Seraphic Secret gets to the heart of the insanity behind the Democrats’ decision to hide from Fox TV:
So let me get this straight. According to the Democrats, Israel is supposed to sit down and chat with Hamas, a terrorist gang dedicated to Israel’s annihilation.
According to the Democrats Israel is also supposed to sit down and “dialogue with Iran,” a country that denies the Holocaust, even as it promises a new Holocaust.
Also, according to the Democrats, America is supposed to shmooze with the North Koreans, a country that has systematically murdered over 3 million of its own citizens.
Why? Well, because you “talk to your enemies.”
But the Democrats refuse to take part in a debate sponsored by Fox Cable Network because, y’know, Fox is too right wing.
Got that?
I’d like to thank the Democratic Presidential candidates: Edwards, Obama, & Clinton for being so publicly willing to reveal their cowardice. They’re terrified of Fox journalists armed with Mont Blanc pens. Imagine how they’d stand up to the surging jihadist threat.
Read the rest here.
The whole thing would be funny if it weren’t so damn scary that these people actually want to be in charge. I guess that’s why I was especially charmed by John Derbyshire’s column today about Giuliani’s SOB factor. Damn right that in this day and age I don’t want a shrinking violet, or a wobbly waffler, or a sensitive flower leading my nation. I want someone who doesn’t need to be best friends with every petty tyrant, every newspaper reporter, and every political foe. It’s one thing to be able to get along. It’s another thing to sacrifice your principles and backbone entirely so as to be liked. That’s fine if you’re a social gadfly, but disastrous if you’re the leader of a target nation. (By the way, I think Romney could be an SOB, too, as could most of the Republican candidates, bless their mean little hearts.)
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Democrats, Elections, Presidential elections
The SOB factor – one hell of an article by Derbyshire and another reason to vote for Newt! Anyone who serves his wife w/divorce papers whilst she is in the hospital can take on jihadists without putting a dent in his nasty factor.
VERY good point about how important it is to be an SOB. Also interesting because you need to be eversolikeable to get elected but then you need to be able to snarl and dig in your heels to actually govern. And how right Marguerite is. Newt’s smart as a whip (pun not intended) but clearly can out-SOB them all.
I think Americans went with nice and compassionate via Bush, and found that it wasn’t exactly to their Jacksonian and Libertarian liking.
So a sort of pseudo-backlash. It would already occur anyways given the state of 2008, but combined with what else has been going on, America wants some decisiveness. America loved Bush when he was decisive, even though they didn’t particularly agree with what he wanted, like “Islam is a religion of peace”. They kept their disagreement below bellow level, because they did favor decisiveness.
Which sort of brings back to the point. I think what most people in the US wants is someone to dump on their enemies. Perhaps justification for why Bolton is popular amongst Americans but unpopular amongst the DC crowd. Bolton doesn’t make deals, he doesn’t appease, so politicians cannot control him, and if they can’t control him then they might as well try to stymie Bush, his boss.
I like it to the Shia backlash. After a couple of years of getting stepped on and told be “calm”, eventually things will crack. Eventually the patience of folks will disappear, if not naturally, then artificially due to enemy attacks.
I think at the root of all the debates about honest Presidents and what not, is that people don’t want the President to be their enemy, they don’t want him to work at cross purposes to him. So since a dishonest President is a hard nut to crack concerning whether he is working for you or not, naturally people want an honest person. But then the Islamic JIhad showed their cut, all over. The quality of being mean and hitting the enemy hard, now overcomes any personal fear simply because people know that if the President has to focus all his energy rage on the enemy, he might be more lenient on his countrymen.
So on that basis, Bush’s approval would be a lot higher if he killed more terrorists in public and burned their bodies, regardless of his soft domestic behavior towards Democrats, Plame, Wilson, that other guy, Sandy, and etc. But if the President doesn’t give Americans the red meat, people begin to question what good he is, what “has he done for me lately”.
People want to hurt their enemies and reward their allies. It just so happens that in politics, their “allies” include themselves. So long as a President doesn’t tell a lie, but also doesn’t tell the whole truth, I think people in the US can tolerate him if he uses that trait to blow up the enemies of the US, humiliate them, and make them beg for mercy. I think people will tolerate a lot, for that end.
de·ci·sive /dɪˈsaɪsɪv/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-sahy-siv] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. having the power or quality of deciding; putting an end to controversy; crucial or most important: Your argument was the decisive one.
2. characterized by or displaying no or little hesitation; resolute; determined: The general was known for his decisive manner.
3. indisputable; definite: a decisive defeat.
4. unsurpassable; commanding: a decisive lead in the voting.
[Origin: 1605–15;
Unsurpassable exercise of instant superpower abilities…. just imagine it.
For me…the SOB factor of a guy like Cheney is why I like him so much. The “Go F* yourself” thing is a case in point. I loved it. Forget the teeth gnashers on the left…it’s like trying to appease the unappeasable. THAT, in my opinion, is why Bush’s numbers have fallen so low. A large number of people are repelled by his wishy-washy turn in so many things.
I willing to tolerate a lot if someone in Washington could just make up their goddamn mind. It’s why I hate the current lefty group. What the hell is the point of a non-binding resolution? That kind of limp shit should never be tolerated from LEADERS. Let the electorate ’send messages’. Leaders should lead. Find a principal and stick with it.
Thinking about it, I want my presidents to be Marines: good friends and bad enemies.
The best of friends, the worst of enemies.