Vulture Droppings: Most Importantist Election Ever Edition

Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

There's an election tomorrow.  Hey, how 'bout that? [/sarcasm]

"Shame on you, Vulture!  It's the most importantist election ever!"  Uh huh.

"Vulture!  It's all different this year!  The Tea Party is gonna change everything!"  Really?  How so?  The Tea Parties have been completely co-opted by Team Elephant.  Why would I say that?  What evidence do I have of such a thing?  A sampling:

Some traditional Republican consultants are advising — with a straight face — that newly elected Republican members of Congress "reach across the aisle…and "work with the Democrats."

John Boehner "rallies the troops" with empty (and limp) words "backing" Tea Party principles.  He swears spending will be rolled back to "pre-bailouts levels".  Seriously?  Going from $1.5 trillion deficits to $1 trillion deficits?  Oooooh!  I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO impressed!

And worst of all, the Queen of Inside the Beltway faux conservatism "celebrates" the Tea Party as having "saved" Team Elephant from King George the Dim.  Ms. Noonan, for those of you who weren't paying attention, was one of King George's biggest apologists during his 8 year reign of error.

---

"Vulture! Even YOU have to admit that we're better off with Republican-co-opted Tea Party candidates than with the Dhimmi-crats who have rammed a 50-year wish-list of Progressivism down our throats the past 4 years!"

Better?  Better HOW?  BETTER would have been for the Tea Parties to have come together as a third party or under the umbrella of one of the existing third parties (Libertarian or Constitution, for example).  BETTER would be for those candidates to be able to enter Mordor on the Potomac (hat tip: Mike Church) with a clean slate and a fresh canvas than to walk into the clutches of Mitch McCommie and John BaneTurd.

---

Here's the big reason I'm so unenthusiastic.  I'll lay it out in a single sentence.  The co-opting of the Tea Parties by Team Elephant guarantees the failure of the principles that brought those people together.  Guaran.  Effing.  Tees it.

There is no principle that Republicans will not run from, no compromise they will not accept, no stand crucial enough for them to make.

What happens to the Tea Parties after their "champions" are relegated to the Congressional equivalent of the Back Bench, and the John Boehner Business-as-Usual express continues propping up Crony Capitalism?  What happens after Mitch McConnell compromises for the umpteenth time on a point of principle that just SCREAMS for men of courage and conviction to just say "NO!"?

You kill this once-in-a-political lifetime awakening of the sheeple, and you kill any chance we ever have of wresting power away from the looters.

But that's the idea really, isn't it?  That's why the GOP has co-opted the Tea Parties.  They like the gravy train that is "public service" in Washington every bit as much as Team Donkey does.

---

Bolt shoots, bolt scores

From time to time I like to highlight the work of my favorite bloggers and columnists, particularly when they've hit upon something important or administered a particularly good beatdown on some asshat who desperately needs one.

Andrew Bolt is Australia's preeminent libertarian columnist. In this column, Andrew takes on the shrill crowd of politically correct yentas doing their damnedest to take down Miss California for the "sin" (read: thought crime) of making an anti-gay marriage statement.

While he does his usual admirable job of applying the beatdown to the appropriate parties - particularly drama QUEEN Perez Hilton - he also hit upon something that I had missed in my prior assessment of this sort of Leftist elite feeding frenzy.

You see, defending the tribe counts more than defending a principle. That is why the people tearing into Prejean refuse to say that Obama, who shares her opinion on gay marriage, is also a bitch, boob and moron who has buttock fat for brains and needs a heart transplant, the dumb bastard.

(Actually, I suspect these people excuse Obama as a liar, just saying what he must. And a liar is good, but an opponent of gay marriage evil.)

So what is this tribe that's being defended so viciously, and with such hypocrisy? It's the tribe of the Left. Of privilege, too. And patriarchy.

It's also a class - the kind of people who'd look down on a Miss USA audience, and would use the weapons of power, sex and caste to crush them in precisely the ways the Left once claimed to oppose.

We've seen this phenomenon played out before, of course, and recently.

Last year it was the turn of Sarah Palin, the Republican vice-presidential candidate, to be monstered for being a conservative woman from small-town, Christian USA.

Palin, although a successful and popular corruption-buster and Governor of Alaska, was pilloried by the largely Left media as some thick hick, with white-trash morals and ideas above her station.

Class! Of course. The snobbery of the Left knows no bounds. But Vulture! Bill Clinton was a small-town rube, and the Left LOVED him. Ah, grasshopper, but Bill Clinton also attended Georgetown, Yale, and even Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar! That's cachet, people. And Sarah Palin? A degree from the University of Idaho? And JUST a BA at that? What a rube!

Never mind that the UI educational experience is probably every bit as good as Georgetown's (I'm talking the actual classroom instruction; you don't think Georgetown's prestigious professors actually teach, do you?). It just goes to show you how shallow and petty the Left actually is. If you're (a) from money or (b) have attended one or more "prestige" universities, and you embrace the Leftist catechism, you're a member of the club; nothing you do is worthy of criticism, except, perhaps, the occasional rebuke to placate the rubes from time to time. If you do not embrace the Leftist catechism, but satisfy requirement (a) or (b), you will be criticized, perhaps even rudely, but you will not bear the full heat that those who satisfy neither (a) nor (b) will.

Oh, and don't think for one second that top-level Republicans and their spokesmonkeys in the neocon commentariate are any different. They are every bit as shallow and petty. After all, some of the most scathing criticisms of Sarah Palin came from the likes of Peggy Noonan! The Left-Center neocon wing of the GOP (you know, the group that is killing the party) is every bit as snobby as the Left.

Great catch, Andrew. And create article, as always.

Vulture Droppings - stuff that ruffles my feather

Vulture droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.

---

I hope I don't come off sounding like Andy Rooney here. But let's face it, there is "stuff" out there that ruffles my damn tail feathers, and I'm gonna vent!

---

Let's start with the Baby Boom. Technically, I'm a Boomer. Some definitions of "Boomer" span from 1946 to somewhere in the 50's, with 1958 being the most common. Others go as late as 1964! People, let's get real! To say that I, born in 1958, have ANYTHING in common with the real Boomers is ludicrous! Here's the bottom line: to say that someone born in 1958 (like me) = someone born in 1946 (like King George the Dim) is almost as stupid as saying that someone born in 1946 (like Bill Clinton) = someone born in 1934 (like my dad). But they've been doing it for around 40 years now! Let's cut the crap: if you weren't at least a freshman in High School by 1970, you're NOT a boomer (for the record, I graduated from the 6th grade in 1970, hence, you can count me out!).

"Okay, you're not a Boomer. BFD." BFD, you say? How about it IS a big deal to me? Why? Because I consider the Baby Boom 60's maggot generation to be the cancer that sucked the life and vitality out of this nation and turned it into the whining collection of professional victims it has become.

"Oh, come ON, Vulture! You can't condemn everyone born in a 8-10 year span as being a cancer to our nation!" And I don't. I'm as cognizant as anyone to the fact that less than 1/3 of Boomers fit that "cancer" description, as the rest are normal, hard-working Americans just like their parents, their neighbors, or you. But that 1/3...that steaming pile of communist-sympathizing, grievance-mongering, America-blaming (and -hating!), losers? I don't even want to be linked with them by something as broad and meaningless as birth year.

---

Another feather ruffler is the arrogant way that state-worshiping elitists accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being stupid, ignorant, or (my favorite) lacking in intellectual curiosity. King George was tarred with this label (okay, sometimes they're right). But so was Reagan, a man of extraordinary ideas (and ideals), and now it's Sarah Palin getting the rap. Unfortunately, with Sarah Palin it's not just the left tarring with that broad brush, it's also shriveled bitter shrews like Peggy Noonan of the "conservative" commentariat.

I'm throwing down the gauntlet, Lefties! Show me your "brains", and I'll show you those of the libertarian and conservative side. On the libertarian/conservative side: Ron Paul, Vox Day, Dr. Thomas Sowell, Dr. Walter Williams, and the now-deceased William F. Buckley. On their side: what? Where exactly are their "brains"? Nancy Pelosi? Puh-lease! That lightweight couldn't think her way out of a wet paper bag. The Clinton's? Yeah, right! He's nothing but a grifter and she's a power-mad parasite. Obama? Everyone alleges that he's "brilliant", but I've yet to see it from Mr. 57 states.

The fact is that the "intelligence" of the Left is a myth, perpetuated by and for the Left. The Left can't get beyond hackneyed bumper-sticker mantras (No blood for oil!), can't be reasoned with (You can't drill your way out of this problem!), and doesn't give a flying rat's ass if they completely torpedo this country, just as long as they get their long-awaited One-World Socialist Utopia Dystopia.

---

Another thing I deeply resent is the disingenuous use of language by politicians of all stripes. My first recollection of it (which I'm sure wasn't anywhere close to the first time it was employed -- I just happened to have sobered up by the early 90's) was the Clinton's describing taxes as "contributions". Yeah. Sure. "Contributions" at bayonet point! Let's see what happens if I decide I don't want to "contribute" this year!

Clinton used to the military for "nation building". Team Elephant went nuts and decried the policy. But, once elected, King George the Dim used the 9/11 attacks as a pretense for...wait for it...nation building! Only he didn't call it that. He calls it sewing democracy in the Middle East. Assclown!

Now Obama is promising "tax cuts" for 95% of Americans, neglecting to point out that, of that 95%, a full 40% or more don't pay a single dime of federal tax! What those people will receive is NOT a tax cut; it is redistributed wealth, money taken from the top 25% of wage earners and passed on to them. It's socialism -- call it what it is!

Orwell was a prophet. Once you've made language meaningless, you've conquered the stupid and the unthinking.

---

One last item...I'm sick and tired of politicians and their "let them eat cake" mentality when it comes to building new roads! "Let them take mass transit or move closer to where they work", they cry. The problem with that?

• Who lives or works right next to a Metro station? I don't. I have to drive (depending on traffic) nearly 45 minutes JUST TO CATCH THE EFFING THING!!! And with the Blue Line transfer, plus at least one, maybe two bus transfers, I've turned a gawd-awful 1.5 to 2 hour commute into a 3 hour commute!

• If I could afford to live in Bethesda or Potomac or Fairfax, I sure as hell wouldn't be working for a living! There's a reason I live in Frederick (besides the fact I actually like living there): it's the only place we could afford to purchase a single family home at the time!

• What about carpooling? *Buzzer* Doesn't work for consultants like me. I might be working in Bethesda this week, in Tysons Corner next week, and in Hanover, MD the week after that. YOU try to set up a car pool around that schedule!

• What the eff do we pay taxes for if not with the expectation that the government could take time out from destroying the monetary system and creating more dependents to suck at the government teat to at least toss the mules paying the taxes a bone in the form of a less stressful commute? Is that REALLY so much to ask?

---

Enough of my bitching. What are the things that cheese you off? I'm dying to hear.

---

An open letter to Peggy Noonan

Dear Ms. Noonan,

As someone who has read your WSJ column intermittently for quite some time, I feel compelled to call you out on your treatment of Sarah Palin. Your unseemly displays of scorn, derision, and contempt are most unbecoming, and border on journalistic jihad.

As I recall, in a different time, you were among the hoard of conservatives who circled the wagons in a near-unanimous defense of Dan Quayle, perhaps the single least qualified candidate for the job ever. This man, perhaps the single dumbest individual to ever hold public office (no small feat that!), got the kind of defense from his allies that Sarah Palin can only dream of.

And let's not forget George W. Bush, a man you staunchly defended right up until the last year. You accuse Sarah Palin of being without ideas? This is a man whose next original idea will be his first!

Back to the topic of Sarah Palin being without ideas. Hello? Reality calling. The VP candidate is SUPPOSED to appear to be without ideas! The whole point of the VP candidate, at least in terms of the campaign, is to be the parrot repeating the "big ideas" of the presidential candidate. Last I looked, that was John McCain. I would venture that both you and I would look stupid trying to pass off the steaming pile of "ideas" being offered by John McCain as having any sort of basis in Constitutional government, let alone any sort of relationship with logic or reason. I'm sure that if Sarah Palin were at the TOP of the ticket we'd get a whole different look at her core beliefs and the ideals that form her vision of government.

John McCain's campaign (or, as I like to call it "Bob Dole: the sequel") was in a death spiral until Sarah Palin was added to the ticket. She's the only positive he has going.

And yet, you and other defectors from the so-called conservative commentariat have gone out of your way to heap scorn and derision on this lovely woman. You've questioned her intelligence (and I thought that only the Left resorted to that tired smear tactic). You've accused her of dodging the media, but how much of that is dictated by the campaign? You don't question McCain's misuse of her proven ability to draw crowds to hear the message, you just question HER.

And as far as I can see, that's the whole of it. It's her. You dislike her. Most of the female baby boom wing of the conservative commentariat dislikes her. Coincidence? I think not.

Sarah Palin (and I) hail from the tail end of the baby boom. We aren't mystified by the Beatles or JFK. The first time we had the opportunity to vote, our man was Reagan. We don't belong to your little 60's generation.

I expected the paleo-feminist womyn to reject Sarah Palin. Those calcified old crones, who probably still believe that heterosexual sexual relations is always rape, will only vote for a candidate who (a) supports the holy sacrament of abortion, and (b) got to where she is through "help" from the government or the feminist movement.

But seeing your reaction to Sarah Palin, I'm thinking that the 60's generation women, liberal AND conservative, hate the thought of being surpassed by someone who is not one of them! The night Sarah Palin was nominated, you were seriously bent. Why, it should have been Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Elizabeth Dole or some such! Notice anything about those names? They are women in their mid 60's and up. They're boomers. They're YOUR people. It would seem that your attitude is no one should EVER get picked until YOUR people are picked.

Perception isn't always the truth, but my perception is that you're a disingenuous, bitter woman who just can't STAND the idea of giving way to a younger generation of female leaders. You're disingenuous for representing John McCain as any sort of conservative. And you're a bitter woman for trying to slap down the one person on either of the bipartite tickets whom any American outside of your social circle sees as having any redeeming qualities, simply because the honor didn't go to one of "your kind".

Shame on you!