Not a bad idea

The Anchoress has taken her stand, she is not participating in the never ending campaign.

I know people who do not even watch the news anymore because they just can not stand the whole process. It is depressing and demeaning and completely frustrating to people who do not live and eat and breathe politics, that is normal people. So maybe the Anchoress is right, maybe we should wait unil an election is near before we have a political campaign. Fancy that. Just like the good ol' days.

I resent like hell that these politicians - all of them, but I seem to recall it was Hillary who started early, forcing everyone else to do so, as well - began their stumping and fund-raising two years before an election. Some of them - like Clinton - barely finished their re-election celebrations before reaching out their hands for ‘08 campaign funds.

They’ve decided to be in our faces for an excessive period of time, and the acquiescent media is allowing it by covering their every belch and hiccup, but that doesn’t mean I have to read it and get sucked into a pre-election vortex that has no business forming just now. Our “public servants,” duly elected to represent their states, are running back and forth across the country giving speeches, eating festival food and raising money, money, money instead of attending to the concerns of their constituents, voting on pending legislation, FUNDING OUR TROOPS and otherwise doing what they were hired to do.

I’m not participating in this, yet. I’m not going to allow myself to be suckered into paying attention to these people - and giving them either my money or my time - before I deem it practical and intelligent to do so, and that will be sometime around November of ‘07.

Yes. I am giving myself (gasp!) a whole year off from being caught up in the fakery and frummery of modern electoral politics. The press can make all the noise it wants and declare “winners” and “losers” over and over again, week by interminable week, for the next 18+ months, but that doesn’t mean I have to listen. If we allow the pols and the press to maintain the “endless campaign” mentality, we’re all going to be utterly burned out (and tuning out) at the time when we most should be keyed in and observant.

Barone on Blame America First

Michael Barone has another fine article up on who we are and who we are not:

The default assumption predisposes them to believe that if there is slaughter in Darfur, it is our fault; if there are IEDs in Iraq, it is our fault; if peasants in Latin America are living in squalor, it is our fault; if there are climate changes that have any bad effect on anybody, it is our fault.

What they have been denied in their higher education is an accurate view of history and America's place in it. Many adults actively seek what they have been missing: witness the robust sales of books on the Founding Fathers. Witness, also, the robust sales of British historian Andrew Roberts's splendid "History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900."

Roberts points out almost all the advances of freedom in the 20th century have been made by the English-speaking peoples -- Americans especially, but British, as well, and also (here his account will be unfamiliar to most American readers) Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders. And he recalls what held and holds them together by quoting a speech Winston Churchill gave in 1943 at Harvard: "Law, language, literature -- these are considerable factors. Common conceptions of what is right and decent, a marked regard for fair play, especially to the weak and poor, a stern sentiment of impartial justice and above all a love of personal freedom ... these are the common conceptions on both sides of the ocean among the English-speaking peoples."

Churchill recorded these things in his four-volume history of the English-speaking peoples up to 1900: the development of the common law, guarantees of freedom, representative government, independent courts.

I know no one asks for my advice

But I think that there are some party faithful out there in the Republican ranks who should listen to Medved and what he has to say in this article.

There is a growing tendency among some true believers out there to make the rest of us feel positively unwanted until that election comes around and then we are not so bad. Sorta. They have to hold their noses a bit, but what the hell every vote counts.

The Age of Ann has passed

I saw this letter at The American Mind. I will only post a part of it and I have not signed Flares up to the list of bloggers included, because I am not sure how everyone else feels about being on this list. After all this is a democracy. I think it is right on myself.

The legendary conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote a book entitled Ideas Have Consequences. Rush Limbaugh has said again and again that “words mean things.” Both phrases apply to Coulter’s awful remarks.

Coulter’s vicious word choice tells the world she care little about the feelings of a large group that often feels marginalized and despised. Her word choice forces conservatives to waste time defending themselves against charges of homophobia rather than advancing conservative ideas.

Within a day of Coulter’s remark John Edwards sent out a fundraising email that used Coulter’s words to raise money for his faltering campaign. She is helping those she claims to oppose. How does that advance any of the causes we hold dear?

Denouncing Coulter is not enough. After her “raghead” remark in 2006 she took some heat. Yet she did not grow and learn. We should have been more forceful. This year she used a gay slur. What is next? If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur? How does that help conservatism?

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

CPAC sponsors, the Age of Ann has passed. We, the undersigned, request that CPAC speaking invitations no longer be extended to Ann Coulter. Her words and attitude simply do too much damage.

I agree with this

Time to tell this woman to stuff a sock in it..... and I don't want to hear how if Bill Maher gets to talk dirty then we can talk dirty too.

H/T Instapundit.

UPDATE: H/T to chuck in the comments, this Post from Dean Barnett says it well.

Ann Coulter strikes again

I have never understood this woman's appeal. She is an elitist and she has no respect for anyone, including her fellow conservatives.

Via Captains Quarters

Ann Coulter is speaking at the moment, and drawing a huge crowd -- with longer lines than those for the Rudy Giuliani. She's definitely one of the stars here at CPAC, and I listened to the audio stream for a bit while she opened her speech. I had to take a phone call, though, and I missed a critical, and infuriating, throw-away line. Michelle Malkin reports (from two chairs down):

"I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab."

Yeah, that's just what CPAC needs -- an association with homophobia. Nice work, Ann.