Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

I’m beginning to think that the good Prof Hewitt (I’m a graduate of Chapman Law) has become part of the conservative establishment that is more interested in holding onto whatever scraps of power he can, than he is actual ideas.  I think many in the conservative punditocracy have fallen prey to this.  They have, I fear, forgotten the core principles of the movement.

You see so many of them invoke Reagan, yet ignore what he actually did - raise taxes as governor (and as president), sign the most liberal abortion bill as governor, fight for gay rights (vetoed a bill that would have barred gays from teaching), amnesty, and sign a few treaties that actually reduced nuclear weapons.  It’s funny to read Hewitt refer to a Reagan-Bush coalition, when one man won in two landslides and the other barely won either time.

You’re right about the movement needing time in the wilderness.

Funny and scary at the same time. 

No not Cloverfield, Stephen Green’s drunk blogging of the Democrat debates.  If you think this election does not matter, you should pay close attention to what the Democrats are saying: 

7:23pm Special guest John Edwards doesn’t like poverty, and he wants to go become a veterinarian because he loves children. Oh, and colored people.

7:24pm Clinton also wants to end poverty. Certainly, she’s ended the poverty she was born into, by trading four cattle futures into a hundred grand. Oh, and by marrying the richest ex-president, like, ever.

7:26pm Best from the comments section so far tonight: “You know what’s not sustainable? My patience.” Also, Clinton wants “shared prosperity.” That’s code for “I’m gonna tax you bastards back to the Stone Age.” Special guest John Edwards nodded approvingly, dreaming perhaps of “Clinton/Edwards” bumper stickers.

http://vodkapundit.com/?p=9375

It is even worse.  Hillary is the most hawkish and suggests a 60 day pull out from Iraq.  Yeah, this election matters.

I’m not sure this election matters any more than any other election in my life time (born 1978).  Whoever the next president is, (s)he is going to have to take a long hard look at the money, lives, and time it will take to create “Iraq”.  I say “create”, because present-day Iraq, like much of the Mid-East and central Asia, is nothing more than lines drawn on a map at the end of the Great War.

We are probably better off letting Iraq dissolve into three countries, at least one of which (Kurdistan) has a chance at becoming a western style democracy.  We’re also probably better off recognizing that the next phase of the war on terror will be more “police action” oriented.  Not to mention diplomatically based.

Domestically, the next president is going to have to raise taxes (in a recession, no less) to pay for the borrow and spend policies of the last seven years.  The bright side is, they likely won’t be able to afford any new programs.  The down side is the Dow Jones will probably be somewhere around 9000 and unemployment will be 8-9%.

The GOP has run out of ideas, and the grown ups in the party are nowhere to be found.

Finally, I’ll be honest, I think the Democrats will be pretty serious about the war.  They don’t want this to be another question of “Who lost China?” They may just be a bit more prudent on foreign affairs - which is a good thing - and that should be enough to settle things down.

In short, a Republican loss will not be the end of the Republic.  We’ve survived for 232 years, we’ve defeated two empires (British twice, Spanish once), we’ve fought a border war, we’ve fought a civil war, we’ve fought twice in Europe, thrice in Asia major, and now a few times in the Mid-East.  We also survived an economic depression that coincided with a dust bowl drought.  So long as we have the will to continue, we shall - regardless of who are leaders are.