Let’s be downright honest: The current political situation in this country strongly favors a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election. Although the economy is doing fairly well—though not the housing market, it seems—it is safe to say that most Americans are feeling their share of Bush fatigue. (Insert tasteless yuk pertaining to the phrase “Bush fatigue” here.)

Yet we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have the sneaking suspicion that the Democrats may just ruin things again and lose a very winnable election. (Perhaps we should call this Gary Hart Syndrome?)

In fact, we’ve made this case before on the popular “weblog” Wizbang. And more recent evidence leads us to conclude that the Democrats are in more trouble than one might expect. Not more trouble than Lindsey Lohan, mind you, but trouble nonetheless.

To alter a Clintonian turn of phrase, it’s the foreign policy, stupid. On a whole host of issues—social security, abortion, healthcare, Slim Jims, &c.—the American public leans closer to the Democrats than the Republicans. Yet citizens of these here United States of America reasonably question the Dems on one crucial topic: Foreign policy.

Quite frankly, the Democratic presidential contenders express views on foreign policy that appear to fit into one of two camps: Unmitigated pacifism (Kucinich, Gravel) or self-contradictory confusion (everyone else). If you ask us, the Democratic candidate whose views on the topic make the most sense is Joe Biden. Even though we consider many of his positions incorrect, at least itÂ’s clear he knows what heÂ’s talking about. And his hair plugs are pretty fantastic.

Yet Senator Biden is not a top-tier candidate. (YouÂ’ll find more Indians in 7-11 than Bidens in the White House.) Hillary Clinton is top-tier, and she appears to vacillate between hawkishness and dovishness in a bewildering combination that simply reeks of John Kerry. DonÂ’t her advisors see this as a bit of a problem?

And Barack Obama? Puh-lease. One minute he says heÂ’ll blithely chat with the leaders of Iran, Syria, and North Korea without any parameters, and the next heÂ’s talking tough about invading Pakistan. Can anyone figure this man out?
Perhaps this merely demonstrates the degree to which the legacy of the Vietnam War has crippled the Democratic Party. Most of its elected officials seem unable to believe that American power can be a force for good—unless, of course, it is flexed in circumstances that do not in any way relate to national interests. (Hello, Darfur.)

So, if youÂ’re a Republican, you may want to get that popcorn ready and enjoy another Democratic implosion. Al GoreÂ’s stunning 2000 loss was pretty remarkable on its own. But, if the Dems donÂ’t get serious about foreign policy in this time of terrorism, their defeat in 2008 will be even more incredible.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.

Gosh, we really ought not read Newsweek. ItÂ’s ineluctably a tragic mistake. Upon picking up this uppity version of People magazine, our blood pressure magically rises through the roof.

What, you may reasonably be wondering, makes Newsweek so bothersome? Oh, the answers to that query are so numerous that we hardly know where to begin. But, we suppose, we ought to start with one of NewsweekÂ’s long-time columnists, Anna Quindlen.

You know Anna Quindlen, dear reader. SheÂ’s NewsweekÂ’s liberal soccer mom. By means of her folksy suburban charm, she supports myriad moderate blue state causes. And for some reason, we find her upper-middle-class Caucasian editorial sanctimony enraging. Why, after all, should we endure browbeating about tax rates from a woman who seems primed to jump in her mini-van and pick up little Zack and Nigel from yoga?

In fact, we have the sneaking suspicion that Ms. Quindlen could compel us to become activists for any cause, provided sheÂ’s opposed to it. Gravity? Well, if Ms. Quindlen supports gravity, weÂ’ll happily campaign against it. Isaac Newton was a quack as far as weÂ’re concerned.

We say this, dear reader, after taking in “How Much Jail Time?”, Ms. Quindlen’s most recent orgy of sanctimony, which is found in the August 6 number of Newsweek. For our whole lives, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been resolutely pro-choice. And yet Ms. Quindlen’s column has compelled us to wish we were staunch pro-lifers. We’re not, of course, but we sure wish we were.

Why, just take in the first few paragraphs of Ms. QuindlenÂ’s article:

Buried among prairie dogs and amateur animation shorts on YouTube is a curious little mini-documentary shot in front of an abortion clinic in Libertyville, Ill. The man behind the camera is asking demonstrators who want abortion criminalized what the penalty should be for a woman who has one nonetheless. You have rarely seen people look more gobsmacked. It's as though the guy has asked them to solve quadratic equations. Here are a range of responses: "I've never really thought about it." "I don't have an answer for that." "I don't know." "Just pray for them."

You have to hand it to the questioner; he struggles manfully. "Usually when things are illegal there's a penalty attached," he explains patiently. But he can't get a single person to be decisive about the crux of a matter they have been approaching with absolute certainty.

The proper response to this self-important palaver is: Oh, just shut up. We pine to be pro-life, so we could tell Ms. Quindlen what the proper punishment for having an abortion should be.

After all, why couldn’t abortion be among the numerous crimes that hardly ever earn prosecution? You know, like immigration violations. Don’t we merely champion illegal immigrants in this country as part of our “diverse” nation’s workforce?

But, heck: If Anna Quindlen wants to know the appropriate punishment for an abortion, here it is: The death penalty. ThatÂ’ll teach those ladies to respect life.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 506 words, total size 3 kb.

In previous installments of this humble “weblog,” we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have decried the patent idiocy of numerous bumper stickers. If you ask us—and, technically speaking, you have not—bumper stickers are nothing but vehicular eyesores.

Now, a careful perusal of this humble “weblog” will lead you to believe that left-leaning slogans particularly irk us. Sure, we may pretend to disdain bumper stickers tout court, but we keep mentioning those emblazoned with left-wing shibboleths as particularly loathsome.

But not today, dear reader. Not today.

For, on his way to work a few short days ago, one of the senior editors here at “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly”—let’s just call him “Chip”—spied a rip-roaring right-wing bumper sticker that may rank up at the top of most obtuse slogans ever imagined. Slapped on an appropriately folksy pickup truck, it offered a rather frightening message. To be downright honest, “Chip” wondered how unhinged the fellow who put on this sticker must be.

Its message? The bumper sticker read as follows:

Public Education Is Child Abuse

We know what youÂ’re thinking, dear reader: Wow. What a complete crazy person.

As much as we find fault with much of the public education status quo in this country—the teachers unions, the red tape, Judith Butler, &c.—we simply can’t understand why anyone rational would pine to shut down all our nation’s public schools. But the guy in this pickup truck didn’t merely plump for school vouchers; he aimed to annihilate American public education wholesale.

Although this sentiment on its own is completely bonkers, the bumper sticker in question even manages to up the crazy factor from this preternaturally high level. For it proclaims that public education isn’t merely bad, but is akin to “child abuse.”

Child abuse? Dear Lord. WeÂ’re glad we didnÂ’t attend school with this guy. WeÂ’re not quite sure what they were teaching there, but they must have messed up something horrible.

In fact, this bumper sticker comes across as so hyperbolic that one wonders whether its owner recognizes what child abuse is. Perhaps heÂ’s an unrepentant child abuser himself, and thus aims at a bit of self-exoneration by proffering a dubious connection between child abuse and, say, the University of Michigan.

And, as we all know, such a connection is only valid in regard to MichiganÂ’s WomenÂ’s Studies Department.

Posted by: Chip at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 394 words, total size 3 kb.