Lets play a game ... Ryan's try.

Before I get into what I originally started this post about, a bit of tragic news this morning. I remember eye's rolling over the movie "The Patriot." The Gibson reenactment (or attempt there of) of portions of our revolution. Well, the young actor whom played his oldest son, Heath Ledger, was found dead this morning in his Manhattan apartment. Titus no doubt knows him from Broke Back Mountain, but I digress.... fame, fortune, looks, this kid has everything yet felt he needed the escape of drugs (which has been implicated as the culprit). Tragic. I guess every generation has their "James Dean."

Now to the post ....

Let's clear some things up first. A) It was a fair enough question - why would I endevour to meet the epitome of sleazy politicians the world over, William Jefferson Clinton, and not one James Earl Carter who while an utter one term failure as president was at least honest in his dealings as CiC? The answer is two fold. One - it's personal with Clinton. He was president as I was becoming a young adult (I "graduated" HS in 1994 - that'll make you both use an explicative I'm sure). I became politically aware under him, started listening to Rush under his term, and was first legally able to vote in his 1996 bid for a second term - so meeting him is for me meeting the guy for which you saw as THE political opposition in all your formative years ... I simply couldn't pas up the opportunity to look the (politically speaking) "enemy" in the eye. Secondly, yes, Carter was "honest" when compared with Clinton. Who isn't? However, my personal distaste for the man has come with his behavior in his post presidency. Yes, I have always been aware of his failings as president, that's a matter of history. But if he had kept his mouth shut as is the unwritten protocol for all former CIC's (Bill's wife is running currently so his speaking out is a given), then I would simply regard him as an honest failure. This, unfortunately for him and every third world citizen living under the thumb of a despot for which Carter certified the election, is not the case. He travels to Cuba and praises the literacy rate as a tribute to Fidel's leadership. Talks about Chavez as a revolutionary thinker. Suggests that private citizens should find a way to finance HAMAS (after the Palestinian election) if the US government under Bush fails to do so (hello shades of Iran/Contra) and publishes a book entitled "Peace Not Apartheid" comparing (with its very title) Israel's actions of self preservation (while surrounded by 800 million people that want to push them into the Red Sea) to the actions of the South African "Jim Crow" style of government. Never mind that the government with the MOST freely elected Arabs - IN THE WORLD - is the Israeli Kanessa. Put simply this is a man whom acts in every facet of his life as if he is embarrassed of America, her constitution, and Lady Liberty herself. I truly think that because of America’s overwhelming choice of Reagan over he, and the way any objective historian has dealt with his tenure that he has a personal psychological dislike of the average American tattooed on his brain and at every turn he wishes to lecture him on the failings of a system and very land which the avearge American has a patriotic investment. I'm the last to defend Clinton, and save Carter I like him the least, but at least the worst sins in his post presidency have been knocking Obama and making me late from break.

****

On Thompson's "fair tax" Titus seems to be advocating. Are you familiar with what that is? It's also called the consumption tax. This is the initiative that would have individuals keeping their entire pay check, no taxes whatsoever, and would implement a 23% sales tax on every transaction save "necessities" such as bread, milk, etc. Neil Bortz has written a book describing its successful implementation which among other things explains how this tax would bring the entire underground economy (drug dealers, prostitutes etc) into the tax system via their inevitable purchases. I mention this only because I was shocked to hear you speak of it in positive terms Titus. Its advocacy is among only the MOST conservative, or right of the isle if you wish, members of my party. Having heard you lament over the Bush tax cuts (which are not "for the rich" but for anyone paying income taxes, which those below the poverty line do not via their return) it seems odd that you would advocate something that goes much further then anything Bush has even considered.

****

I've always been uncomfortable with tagging Romney as a "flip flopper" over abortion. And not because I support his candidacy but because I have listened to him describe his very personal conversion due to events that happened in his private life. But more then that, even if it were due to political expediency if we, in the pro-life movement, are going to excoriate every former pro-abortionist for switching to our side then will they be more or less likely to "see the light?" Isn't this EXACTLY what we want as pro-lifer's? Public officials, especially those seeking the highest office in the land and whom can most impact it via Supreme Court nominees, coming to our side and then governing that way? Or is it the case that if you're once pro-choice you can never be accepted by us? That's a dangerous trend to set in my estimation. If we truly want change in this area then we should reward every public officials that switches with our support in at least that area rather then trying to hit him with snickering tags such as "flip flopper."

****
I had to mention this. Obama is catching heat for praising Reagan. He was asked about being the (possibly) first black president, and whether that placed a special burden on his presidency and he noted that he wanted to lead a "movement" of all Americans in an optimistic fashion "the way Ronald Reagan and FDR did, and the way Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton did not." OUCH! Of course Billy boy started to go down the road, in response, about his impact on America versus Reagan's and even he had to quickly move off that subject - his impact versus Ronnie? Please .... if I want fiction I'll watch Star Trek or An Inconvenient Truth.

****

Carter .... well, what would president Moore have done? Titus, you have layed out a much stronger posture, heavy on military consequences, that suited me just fine. I could lay out my own scenario but it would so closely mimic yours it would seem as if I simply cut and pasted it. Suffice it to say I think your targeting Iranian military targets along the Iraqi border, thus leaving them more or completely vulnerable to Saddam's ambitions is very smart. They would claim collateral damages as if you would have hit Tehran either way, but you sleep at night knowing they're full of sh**. Moving forward to the infrastructure, desalinization plants, etc, all spot on and would have hearkened back to the days of when a subject of the British Crown was murdered or held captive by a foreign government (especially one with a port) their shores would be relentlessly shelled until justice had been satisfied. Had the peanut farmer followed this course we may well have not had a president Reagan sworn in, in 1981. But of course Carter was as pathetic as America has ever mustered to send to the Oval office and even then he barely edged out the man whom had just pardoned Richard Nixon for goodness sake.

****

Cheer up my friend, I know the Packers lost and you have no optimism vested in whomever wins in November, but each time America has found herself in dire need of real leadership, she has produced one, whether they seemed to be our national savior at first or not. And here is a bit of good news: abortions in the US are at their lowest rate (for 2005) in 30 years. It is still of genocidal proportions, 1.2 million for that year, but that's 400,000 less then in 1990, and as I said the lowest rate since 1974. In typical fashion pro-choicers note that it may be due to harder access to clinics, i.e. under a Republican administration. That's absolute nonsense as researchers note the two largest factors are increased use of contraception and "changing attitudes on abortion." Google it for the complete report and although it may not be "good" news (being the 1 mil plus is still occurring) but it is definitely BETTER news.
FR