27 April 2006

Unrepresentative Representation

Bush's popularity is plummeting, and it has little to do with the single issue that kept him in office in 2004. The current war is probably the only reason anybody likes him at all. Despite the claim of assorted lefties that he's got a large blind following, he's broken with his base on almost every issue but the importance of killing terrorists. Even on that single issue, he's a lot more hesitant than some people (like me) are comfortable with.
Rumsfeld is an idiot for fixating on 'transformation' to the detriment of other things, like national defense, the war, etc., but Bush not only remains supportive of Rumsfeld, he's supportive of many similarly idiotic domestic policies. The only benefit to having Bush as president over any given Democrat is that he doesn't want to sell us out to appease foreign dictators, whereas the Democratic party primary purpose for being seems to be grovelling to foreign dictators. How can anyone take seriously people who condemn Bush as an evil tyrant when they praise Castro on another? The Democratic party and it's supporters are mostly a bunch of fucktards who don't question the party's adherence to genocidal socialism, which means that they're evil and must be kept from power.
So, between the leftist Bush and the even more leftist Democratic party, there isn't really anybody left who represents a majority of Americans. Even the writers of National Review, a magazine that played a noteworthy role in the Reagan Revolution, can't agree on which of the leading Republicans is least-leftist and should be supported in 2008.
Third parties are a joke. Most of them are to the left of the Democratic party, even Libertarians are more likely to ally with anarchy-socialists than with small-government Republicans. The Constitution party is making headway among Republicans because it supports a closed border (like 80% of Americans want and Bush is against), but it to the left of the Democrats on the war, which is a much bigger issue that will probably be more important to voters on election day. This leaves nobody, which sucks ass. I'll probably ending up supporting whatever Republican is the most hawkish, because that'll be the only issue on which I agree with any of the candidates.

What brought this to mind was this story linked by Instapundit about differences between Israel and it's neighbors.

For a while there Israel wanted a man in power who was just a big fist. Until the second intifada broke out, Ariel Sharon - the Butcher of Beirut - was considered marginal and extreme by Israelis as well as by almost everyone else in the world. Yet they swung hard to the right and picked him to lead.

Yes, Ariel Sharon was elected by the Israeli's following a series of suicide bombings and the ongoing riots of the second intifada. Instead of being the 'big fist', he worked very hard to out-appease his overly appeasing predecessor. Instead of a wolf fighting to defend them, the Israeli's got a sheep who tried to sacrifice them to the terrorists to keep itself safe. When even their own government wants them to die, what chance do the Israeli's have? When all of our political parties want to destroy our country, what chance do we have?

While writing this, I got some spam email thingie from a "conservative" political group saying that they're refusing to support any republicans unless republicans get serious about closing the border. The republican party is getting close to breaking up, and there's no one around to take the reins except socialists. Winning the cold war didn't do us much good if we're going to implement soviet oppression ourselves.

Goe, not feeling upbeat.

No comments: