Skip to main content

YYY-E-E-E-S-S-S-S!

For many years, I've alternated between being amused and being frustrated by the blithe (and completely erroneous) assumption by both the media and other segments of the Left that the "progressive" viewpoint is the mainstream American viewpoint, and that those who don't happen to share it are somehow "extremists." The risible title of Jonathan Alter's book on the 2012 campaign, The Center Holds, is a good example. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the leftmost president in our history represents the Center.

Of course, Alter probably believes that he himself is in the Center. So it follows (I guess) that anybody he agrees with must also be.

He's wrong on both counts.

It's to laugh. No Republican governor has ever, to my knowledge, suggested (as New York's Andrew Cuomo did a while back) that anybody who disagrees with him or with her on abortion, gay "marriage," and other controversial issues needs to move out of his state. Nobody, to my knowledge, has recently been fired from their job or banned from opening a restaurant in a great American city for expressing a personal opinion in favor of gay "marriage." The growing intolerance of the American Left- and I'm talking now about the mainstream views of the Democratic party, and the positions of its elected officials-represents the most frightening foray into American totalitarianism since at least Joe McCarthy, and a far greater threat both to the Bill of Rights and our American system than "Tail gunner Joe" ever did.

Democrats crow continually that polls ever since Roe v. Wade was handed down have shown overwhelming public support for it. That is true. On the other hand, they have also shown overwhelming public opposition to the legality of abortion for the reasons for which most abortions are performed (the disconnect can be explained by the simple fact that most Americans-thank God- aren't lawyers, and- not being acquainted with the details of Roe- identify it simply with the notion that abortion should be legal at all.) The American public is divided fairly evenly between those who consider themselves "pro-choice" and those who consider themselves "pro-life." Yet the rhetoric of the Left continues to suggest that a position held by such a substantial portion of the American public is somehow "extreme."

Similarly, a (shrinking) plurality of the American people seem, at the moment, to favor gay "marriage." But the margin isn't all that big. Nevertheless, the Left continues to imply that supporters of traditional marriage are somehow not only extremists, but ipso facto bigots and "homophobes" deserving of discrimination and even persecution.

It ain't so, of course. Gay activists- at least the responsible ones- freely acknowledge that many opponents of marriage redefinition don't hate gay people. But it would ill suit the political interest of "progressives" generally to concede the point. In fact, a case can be made that overthrowing two thousand years of legal and social tradition regarding marriage is- whatever else might be said about it- far more radical than seeking to maintain it. And certainly attempts to use governmental power to vilify and punish people because of their views on the issue is the very definition of extremism, if not out-and-out un-American.

But for some reason, Republicans let Democrats get away with the suggestion that they are somehow "extreme," whereas the extremists who do and say such things are "centrist." This is very strange.

An article in USA TODAY yesterday by a feminist Leftie chortled with joy because some bozo who writes for the National Review apparently suggested that any woman who has an abortion should be hanged. Now, I certainly don't agree with that sentiment. But does anybody see what's wrong with her suggestion that if it were carried out, it would be "the greatest bloodbath in American history?" The abortions themselves already are not only just as great a bloodbath, but a greater one by far. After all, most women who have had one abortion have had more than one, and often have had several!

Granted, the Republican party has its share of whackadoodles. They are especially prominent here in Iowa, where both parties are top-heavy with extremists. But why let Democratic extremists- who even nationally form at least as large a percentage of the party rank-and-file as the do in the Republican party, and arguably more so- get away with claiming the middle ground?

Well, last night, Republican senatorial candidate Joni Ernst debuted an ad which finally called opponent Bruce Braley's bluff.


Ernst is a fairly moderate Republican by Iowa standards, though she was forced during the primary race (Braley was unopposed) to take some positions with which one suspects she was less than comfortable. Certainly she has cause to regret them now. Braley has made the claim that Ernst is "too extreme for Iowa" a mantra. The claim often been based on outright lies and distortions of Ernst's record, such as the claim that a pledge she signed not to raise anybody's taxes without some sort of reduction elsewhere somehow favors oil companies and companies which send their jobs overseas. He insists (wrongly) that Ernst is a Tea-Party type.

Not that it's done him much good. Ernst has a comfortable lead in recent polls.

Well, Iowans (like Americans generally) aren't exactly wild about President Obama's ill-disguised intention to use executive power to declare what amounts to amnesty for illegal aliens as soon as the election is over. Bruce Braley voted to give him that power, and was also a key supporter of Obamacare.

And the new Ernst commercial, which began by citing Braley's "dishonest negative campaign," reminds Iowans about Braley's record on those issues, and ends with a line I've been waiting all campaign to hear, and never thought I would:

Bruce Braley. He's TOO EXTREME for Iowa.

And I couldn't resist a fist-pump. It's about time!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

McMullin, Kasich, Hickenlooper, Huntsman, or somebody else sane in 2020!

I don't expect to be disenfranchised in 2020. I'm looking forward to Evan McMullin running against President Trump and whatever left-wing extremist the Democrats nominate. McMullin may or may not run for the Senate next year, and he may or may not run for president as an independent again next time around, but the nation can't afford to lose its most eloquent and intelligent critic of the populist takeover of the Republican party and the Executive Branch. We need the man in public life.

But interesting alternatives have developed. Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been mentioned as a potential primary challenger for Mr. Trump. I hope somebody continues the fight for the soul of my former party, even though I believe it to be a lost cause. Entrepreneur Mark Cuban is reportedly also considering a challenge to Mr. Trump. While I tend to see him at this point as somewhere to the left of where a candidate I would feel comfortable supporting might be, I would wish him well. Still, I see…

A modest proposal for a shocking innovation which is completely within the rules but which would, if adopted, revolutionize college football

I call it defense.

The idea- crazy as it may sound- is to supplement the scoring of points by your offense with an attempt to stop the other team from scoring them. Yeah, I know.  Really "out there," isn't it? But it has a history of winning not only games but championships. Modern college teams should try it more.

I'm a bit bummed about the Rose Bowl outcome but amused by the score. It seems that certain conferences aren't sure whether they're playing college football or high school basketball! I've noticed that in the scores of Sooner games. Last season the nation's college teams set a record by scoring an average of slightly more than 30 points each per game. That's a lot. Historically, that's a REAL lot.

The final score of the Rose Bowl was 54-48, though to be fair that was in double overtime. But to get there, the teams had to be tied 45-45 at the end of regulation! Last year was even worse. Southern Cal beat Penn State 52-49- in regulat…

Reflections on the present and future of my Blackhawks

As this season from hell creeps to its close at an excruciating pace and makes all of us devote more of our attention to spring training for the Cubs than we otherwise might, there are calls for the heads of Blackhawks GM Stan Bowman and even the greatest coach in Blackhawks history, Joel Quenneville.

No general manager or coach could have made Marian Hossa and Corey Crawford healthy or prevented Toews and Keith and Saad from having the worst seasons of their careers or foreseen that a series of trades most of which made perfect sense at the time wouldn't pan out. The Hawks are one season removed from the second-best regular season in their history. This will be the first time in a decade that they haven't made the playoffs.

With the exception of the Pens, maybe the Kings and (for different reasons) the Golden Knights, every other team in the NHL would kill to have won three Stanley Cups in the past decade. In fact, only the Hawks, the Pens, the Kings, the Wings, and the Brui…