Understanding liberals is not easy - mostly because they relegate debate to the emotional aspects of the topic. In order to get closer to an understanding of the liberal mind, you must be able to decipher the language of liberalism.

Take “appalling attack” for example. Liberals often talk about how something someone said is an “appalling attack”. Senator Barak Obama said that President Bush’s statement to the Knesset was an appalling attack on the good Senator.

What President Bush said was:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

“We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is—the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

Now, unless Senator Obama has been engaged in appeasement politics with Hamas - or plans to work with terrorists in the future - he should have no issue with the President’s shoe of “Some”. then again, if the shoe fits, wear it.

So, “appalling attack” really means: You’re right, but I am pissed you’d say that.

The liberals want to talk with those who have pledged holy war against us because:

• They think this whole mess of Islamists wanting a worldwide caliphate is America’s fault
• Their elitist tendencies make them believe they can just talk Islamists out of their unreasonable notions, if someone smart enough would just try.
• They are immersed in victimization and identity politics to the point of not being capable of leading anything more than a moral retreat.

Once you grasp these things, it is relatively easy to understand a liberal. Understanding them is the first step to marginalizing and defeating their crazy ideals.

Romney’s exit from the race for nomination signals the end of the primaries, as the different facets of the party coalesce behind the Republican nominee. The conservatives are left out in the cold, but many of them will see it as their duty to support the Republican nominee as a part of party politics.

Romney’s exit also signals my return to furthering the debate about the issues in the context of liberal vs. conservative beliefs.

We have a great deal of work ahead of us on issues, such as abortion, the economy, illegal immigration and immigration policy reform, tort reform, energy, education, and preserving our right to bear arms (and returning our gun rights).  Those battles will have to be fought regardless of who ends up in the White House.

The work of the electorate is never done, so please continue to read and participate. Please continue to listen to our weekly talk show. Hopefully, we are touching political passion points for you, and not just shouting into a dark room.

I have written or spoken about this many times over the past several years - and Hillary continues to make the case for my point. Liberals (sorry, Hillary - I meant “progressives”) are elitists. Their policy is based upon elitism in the very least.

• Right to abort a fetus - ownership.
• Illegal Immigration - exploitation of a class (or race perhaps) of people.
• Welfare - keep the poor people poor by making them dependent

We could go on for a while, but you get my point.
All of these things come down to an overall philosophy that government can do everything better - mostly because government is ideally filled with liberals who are smarter than everyone else.

Even the voting maps of the past two elections show this - big city elitists are in blue and the red voters of America are spread out across the small communities that make up the rest of the country.

Now, take a look at how Hillary panders, at the same time underscoring this condescending philosophy.

That’s what Hillary Clinton offered recently to Hispanic voters while campaigning in a Mexican restaurant in Las Vegas. She was trying to make the point that, even with our differences, all Americans are connected and all their problems are connected despite the fact that “we treat them as though one is guacamole and one is chips.”

Look, a white politician trying to relate to Hispanics by using Mexican food as an entree. How original.

I asked Richardson what he thought of the analogy.

“The remarks are a bit unfortunate,” he said. “But with Latinos, she’s always been very sensitive. This was a slip of the tongue. But it’s still typical of an American mainstream view that we’re defined by certain ethnic characteristics.”

“We are one! We share the same problems and joys in life (sniff sniff). Now let me point out how completely different we are in the only way you can possibly understand - a burrito.”

Hillary is an elitist in the very least - there is argument that she has a racist streak. Remember the Gandhi statement? “Mahatma Gandhi, he used to won a gas station down in St. Louis.” Remember that? Guacamole and Chips? If she was going to condescend, could she not have at least done something with Machaca?

Like peas in a pod, really.

Former governor Mitt Romney’s economic development agency granted initial approval to a tax-exempt bond last year for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester that will provide abortions, just two months before he left office and began highlighting his antiabortion position as a presidential candidate.

Asked about the $5 million financial deal yesterday, the Romney campaign said the former governor was not aware it was under consideration when Planned Parenthood won preliminary approval in November 2006.

I keep telling people, this guy is as slick as pond slime on a wet rock.

In addition to providing abortion services, the 10,000-square-foot Planned Parenthood clinic planned for Worcester will offer Plan B emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill,” which also is opposed by antiabortion advocates.

Jeffrey M. Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University, said he was surprised that Romney and his aides did not catch such a politically sensitive financial deal making its way through his economic development agency. Now, Berry said, the campaign will be put in the position of defending Romney at a time when he is heading into the most critical days of his candidacy.

“It is unusual that his people at the agency did not find a reason not to fund Planned Parenthood,” Berry said. “His administration was clearly focused on his run for the presidency and making sure there was no embarrassment like this. It was an administration that was pretty efficient getting everyone operating on the same page and avoiding scandal.”

So the Romney campaign is going to say: He’s Pro-Life! That one slipped through the cracks! Ooopsy! No Really, trust me!

Listen folks - Romney is a Republican in Massachusetts - occasionally known as Mass. of Two S***s (Kerry and Kennedy). You do not succeed as a Republican there unless you are L-I-B-E-R-A-L. Romney is trying to recreate himself into Fred Thompson’s image. Romney’s record does not support it the campaign rhetoric.

Not so says Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail in a great interpretation of a Christmas -esque prose thingy.

And with that, el-Banna was bundleth into the back of a van called Tran-sit and droveth away unto the shire which is called Bedford to await the order of extradition from the ancient Islamic land of Spain.

And soppy Sarah was sore afraid for her peace-loving ‘constituent’. She sayeth unto the Association which is called Press that this was a fit-up and no mistake and the blessed el-Banna should be allowed to spend Eid with his family and vote LibDem . . .

Actually, I believe Mr. Littlejohn is spot on:

As I said a couple of weeks ago, el-Banna and his two oppos from Club Gitmo are nothing to do with us.

They are not British citizens, not even British ‘residents’. When they had their collars felt, they were ‘resident’ somewhere else.

El-Banna, a Jordanian who the Americans say is a prominent Al Qaeda recruiter and financier, was picked up in The Gambia.

So why the hell, I repeat, was Sarah Teather, the Liberal MP for Brent, getting herself all lathered up with indignation about his detention?

Given the choice between the CIA and some dopey bird from what used to be the SDP, I’m with the boys from Langley, Virginia, every time.

As is done here in America, the Leftists are ready to sign up for any old drama. Even if it kills us. But here is a bit more from Mr. Littlejohn:

Not a British citizen: Jamil el-Banna

I’m sure it’s a great comfort to her to know that Labour thinks the money is much better spent ferrying foreign terrorist suspects across the Atlantic in the style of a Hollywood superstar.

We’re not talking Lord Palmerston here. Gunboat diplomacy has been replaced by NetJets chauffeur service.

It took ten Old Bill to keep them company on the way ‘home’. Oh, and they were given a special prayer room on board, bless ‘em.

I wonder what the relatives of those slaughtered on 9/11 make of the British government laying on prayer rooms at 30,000 feet for Islamonazi terror suspects.

Talk about a sick joke.

Go read it all>>>>

Are you seeing the trend here? The election cycle fashions are in and the word on the street is, “Yes we should do something about illegal immigration.” Breck Girl says it should be up to the states to decide what to do about issuing driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  Oh - but just until the fairy tale McCain-Edwards bill is passed. Then we give everyone a license when they are “on the path to citizenship”. So, basically - status quo. Do nothing now and since the immigration reform is not going to happen in this decade, do nothing later either. A non-answer. This is so very different from the 2004 model Breck Girl, who was all for giving illegals anything they thought they should have.

Don’t be encouraged by all of this posturing on the immigration issue. The exercise everyone is engaged in for the next several months is say the exact opposite of Shrillary.

Now, while Edwards is on his “states rights” kick, what other things might it be useful to ensure are a state decision?

It is also possible McCain is channeling Mrs. Clinton - depending on whether you call his recent stance on border security a flip- flop or a self-reinvention. I vote for flip-flop.

John McCain could not have possibly been mistaken about the desire of Americans (who care one way or the other) to secure the border as a prelude to any fundamental changes in immigration policy. It could not have been made more clear - clear enough that Democrats won seats in 2006 because they were “for” securing the border and committed to “bring the troops home”.

McCain placed is immense Hero and All-Around Straight Shooter capital into play to push another guest worker program into law. I don’t know who I respect less on this issue, President Bush or John McCain - they were both poorly advised.

John McCain contributed to the landscape change in the House and Senate in 2006. Had not he and several other GOP leaders gone off reservation with this ridiculous guest worker program, it is likely that Gabby Giffords would not now be in Congress.

Today, however, John McCain talks about securing the border first. Easily done after a few years of failing to bring the guest worker program into law. I find it interesting that McCain spent so much time telling the voters how wrong they were on this issue and now is telling voters it was a lesson learned.

Mr McCain, the lesson you are going to learn is this. American voters, and particularly Arizona voters, have longer memories than you seem to think. We have not forgotten your involvement in The Gang of 14. We won’t forget how your name ends up being hyphenated with America’s most liberal lawmakers, yet now you try to appeal to the GOP base.

We especially won’t forget how you only acknowledged the wisdom of the voters on border security when you needed something from us - before then, we were just wrong.

Patrick Leahy is stating he will not support President Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, because “No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture.” Even though Mukasey has already stated he found waterboarding personally repugnant.

The issue is that Mukasey would not categorize waterboarding as torture. But let me break this down for you just a little bit and you will understand that Leahy’s position on this is hypocritical.

Let’s pretend for an instant that Michael Mukasey is the Attorney General. Now compare Mukasey and Leahy - side by side.

Defining torture - would that be a role for the person who enforces laws of the United States or the person who makes the laws of the United States?

Patrick Leahy is trying to foist his and his party’s inability to drive the definition for exactly what torture is onto Michael Mukasey. Additionally, this is exactly the same tactic Senator Leahy took with Attorney General John Ashcroft, while he was going through the confirmation grilling.

I think Senator Jeff Sessions’ statement in 2004 is as relevant today as it was during the Ashcroft confirmation process:

“…That is fact, and we know it. The rules of law and of war are a joke to the terrorists that we have captured and others still bent on attacking Americans. They care nothing about it. They make television movies of beheading people. That is what they think of the rules of law. So what we need to do is decide what is appropriate and what laws we are bound by, and we ought to set a good policy there. I would say this: The Senator from New York is a good lawyer. He has said in his own view that torture sometimes may be necessary. That is what Senator Schumer said. I think any Attorney General should properly advise any President of the United States in time of war on absolutely what the limits of his powers are. Those are things that maybe ought not be bandied around the world. It is hypothetical. You don’t know what the precise circumstances are. But the question that started all of this is abuses in prison in Iraq. The memos at the center of this debate have absolutely no connection–there is no connection–between what went on in Iraq and these memos, because our soldiers were operating under established policies of the military and internal discussions between the President and various lawyers, or memoranda they may have received from various lawyers. I want to say this about Attorney General Ashcroft. I was at the Judiciary Committee hearing when he testified. I saw him subjected to unfair abuse by former colleagues on that committee which was embarrassing to the committee. I don’t think I have ever seen in my experience in this Congress the kind of disingenuous and unfair treatment of a former Member of this body. It was not right. The ranking member was using the whole time to make a litany of distortions and charges against the Attorney General where he had no opportunity to answer them. He knew there was no way he could. It was not right. It was wrong. I said that then, and I say it now. He had no opportunity to respond to the ranking Member. Senator Leahy knew it, and said these things one right after another: You did this, you did that. They continued in that vein. The question here was, Oh, he wouldn’t define torture, yet he had a memorandum defining torture. That is not what Attorney General Ashcroft said. Go back and read the transcript. I saw what he said. Attorney General Ashcroft is a smart man, an honest man, and he answered the question directly. He said, Senator, the Congress defined torture. It is not for me to define torture. You define torture. The Attorney General doesn’t define torture. I am not defining torture. The Congress has already defined it. There is a statute. I have a copy of it here in which we defined it under certain circumstances. We set out an anti-torture statute….”

Even the Liberal Darling Blog, Daily Kos, gets this:

Dammit U.S. Senate, It’s Simple: Just Ban Torture

So why can’t Senator Leahy understand this - especially after having gone through exactly the same issue for confirmation of the same post only 3 years ago?

Well, that’s easy. Senator Leahy would not support the President’s choice for dog catcher because the President is a Republican and Senator Leahy is incapable if accepting responsibility for the inaction of himself and his party. In simplistic terms, the way lawmaking works is you gather the support necessary to pass your agenda item into law. The democrats have a majority, yet they are unable or unwilling to actually address torture except as a means to obstruct the work of the President. Senate Democrats like Leahy would rather spend time taking a stance on whether Turkey committed atrocities during the Ottoman period or not than to actually get down to the nitty gritty of their own rhetoric.

UPDATE: Betsy’s Page has a nice article on this topic as well.

Al Gore is not running for POTUS - and I can’t tell you how happy that makes me. However, maybe the irony of this article will be a strong to you as it it is to me.

You see, although Al Gore is not running for POTUS and does not seem interested in the role anymore, there is a faction of Loopies who are working to “Draft Gore” into the race.

Supporters of Al Gore are making their latest push on television.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A national grassroots organization seeking to draft Al Gore to run for president is making its latest appeal on television, launching a thirty-second ad Friday that urges supporters to make a last-ditch effort to convince the former vice president to throw his hat into the White House race.

“Imagine what tomorrow can be,” the DraftGore.com ad’s narrator says. “Imagine a renewed world, an end to the war in Iraq, imagine Al Gore as president — Call him. Write him. Seize the moment.”

The ad also notes Gore opposed the war in Iraq in 2002 and won a Nobel Peace Prize last month for his efforts to bring attention to the issue of global warming.

The spot is set to air for three days on the New Hampshire station WMUR as well as CNN nationally. The ad has to convince Gore quickly however, at least if he wants to compete in the Granite State — New Hampshire’s deadline to get on the presidential ballot is Friday.

Read the rest at CNN>>>>

What is probably most interesting is the approach here.

Remember last year when the Democrats were pushing to institute a draft for the American military because they claimed that only socially and economically challenged kids were serving in the military. The draft, they said, would level the playing field. What they didn’t think through was the effect this would have on a professional, all-volunteer military. However, when pushed by Republicans to actually VOTE for the draft, the Democrats backed down and wailed and wrung their hands at the unfairness of the Republican tactic to make them put their money where their mouth is.

Now, take the 08 Presidential Race - Draft Gore, if successful, will turn the Democrat’s already diluted, unidentifiable party platform into a circus. Al Gore is no more qualified to be a presidential candidate than he is to be a Nobel prize winner (having benefited from the work of scores of scientists - another story). Draft Gore is exactly what the Democrat party DOESN’T need right now, because they are looking for credibility (In all the wrong places) after having accomplished so very little since regaining the majority. With so little to hang their collective hat upon, adding such an unstable element to the race is not in anyone’s best interest.