"Why I Am A Democrat" - A Hilarious Parody by a Comedic Genius

Iowahawk has to be one of the funniest guys in the whole Blogosphere. Not that Scott Ott from "Scrappleface" and "Liberal Larry" from BlameBush are slouches either.

Here is one of Iowahawk's classics (from Dec 2003):

Why I Am A Democrat

The Governator in Action

My respect and admiration for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s performance as California’s governor continues to grow. What a refreshing (and necessary) approach he is taking as he tackles the overwhelming array of problems that California is ensnarled in as a result of years – even decades – of short-sighted, bureaucratic, anti-business, pro-union-and-interest group dominated missteps. It is not an overstatement to say that California has served – up to the Governator’s arrival - as a shining example of how NOT to run, operate, and govern a state. That its quandary is almost entirely the result of the enactment of cherished liberal/Democratic policies and principles should surprise no one. The question now is whether even Arnold can salvage the mess.

But he’s undertaking a campaign that is as audacious in its scope and as it is necessary to instigate the type of reform that California requires. First, the governor wants automatic spending cuts to be imposed when expenditures exceed revenue. Second, he wants to change government employee pensions from defined-benefit plans to 401(k)-type plans. He also calls for scrapping the 2001 bipartisan gerrymandering of the state's political districts. And finally he wants to link pay for teachers to their performance, while making it easier to fire bad ones.

Superficial band-aid type approaches ain’t gonna work – California is way beyond that at this point. Best of luck to Gov Schwarzenegger as he begins the process of taking on the Entrenched Democratic Beast in California.

On Ward Churchill (Am I the only blogger left who hasn’t commented on this guy yet?)

A pet peeve of mine for years has been the tendency by the less-than-tolerant "open-minded" liberals on college campuses to dissuade and protest the invitation of conservative speakers to college-sponsored events, even to the point of causing some events to be cancelled or invitations to be withdrawn. Such immature, self-serving, and selfish antics deprive everyone else of the equally important opportunity to hear someone speak, simply because the protestors don’t like what the “eeeevil conservative” in question may have to say. This is antithetical to one of the fundamental purposes of the university – the free and open exchange and debate of competing ideas.

Repugnant as his views may be, the same principles that should be governing the rights of unpopular conservative speakers to be heard on campus, ought to apply in Churchill’s case as well. You don’t have to go see or hear him; I don’t have to go see or hear him; but people who want to go see and hear him should not be deprived of that opportunity simply because we detest what he has to say. Counter what he has to say by presenting the facts and the better argument, not by suppressing his speech. Conservatives need to grit their teeth and let the same principles that they wish would be applied to their benefit, apply to those they disagree with as well. Otherwise, they sink to the same depths as those who suppress conservative speech on campus have already descended.

So he’s free to say what he wants, as far as I’m concerned. Having said that, as a Colorado resident, I’m none too happy that part of my tax dollars are going toward subsidizing his salary. Perhaps the American Indian Movement (AIM) will be able to find a place for this pseudo-Indian in their organization, and Mr. Churchill will voluntarily choose another form of employment. I’ll continue to hold out hope for that unlikely event.

Whither the Democratic Party?

The Democratic Party just selected Howard Dean to head the Democratic National Committee. In his hands the Democrats are now placing enormous influence and responsibility for getting their party back onto a track (they hope) to better challenge or even supplant the current Republican hold on the Senate, the House of Representatives, State governorships, and the Presidency.

Far be it from me to offer advice to a party that represents positions and philosophies that I frequently disagree with, but it appears to me that they’re heading in exactly the wrong direction. I have mixed feelings about this – on the one hand, if the Democrats continue to self-destruct, it improves the odds that policies that I believe are in the best interest of the nation and its citizens will be continued and/or enacted. On the other hand, I also believe in a strong two-party system in which both parties offer competing sound, thoughtful programs that they sincerely believe are in America’s best interests. A Democratic Party that whines, hates, and obstructs itself into oblivion, while offering short-term satisfaction to conservatives, is not likely to be in the best interests of the nation in the long run.

Unfortunately, the ascent of Howard “I Hate the Republicans and Everything They Stand For” Dean does not auger well, either for the tone of near-term political discourse or the long-term health of the Democratic Party and the two-party system. Faced with a choice between a) rational, thoughtful centrist Democrats in the Truman/JFK mold, like Joe Lieberman, who can and will draw significant support from the election-deciding middle, and b) shrill, negative, defeatist, "can't do", repel-the-center leftists like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy – and Howard Dean – the Democrats appear to be clearly opting for the latter.

Furthermore, while they sharpen their obstructionist talons, the Democratic Party thus far doesn't seem to have put much effort or thought into developing and presenting an attractive set of competing programs or proposals that can serve as a springboard for thoughtful debate and compromise. Democrats have become the reactionary party of rigid, uncompromising defense of the status quo, and little else. Thus they will continue to get the votes of those on the far left that already support them, while taking on a huge risk that they will alienate many more than they attract from the center. Believing they will become more competitive with the Republican Party, they may very well – and unintentionally – find themselves instead becoming more like, and less distinguishable from, the Green Party and other fringe far-left groups.

What kind of a strategy is that?

The Democrats can't hope to gain by just being the party that advocates hatred of Republicans and all they stand for. They've got to give people good, solid, attractive reasons to vote FOR them.

And that doesn't look very promising at this point in time.

After-the-fact Thoughts on Eason Jordan

The bottom line on the sad saga of Eason Jordan is this: When he had the chance to do the honorable, courageous, and correct thing in pre-OIF Iraq, and have his network report on the atrocities and wide-spread government-sponsored murder that CNN KNEW of and had evidence of what was occuring under Saddam’s regime, he opted not to. Instead, he and his network kept their collective mouths shut so they could maintain their "access" so as to be able to remain in Iraq and continue to NOT report on the most significant events occurring there. What kind of twisted logic is that? Maintaining access for its own sake, apparently, was more important to this "newsman" than reporting the gruesome, yet crucial, truth.

Then, in front of a largely “friendly” audience liberally sprinkled with America-haters, he “reported” defamatory comments against the American military for which he (go figure) did NOT appear to have evidence. (Otherwise, why wouldn’t the evidence have been presented by now?) . Sucking up to his audience by reporting as fact what were actually unsubstantiated allegations, apparently, was more important than being objective and truthful.

This so-called newsman got it exactly bass-ackwards. When he knew the truth, he suppressed it; when he had only conjecture to offer, he presented it falsely as the truth. He’s a modern-day Walter Duranty who deserved to get the ax - years ago.

That the MSM hasn’t, even yet, after Jordan’s resignation, gotten into this story to the extent that it warrants speaks volumes. They circled the wagons around one of their own, and it didn’t work. And yet the wagons remain circled. Will they never learn?