Let's Get Political, Political, I Wanna Get Political

If I were to have a political talk show that song would totally be my theme song. It would be so annoying having to hear that over and over, at every return from break. It would be awesome. I was going to post the video, but it's kind of gross, like in an 80's workout video with jiggling bodies kind of way. And the song is really more annoying than anything, so I'll spare you.

I've been reading up still, and I can't remember where I saw all the information so I won't have many direct links, but I'll do my best to cover the things I thought most interesting:

• Thank goodness for the GOP picking up those extra senate seats between Senator Chambliss of Georgia, and presumably Senator Coleman of Minnesota. The reason being the Big 3 Auto Bailout and the Dem-led Congress attempting to push through the legislation that would grant the billions of dollars that they're seaking after. Although something will probably go through at some point, hopefully the GOP will be smart enough to at least get some concessions from the other side. Hugh Hewitt wants some major tax cuts in Ohio and Michigan, but who knows if they'll actually secure anything.The great thing about the prospect of the auto bailout is that just about every other major corporation is now seeking the same from the government. Since when is the government supposed to backstop every private enterprise?
• You all heard about Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, right? The guy who was trying to sell the Senate vacancy created by President-Elect Obama's ascent into the White House. There have been some distant ties to Obama, but mainly my question is this: how can a guy ascend in politics having interacted with so many questionable individuals throughout his entire career and be so above reproach? It just seems like in every area in his lif - his friends, his political connections, even his minister - all these people have something that would make anybody think twice about supporting. If you were considering just one of your friends and they became close to a number of different people who had all of these questionable backgrounds, wouldn't that give you some sort of pause? But somehow Obama always escape all of that.
• This Powerline post had a really interesting excerpt from a former Assistant United States Attorney, but what I'm going to post touches on some other points:
  
  

  No, he's not nuts. Having been an AUSA for a long time, one thing I noticed is that normal, honest people have difficulty understanding how criminals think. (This shows up, for example, in the death penalty debates I do, where abolitionists simply don't grasp the heartlessness and cruelty that some killers display. It's simply beyond their experience)...
  
  It's not so much that Spitzer and Edwards will walk away from their respective scandals the multi-millionaire celebrities they were when they walked in, with a fawning (for liberals) press telling us that (a) everybody does it, or (b) to err is human, or (c) we can't be so judgmental, or (d) [fill in the blank]. It's that we (or at least they) learned from The Big One ten years ago. Bill Clinton disgraced his office, lied, and encouraged or (possibly) arranged for others to lie. He also granted at least one pardon after the pardonee's former (but still friendly) wife forked over a few hundred thousand in "contributions."
  
  And what happened?
  
  Clinton's popularity went up, his spouse became a serious candidate for President, he's touted by the press as an elder statesman, his guy at DoJ who checked off on the pardon is about to become Attorney General, and of course Clinton himself lives a life of luxury and adulation. The world of perverse incentives that the Left labored so long to create has arrived.
  
  Is Blago nuts? Not hardly.

  Dave has mentioned to me before a little about some of the death penalty conversations that he's had in law school, and that really does seem the case. People who oppose the death penalty oftentimes cannot even fathom the kind of evil that some people inflict on others. Sometimes there are things so severe that the requirements of justice require that person's death. That may seem harsh, but not everyone who kills is remorseful, or did it to someone who deserved to die. I've read some interesting stories recently about family members of murder victims who visit the murderers on death row and they will fight tooth and nail to proclaim their innocence because they know that they have to keep the act up for the sake of their appeals, no matter how guilty they are. There's a lot to consider when it comes to that stuff.
  
  And then Clinton. A lot of liberals have no clue how it is that conservatives can be so condemning of his acts while in office, but then be pro-Bush, or pro-War like they're on the same plane. This is the President of the United States of America, the man who is supposed to be the most respected man on the planet, and he's engaging in extra-marital affairs in the White House with the staff? It's just so petty. And not only did he get through it fine, but things almost seemed to get even better like nothing ever happened. It's not that he wasn't penitent, or maybe Hillary was really hard on him, but there just seem to be no consequences to any of these actions.
• Here are some Bush quotes from Jay Nordlinger. He assembled these during a conference with some writers from National Review last Friday:
  
  He said, “I’m comfortable that I have made principled decisions for eight years — that I was unwilling to sacrifice those principles for the sake of short-term approbation, approval, or whatever you want to call it. It was in this room that a prominent member of my political party said, ‘You must remove troops from Iraq, because it could cost us elections if you don’t.’ And it was in this room that I looked at him and said, ‘You must not understand George W. Bush, because I understand that success in Iraq is necessary for the long-term security of America, and therefore I will make decisions based upon victory in Iraq, not victory in the polls.’”
  
  We are in “an ideological struggle,” a different kind of ideological struggle from the Cold War, “because we face a non-nation state that uses asymmetrical warfare to kill, which makes it hard for a president to sustain the fight.” In this new kind of war, “the battles are infrequent; the damage is often psychological.” And the way “to defeat an enemy ideologically is to offer a better ideology.” The replacement of tyranny with liberty “will be the long-term solution to America’s security.” And Bush is talking about, not just the “tyranny of government,” but “the tyranny of disease, the tyranny of illiteracy.”
  
  He said that it would be “imperative” for all of us to articulate — “in your own way, obviously” — the idea that “we are in an ideological struggle.” Bush himself is “going to put a policy institute together at Southern Methodist University, precisely to remind people of the long-term struggle and the consequences of allowing hopeless situations to fester.” (Me - which is an interesting point, the need to be able to articulate our views. It's not enough to just have a particular stance, but to be able to adequately express it.)
  
  “I argue vociferously that the Middle East is better off without Saddam Hussein,” Bush said. And people forget about the “environment” of early 2003, when the U.S. and its allies went into Iraq. “The whole world thought there were weapons of mass destruction. Members of both political parties thought there were weapons of mass destruction. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 said, ‘Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences.’” And you should not “isolate” Iraq, but place it “in the post-9/11 environment,” recognizing “what life was like.”
  
  Everyone says, Our alliances are in terrible shape, America has a terrible image, George W. has pissed away the good name of the United States. Our alliances, our image, and our name have to be restored. “Restored” is the big buzzword.
  
  Bush: “All I ask is that people analyze our alliances around the world before they come to” any conclusions. “One, it is hard for any president to say that he and his country have had strong relations with Japan, Korea, and China at the same time” — but Bush can say it. “Two, we have changed our relationship with India from one of suspicion to one of partnership, while being able to keep influence in Pakistan. Three, I articulated a two-state solution, at the same time vowing to defend Israel and keeping strong relations with Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and the U.A.E.”
  
  In Latin America, “we have relations with two key countries that are very strong: one, Mexico; and two, Brazil. The relationship between the United States and Brazil has been one of suspicion at times. Today, it is one of dealing with common interests.
  
  “I’ll never forget my first meeting with Lula in here. I’m a pretty frank guy with these people. [I loved that: “these people.” One of my favorite moments of the interview.] And I said, ‘You know, it’s hard for you to believe, isn’t it, that you’re sitting here talking with a’ — I don’t think I called myself a right-wing fanatic, but . . . I said, ‘I know that you probably think that you and I can't get along. After all, you are, you know, coming out of the leftist labor movement, bashing America when you could.’ And I said, ‘But you know something? You and I do care about a couple of things: We care about the plight of the downtrodden; we want to defeat ignorance. What I found interesting about you, Mr. President, is you believe in faith-based programs to help lift people’s lives in your country.’
  
  “And it was like, ‘Oh, maybe I can deal with this guy.’ And we have got a very strong relationship. Does that translate to people’s respect for America? In some cases, it does. You know, I don’t follow these opinion polls. But I will tell you, people want to come to America. I will tell you, America is respected. Our values are cherished — because they’re not our values; they’re universal values.”
  
  What should be watched “over these coming decades is the prevalence of moral relativism, which is manifested during my presidency, saying, ‘Bush is imposing his values.’ [He fairly shouts this.] Well, if you believe these are Bush’s values or American values, then you don’t believe in the universality of certain values. And so I firmly believe that our respect is strong in the world. I’d rather be respected than liked. And we are respected, and our values are cherished, and the lines are long to come to America.”
  
  A word about popularity: You can be popular, but “at what price”? “You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.
  
  “You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation [sing it, brother]. But principles are enduring.”

Take those quotes for what they're worth. They illustrate a lot of great points and tell a lot about the man. Of course there are plenty more in the actual piece that are worth taking a look at.

I had more stuff, but I've really got to get moving on some school stuff.

Be blessed ya'll!