It Shouldn’t Be The Party Of This Lincoln

In a momentary fit of masochism, I was just watching Wolf Blitzer.

I hope that the balance of the Senate is upset, one way or the other, by at least two or three seats, if for no other reason than to make that Jeffords-emulating, turncoat wannabe, dances-with-Democrats mental-defective Lincoln Chafee politically irrelevant.

The only reason that he even has his office was heredity–he was the idiot son of a popular incumbent deceased Senator. The Republican Party doesn’t need pusillanimous imbecilic weasels like him.

Anyone want to know how I really feel?

It Shouldn’t Be The Party Of This Lincoln

In a momentary fit of masochism, I was just watching Wolf Blitzer.

I hope that the balance of the Senate is upset, one way or the other, by at least two or three seats, if for no other reason than to make that Jeffords-emulating, turncoat wannabe, dances-with-Democrats mental-defective Lincoln Chafee politically irrelevant.

The only reason that he even has his office was heredity–he was the idiot son of a popular incumbent deceased Senator. The Republican Party doesn’t need pusillanimous imbecilic weasels like him.

Anyone want to know how I really feel?

Talking To Sean

Frank Sietzen has an interview with the NASA Administrator in this month’s Aerospace America [note: it’s apparently not a permalink–they’re playing some games with frames. You’ll probably have to dig it out of the table of contents].

It’s worth a read if you’re interested in space policy. This was the question (and answer) that I found most intriguing.

Q: Do you think the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) is on the right track, or do you want to restructure it?

A: We?ll see.

Good Result, Bad Process

One of my aphorisms is that when the government occasionally does the right thing, it’s almost always for the wrong reason. A federal appellate court has struck down an Alabama prohibition against ummm…”marital aids,” as unconstitutional.

This is an example of a desirable outcome from bad reasoning. The law was idiotic, but there is no “right to privacy” in the Constitution. Bork had it right here. One could argue (and I would) that there should be, but as the Founders wrote it, I don’t believe there is (which is why Roe v. Wade was such a flawed decision). Regardless of the fact that it was a dumb law, this was raw judicial activism. It would be much better to amend the Constitution to put in a real right to privacy.

An End To War?

I was listening to a debate on Iraq between Wayne Allard and some Democrat the other night on Greta’s show. While the Dem was against going to war, he made the point that if were are going to, we should formally declare it. Allard disagreed, with the excuse that it would have implications for insurance companies. He didn’t elaborate on the explanation.

Greta asked him if the very notion of formal declarations of war had become obsolete, which I thought was a good question. He essentially said, yes, or at least maybe.

Does this bother anyone else? Will we never again actually declare war on anyone, under any circumstances, even as we wage it? If so, why not?

May The Worst Candidate Win

Here’s a report on the little-publicized debate between Gray Davis and Bill Simon earlier this week.

I found this quote interesting. George Skelton (of the LA Times, aka Davis campaign central) called Simon the “worst gubernatorial candidate in California history.” Could be.

He should capitalize on this. The campaign theme should be that, while he’s a lousy candidate, but successful businessman, Davis is the worst governor in California history. It gets back to my earlier point–those who are best at winning elections aren’t necessarily best at governing.

California voters have a choice. Do they want a good candidate, or do they want a good (or at least not as dictatorial, corrupt and incompetent) governor?

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!