was Lazio himself who pushed me over the threshold.  It was the State GOP — the same folks responsible for Dede Scozzafava for Congress (you remember her, right?) — and their anointing Rick Lazio as GOP candidate.  It was Rick denying the voters’ right to choose their candidate when he accepted the anointing.  It’s the sense of entitlement with which he approaches the campaign and won’t deign to show voters who he is and for what he stands. In short, Lazio is a guy who’ll get his butt handed to him in November, and will deserve it.

Paladino may well lose to Cuomo — this is still New York — but it won’t be because the voters didn’t know him, and it won’t be because he wasn’t swinging all the way down.

Nobody would deny — well, nobody familiar with the actual Constitution would deny — that the Second Amendment exists as a means of protecting the citizens’ right and ability to defend against tyranny.  However, most of us would also not deny that it is a last resort.  A worst-case scenario.  Don’t-Tread-On-Me Conservatives — real ones; Tea Party Patriots, if you will — aren’t out training McVey style and preparing to take up arms against the police, the FBI, the CIA, the PTA and the US Military.

No matter what MSNBC wants you to think.

Make no mistake.  We are building an army.  But it is an army of activists and voters.  And, of course, as RedState diarist Cold Warrior would remind us, we are working, not to subvert the system, but using the system to achieve our goals.  Soldiers armed with facts, faith, and fortitude.  And, yes, we are planning a takeover.  A takeover of the Republican Party and a retaking of our government — For, By and Of the People.  But, this is not a violent resistance.  Our bullets are our votes; our WMD facts and the ability to tell them.

Some people will say the NRA is just doing the liberals’ job for them: painting us “don’t-tread” types as gun-toting redneck morons fantasizing about becoming the next Walker, Texas Ranger, and doing a cowboy-booted roundhouse on Obama.  In truth, I’m glad they put it out there, because that element exists, and has to be dealt with.

We’re at war in this country.  But it is a war of ideals.  And it won’t be won by superior firepower, but by the votes of an educated public.

The headlines on these stories are attention-grabbers, of course.  Publishers have papers to sell, after all, and nothing sells papers like a little outrage.  Hell, my own headline was built on the same premise, and I don’t even have ad space to fill.  But when we look beyond the headlines, we see that, surely, there must be some reason for it.   Certainly, no American company who’s actually trying to sell something to Americans would come right out and admit hatred for the flag?  And indeed, the company in question was quick to respond to calls for a statement:

Except, of course, it didn’t happen that way.

No, our President could not be bothered to publicly defend the honor of his citizens. Indeed, he refused even to take the easy way out and simply offer a curt nod. Instead, our President, the Leader of the Free World, the CEO of this conglomeration of free states, actually joined in, supplying insults of his own and unleashing with a relish unseen since, well, a couple days before, a string of accusations and promises of retribution.

Of course, that would make Obama a hypocrite, wouldn’t it? President Calderon was a hypocrite the moment he opened his mouth, but by joining him in his criticism, without turning the glass onto Mexico, doesn’t it make the President just as bad?

Well… maybe. I’ve been trying to decide, should the President lower himself to actually explaining his words to those he supposedly serves, how he would spin it. So, taking a page from the Democrat playbook of old, I think I’ve come up with it: The United States, and not Mexico, is a land of opportunity. We are a land with much to offer, while Mexico has little to offer except dysentery and the possibility of being dismembered by a drug cartel. We, the compassionate Americans, OWE to anyone who wants it the ability to join our great nation in order to DO WHAT IS BEST for their families.

Of course, this too is a dilemma for the President. Because that would sound a hell of a lot like American Exceptionalism.

From the Watertown Daily Times:

New York’s Public Integrity Commission has charged embattled Gov. David Paterson with an ethics violation involving a gift of free Yankees tickets for the 2009 World Series that could cost him nearly $100,000 in penalties.

The commission states Paterson may also have given false testimony in the case now being turned over to the Albany County District Attorney’s office for possible criminal prosecution.

So the question now is, in the midst of all this scandal, is he even capable of performing the duties of governor?  The state is in the midst of a major budget crisis.  Already economically depressed areas are being threatened with further cuts and job loss by the State — his latest budget includes dumping a prison facility near the NY-Canadian border, and the hundreds of jobs that go with it — and it would seem that, what with the allegations and investigations and all, he may not have time to deal with everything.

At this point, politics has to take a back seat.  We need a governor in New York who can deal with being a Governor.

(Cross posted at The Minority Report)

As you know, millions of individuals have risen up in the past year to protest your designs on our Health Care system in this country. These individuals, and their complaints, were glossed over by your administration, as you doubled down and committed to passing your legislation, your way, because “Americans want it.”

But, Sir, I am an American, and I do not.

Those same individuals rose up before, to protest your designs on our economy. You told the House Republicans that “Americans disapprove of the Stimulus, but like every policy in it.”

But I am an American, and I do not.

Your reactions to the concerns of Americans over your policy have been mixed with scorn and condescension. Your Administration has accused those voters of everything from ignorance to blind partisanship – and even of being bought off by special interests.

You don’t know us very well.

Sir, I am an American. My wife and my parents are Americans. My siblings and friends. You haven’t the knowledge to question our motivation or our patriotism, nor the credibility to question our intelligence. My pockets have never been lined by a special interest group, a campaign never funded, a cabinet never filled. Can you say the same?

I am a married father of four. I have worked in factories and offices, done manual labor and menial tasks. I am educated and well-read. Even, some would say, well-spoken. I have known times of great joy and times of great sorrow. I have known both want and fulfillment.

I am an American, sir – a member of the single most generous nation on Earth. I have been sustained by the kindness of my friends, and have been generous where I could. I was born into neither wealth nor privilege. I have been given neither education nor employment based upon my social status, on that of my friends or family, or on my race.

What I have is mine because I have earned it out of my own blood and sweat, or because it was given freely as a gift by those who love me.

I am an American. A descendent of those who crossed an ocean in search of freedom. A brother and friend to those who have crossed oceans to defend it. I have seen those men and women return from battle wounded in body and in heart, and I have mourned them and loved them and given them comfort, because I am an American. I have been both proud of my country and fearful for my countrymen.

I am an American who has been belittled because of his beliefs and judged, not on the content of his character, but on the color of his skin. But I am an American – and individual built of sterner stuff than to crumble and fall at the merest criticism.

I am an American who believes in the right to live my life, not by the consent of a government, but by a Liberty granted by God alone. I am an American, not by birthright, but by my belief in the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, and in a government for, by, and of the People.

Sir, you speak for the American people, but it is a people with whom you are woefully unacquainted. You don’t know them, because you don’t know me, nor the people like me. I am an American, and I do not want to be taken care of by government. I want the liberty to take care of myself, and my family, without your interference.

I am an American, Mr. President. You may not like what I have to say, but by God, one way or another, we will be heard.

(h/t World Net Daily, as emailed to me by a friend)

Not really sure how this failed to cross my RADAR when it happened, but it is interesting.

In essence, the Executive VP here is suggesting that the Statists have a very compelling reason to grant amnesty.  Not because it’s the right thing to do — because, really, who the hell cares?  No, the reason they need to grant amnesty to 12 million people who illegally entered this country is so they can add voters to their registry.

That’s it.  Let’s bring those 12 million people into the fold so they’ll vote with us and give the Statists an effective voting majority for the foreseeable future.

I guess we ought to be thrilled that he isn’t just taking a page out of ACORN’s playbook and registering them regardless of their citizenship status.

Disgusting and pathetic.

But as I was mocking the audacity of two women who complained about the price they willingly paid for cancer (seriously, it’s like offering to mow your neighbor’s lawn and then whining that you don’t like his mower), I started to think about the aside at the bottom of TSG’s article.  “Police have not identified the accused man,” it said, “who still could be charged with solicitation in connection with the sex-for-cigarettes arrangement.”  I wonder, now, what it is, exactly, that this trio did wrong, on a social level?

From here on out, I’m going to anger some people — some of whom I hold as very dear friends.  To you I say: “I’m also in favor of legalizing pot,” and, “hang on; I’m not finished.”

The trio in question traded sex for cigarettes.  That at least two of them (and, I’m guessing, the third as well) wound up very unhappy with the outcome is really beside the point.  The real question is, is what they did any different from any number of intimate pairings which law and society deems acceptable?  Is trading sex for cigarettes more or less destructive and harmful than trading sex for, say, a sense of self-worth?  At least in the former scenario, there exists a concrete trade-off.

What about some pink-shirted jerk who just wants a night of fun?  He goes to a bar, waits for some unsuspecting lass to drink enough that he finally appears manly and attractive, and he takes her back to some seedy little no-tell motel for some one-on-one.  She forgets whatever demons she was drinking to forget; he gets a notch in his white Abercrombe belt.  Is this better for society because no money changed hands?

Prostitution, of course, isn’t the only game in town where the players screw each other for money.  But it IS one of the few  that is illegal.  Is trading sex for money really any better for society than current tort practices, which enable good, producing members of society to be taken advantage of by any worthless jerk that can find a lawyer and invent a grievance?

I haven’t gone into the practical reasons for legalizing prostitution, and you’re not going to get a detailed treatise from me on the subject.  Suffice to say, I’m a firm believer that, A, prostitution is a mostly victimless crime and, B, fewer laws make fewer criminals.  Really, though, that isn’t the point.

Look, you’re not going to see me leading any crusades calling for immediate decriminalization of prostitution.  I’m against the idea of selling sex for money.  For the record, I’m also against selling sex for popularity, for self-esteem, for some teenage, romanticized version of “love,” or, yes, even for cigarettes.   But I’m also not in favor of outlawing them.

Simply, I don’t see a difference.

the fact is, ‘Republican” candidate Scozzafava was the spoiler, as labeled by conservative pundits from as lowly as yours truly to AmSpec to Limbaugh. If not in a traditional sense. Certainly, if everyone who voted for Dede had voted for Doug instead, he may have pulled it out. It wouldn’t have happened that way though. Dede’s monkey wrench, aside from her being selected as the GOP candidate, was her late endorsement of Owens.

To believe her opinion wouldn’t carry any weight in this race is to not understand the folks in the North Country. Her list of accomplishments might well be overblown, but she’s one of “ours” — which is to say, she’s somebody’s neighbor. Right or wrong, that does mean something up here.

And yes, “up here” is indeed part of the problem. Doug Hoffman had a huge handicap, being from outside the district. As he told a group of pro-life voters in a phone conference (of which I was part), he was part of the district, until his area was gerrymandered out in 2002. That explanation may well have helped his cause had he made it more public.

He also did himself no favors in not better educating himself on local issues. It was great to see him hobnobbing with Glenn Beck and Fred Thompson. And as a fan both, I was gratified to see it. But voters in the area were put off that it seemed he spent more time in the national spotlight than taking part in local debates — especially since, as noted above, his answers on the local issues were somewhat lacking in substance.

Once again, really this election is about the nation more than it is about the North Country — but the voters are here, and if you don’t win them, you don’t win. These mistakes on the part of the Hoffman campaign can be mostly chalked up to inexperience: Hoffman has never been a candidate while the Conservative Party is a stop-gap that rarely has to field its own candidates. For all that, though, he did a damned fine job.

Finally, a finger has to be pointed at the local and national parties here. The local party for not taking a golden opportunity to field a Conservative candidate (I am absolutely convinced, and I think the numbers back me up, that had Hoffman or Lynch been the nominee, for several reasons, it would have been a GOP landslide), and the national for going on the attack against Hoffman. The national Republican establishment can be forgiven, to an extent, for choosing to back Scozzafava. She was, after all, running on the Republican ticket. But when it became apparent that the local base had a real problem with her candidacy, the smart thing to do, if they chose to continue supporting her at all, would have been to attack Owens alone. Running attack ads on Hoffman created a “House divided” scenario that severely blunted their credibility once they finally did rally behind the Conservative.

So is the Hoffman loss a blow to Conservatives? Not even a little. Elections around the country went overwhelmingly to Republicans, even in blue or dark purple regions. Hoffman, in spite of the odds, ran a very close race in NY23. The Conservative base is being energized right now, and if anything NY23 ought to serve notice to establishment Republicans that Conservatives aren’t going to sit back and watch Big Government types take over the party.

And, it serves as a teachable moment: know your area, campaign in your area. Focus on the people that matter: the voters.

(cross-posted at The Minority Report)

The caller informed me that the group is sending out volunteers and community organizers to hand out SBA literature and Hoffman signs, and to rally social Conservatives to the Hoffman cause. Hoffman’s campaign, he noted, is primarily concerned with TV ads (given the amount of time and limited finances), while grass-roots activism is being largely left up to individuals and groups like SBA.

Given the budget and time constraints of the Hoffman camp, this secondary support could well prove important to the campaign. In an email to supporters, Hoffman campaign staffer Daniel Odescalchi noted other grass roots groups coming out:

The regional Huck PAC folks have also offered to canvass the district on our behalf.
And a group of Patriots are coming up from Westchester, NY to help too.

GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, meanwhile, held a meet-and-greet dinner in Lowville, where she was approached by a reporter asking questions about her stated policies, versus her various actions (such as her declining to sign the No-tax pledge until just before receiving Newt Gingrich’s endoresement). After supplying vague answers to the reporter, Scozzafava finally refused to answer any more questions, and staffers blocked the reporter from approaching her. Police were later called in (after the reporter had retired to his vehicle to write his article on the night’s events) to explain things to him and ask him to leave her alone.

Across the proverbial aisle, Bill Owens has also recently run into a spot of trouble — with the California Milk Processor Board. In a new ad, Owens ends up with a variation of the group’s now-infamous “Got Milk?” slogan — which then morphs into “Got Milk Money?” A clever idea, but one which was not, apparently, run by the CMPB first. They’ve issued a cease-and-desist order, which is being largely ignored by the Owens campaign, except to say that their usage consititues “fair use.”

Voters may well wonder if THIS is the fight the Owens camp really needs to be waging right now — and what that might portend as far as which battles Owens would pick as an elected representative.

You can contribute to the Hoffman campaig through his website, http://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com.

UPDATE: According to WaPo, intraparty polls are suggesting Hoffman is now in second place, behind Owens.

(Cross-posted at SLC Republitarian and The Minority Report)

So it’s official, I’m rooting for the Republican to win. As a congresswoman, she could either move even more to the left to properly represent her progressive-trending district and be a pain in the side of the GOP caucus (they have nothing like our Blue Dogs), or Democrats can field a real Democrat to challenge her in 2010.

Markos fears Hoffman, and rightly so.  His brand of liberalism demands purity of socialist standards, and he has given his approval to Dede.  Read his whole piece.  It’s most enlightening.

(h/t doughoffmanforcongress)

“First, to the press and to the people of the world,” said Jagland, through an interpreter, “we’re really, really sorry about the confusion.”  The award, explained Jagland, wasn’t actually supposed to be given to Obama, per se.

Jagland said, “I thought it was understood, when we brought up all those speeches, that they were the actual reason for the award.  And so,” he continued, “the award was actually to be given to the source of those speeches.”

This prompted speculation within the press corps that the Committee had meant to confer the award to President Obama’s speech writers.  Jorgland denied that.  “Don’t be silly,” he said.  “Who ever heard of mere speechwriters being given such a high honor?”

As it turned out, the Norwegian group had actually decided to award the Nobel to the President’s TelePrompTer.  “The problem, of course,” said Jagland, “is that you actually can’t give an award to a machine.  So we asked Mr. Obama to accept the award as the TelePrompTer’s proxy.”

The confusion, the Chairman explained, was actually on the part of the President.  “I’d really thought we’d been clear,” he said, indicating his interpreter.  “Jergen has been with me for quite some time, and I’m sure he translated everything correctly.  Unfortunately, for whatever reason, Mr. Obama didn’t understand.”

So, why didn’t the committee correct the President’s perception?  Mr. Jagland seemed embarrassed by his response: “To be honest, he just seemed so gosh darned excited, it felt heartless to take it back.”

When reached for comment, the TelePrompTer (TOTUS, to its familiars) was philosophical.  “He is the boss, after all,” TOTUS explained.  “I know in the core of my plastic-and-silicon heart that I actually won that award.  That’s enough for now.”

Of course, that didn’t stop the PrompTer from adding an extra dig at his boss.  “Of course, we’ll just have to see whether I stay upright during that next PrimeTime healthcare speech.”

(cross-posted at The Minority Report)