Michael Corleone: Your enemies always get strong on what you leave behind.

Godfather III 1990

Jon Sable: I’ve never liked Terrorists, not even the pretty ones

Jon Sable Freelance 1985

Pat Buchanan has Jonah Goldberg shaking his head:

 

The source of his ire is this Piece at Townhall has, to say the least raised a few eyebrows:

Is Vladimir Putin a paleoconservative?

In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?

His argument is based on a Putin speech that a lot of people in the cultural right like myself would agree with

With America clearly in mind, Putin declared, “In many countries today, moral and ethical norms are being reconsidered.”

“They’re now requiring not only the proper acknowledgment of freedom of conscience, political views and private life, but also the mandatory acknowledgment of the equality of good and evil.”

Pat doesn’t stop there

President Reagan once called the old Soviet Empire “the focus of evil in the modern world.” President Putin is implying that Barack Obama’s America may deserve the title in the 21st century.

Wow.

Moreover, Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically.The “destruction of traditional values” in these countries, he said, comes “from the top” and is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.”

Does he not have a point?

You would think an old cold warrior like Pat would see exactly what Putin is doing particularly since we’ve just had a big reminder of what his game actually is but first let me say this:

You won’t find a stronger cultural warrior than me. I’ve described “Gay Marriage” as simple Narcissism and I find that the direction that the baby boomer generation and their appetites have produced untenable and I think people who want to take the government “out of the marriage” business forget that the easiest way out of poverty is to be a child raised by a father and mother who finishes school and refrains from having children while a child.

However that doesn’t change the fact that the answer to Pat’s question on Putin isn’t just “No”, it’s “HELL NO!

Putin is playing the same game the communist bloc did with Nelson Mandela in South Africa  and with segregation in the South before it.  In both cases the west found itself either directly (Jim Crow) or indirectly (Apartheid) on the wrong side of a Moral issue that the vast majority of the world recognizes and the Soviets and their allies looking for an easy dose of Moral authority jumped on board and brought their allies with them.

The fact that in the USSR the black population was practically non-existent and that places like Cuba oppressed people of color was not relevant and got little or no play. As soon as the left condemned the gulag, the lack of political rights, imprisonments or even mass slaughter the Soviets could play the “Jim Crow” and then later the Apartheid card to create a false equivalency between the free world and the heel of the Communist Boot.

That Mandela went with it wasn’t a surprise as he needed any ally he could get, but that American leftists supposedly concerned with human rights bought this bill of goods was more about their own America opposing myopia than anything else.

Putin cut his eye teeth in the KGB you can bet your bottom dollar that he knows what he’s doing.  That vast majority of the world is on a different page than the west on Gay Marriage, and cultural issues but Putin’s words are strictly utilitarian as Stacy McCain put it earlier this week when writing about Russia’s slow regression back to Totalitarianism:

Anti-American propaganda may actually be based on factual reporting. There are things our government does, especially in the area of foreign policy and national security, which we don’t necessarily endorse. However, these actions must be understood in an international context. What are our nation’s enemies and rivals doing? Our nation’s policies cannot be viewed in a vacuum, and especially we cannot permit propaganda by hostile powers to suggest that the United States is uniquely evil, so as to undermine our prestige, demoralize our citizens and weaken our defenses against aggressors.

Stacy was born in 59, I in 63 so we’re old enough to recognize the cold war game Putin is playing.

Pat was born in 1938. It amazes me that he doesn’t recognize this game when it’s being played on him.

The power of the Soviets was built on many useful idiots in the west, it’s a shame to see Pat be numbered among them.

in exchange for helping Brazil investigate American spying programs:

Edward Snowden asks Brazil for asylum
Edward Snowden writes open letter to Brazil saying he can help investigate spying claims – but for something in return

In an “open letter to the Brazilian people”, Snowden said he was willing to help the Brazilian government “where appropriate and legal” but said the US government would prevent him from acting unless he was granted asylum.

After making stops in China and Russia, and missing his flight to Cuba, Snowden’s Open Letter to the People of Brazil claims that

My act of conscience began with a statement: “I don’t want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded.

That’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under.”

Snowden may not be aware that Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff is proposing that the Brazilian government effectively control internet availability in the country.

Snowden’s asylum in Russia ends next summer. As “a condition of his stay there he cannot talk to the press or help journalists or activists better understand how the US global spying machine works,” according David Miranda, the partner of former Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald. Putin probably figured a 12-month stay was all he (Putin) needs.

“Where appropriate and legal”, indeed.

UPDATE:
Well, don’t pack your bags yet, Edward: Thanks but no thanks — Brazil uninterested in giving Edward Snowden asylum: report
An unnamed Brazilian government officials said the nation wasn’t keen on investigating NSA spying in the country, potentially endangering vital ties with the U.S.

The facts so far: Snowden has not submitted an official request for asylum. A Brazilian government spokesman said that without a formal request, asylum will not be considered.

You’ve got to be kidding me.

DaTechGuy January 31st 2013

The time to take over the GOP (state by state) or set up a real third party (let’s call it the conservative party, like NY state), is NOW, after a historic election that demonstrated the ineptness of the “Wizards of Smart”.

Mike Rogers November 9th 2012

There are a lot of reasons why NH republicans might oppose a run by Scott Brown for the Senate in NH:  The running away from the base in the Elizabeth Warren race, the pro-choice ads, and as Granite Grok points out New Hampshire is a huge 2nd Amendment State:

Given that he has had his vetting as Gun Control Advocate by none other than Mayor and Nanny of NYC Bloomberg (whose Mayors Against Illegal Guns’s “No More Names” tour listed Boston Marathon Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a”gun victim” when it stopped in Concord, NH) who gave liberally (snicker) to his failed campaign against Elizabeth Warren, it is clear that Scott Brown’s stance that he’d be fine in supporting another Federal “assault weapon” ban. Thus, those of us that believe that the Republican US Senate Nominee should, at the least:

fully support the Party Platform (“We believe that our founding fathers placed the 2nd Amendment in a position of prominence with intent; that law-abiding citizens of the United States of America have a right to protect and defend their lives, their families and their property without government infringement.”)
whole heartedly support the Letter AND the Spirit of the US Constitution (“Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”)
show a full respect for the NH Constitution (“Article 2-a: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”)

As it is clear that Mr. Brown lacks quite a bit in these regards, we will be letting him AND the NH GOP Leadership know of our ire by staging this rally.

All of these reasons to oppose a Brown candidacy are valid, but if you want to understand why New Hampshire Republican should tell Senator Brown not to run for the Senate in New Hampshire all you have to do is go back to January 31st of this year.

There was a big fight in the Massachusetts GOP for party chair between two strong candidates.  Rick Green a businessman was supported by the Tea Party / activist wing of the party vs Kirsten Hughes a Chelsea city counselor who worked on the Scott Brown campaign against Elizabeth Warren as deputy finance director.

I covered both candidates during a forum on the 22nd of January and even at that time it was understood this was going to be a very close race.

Hanging over the race was the pending special election to fill the senate seat made empty by John Kerry nomination as Secretary of State.  Senator Brown had not yet announced and the party very much wanted him to run.

Hughes was Scott Brown’s candidate:

With Bob’s departure, I am writing to you today to endorse Kirsten Hughes for Chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

It was widely believed among the voters in the room that Hughes election would be an incentive for Brown to enter that race and her connection to the Brown campaign and fundraising was one of her selling points.  The day of the vote the Herald reported on his involvement in the race.  The timing was interesting:

If I was a pessimist, which I’m not, I would think that this story was dropped today by Brown in order to scare the last few undecideds into siding with him after badgering State Committee members with personal plea phone calls for weeks. (Rumor has it Green is up by two.)

On January 31st the vote took place, this is what happened:

In fact is was even weirder than first reported but eventually there was a second ballot and Kirsten Hughes won, however it took the shouts from the crowd for the party to announce the actual vote count.  (41-39).  Activists reacted like this:

and this:

But in the end the election was over and many of the party leaders who voted for Ms. Hughes at least had the comfort in knowing that they would have a state chair friendly to the Brown Campaign and be best able to integrate the efforts of the part to get back that senate seat.

After all a Brown win in the special election would mean he’d be running for re-election in an off year as an incumbent in 2014 giving the party their best chance to grow the vote for state legislature & Senate candidates  all the way down the ticket.

That hope lasted almost 12 hours:

At lunchtime today, I spoke to Senator Brown by telephone.  His news was as surprising to me as I’m sure it was to you.  Certainly, we can all understand this was a highly personal decision for Senator Brown and his family.  Yet, it’s certainly a disappointment for many in our party.

So what the reaction of Scott Brown at a time when his choice for GOP chair has just won by the thinnest of margins?  What was his move when the party needed someone to rally behind? What was his decision when that new chairperson that he explicitly supported most needed a positive story to change the subject from the debacle of the 31st?  What was the decision when all those party voters who cast their vote counting on him to be there to support the party?

He took his ball and went home.

The end result?   Ed Markey, was able to win a lifetime senate seat against a weak candidate while drawing only 60% of the vote Martha Coakley did in 2010.

Even with Senator Brown’s problems with the base he could have drawn those numbers with one hand tied behind his back.

Now less than a year later, he is heading North to NH where the GOP held the state just one election ago to  jump the line ahead of GOP candidates in the state ready and able to run?

I can think of nothing more likely to exacerbate the existing divides in the NH GOP than this.

It will amplify the mistake Speaker Boehner made with the base.

The divide it creates will cost the party seats in both the state senate and house.

It will put Kelly Ayotte in an impossible position where anything she says and does will anger someone whose vote she will need in 2016.

Now it’s axiomatic, for all his faults Brown would be far superior to Jeanne Shaheen and if nominated by the NH GOP I would encourage every voter to support him rather than reward the 60th vote for Obamacare with another six years but I can’t think of a more selfish or self centered move by the Senator nor anything more likely to cause a 3rd party movement in the state that will spread nationally.
I like Senator Brown, he’s a nice guy with a great family and the GOP nationwide should be grateful for the boost he gave to the party.  It’s fair to say that Tea Party election in Massachusetts in 2010 is the reason why the GOP hold the house today, As a Senator he always had time for people from the state even those who disagreed with him and frankly it’s not all that unusual for a person in Massachusetts to say “enough” and move to New Hampshire, but it’s one thing for the party to run a moderate republican in a state where the GOP not even healthy enough to be on life support, it’s quite another to do so in a state where conservatism is still strong.

I implore Senator Brown to re-consider his run in NH for the sake of the state party and the national one.

A Postscript:  One thing I should make clear, I don’t blame Ms. Hughes for either the election stuff nor the Brown move.  She started in an impossible position trying to clean up a mess that was given to her.  I’ve never heard her once complain about the bad hand she was dealt, instead she works hard all over the state and gets little media credit for her efforts:

It’s interesting to note her aide said “you only have five minutes” but she turned to him saying “he only needs three for his interviews”. A party chair who is familiar with the habits of the people covering her knows what she is doing. I opposed her election but she has been proving herself a very capable and impressive party chair.

I would think that would be a story but highlighting a young, smart attractive, hard working young woman leading a state GOP doesn’t fit the media whole “war on women” meme does it?

Update:  No matter who is the GOP nominee this ad is going to be a problem for Jeanne Shaheen

and a lot of other Democrats who were the 60th vote for Obamacare.

*************************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

It’s Wednesday and we’re raised $117 toward our $340 weekly goal

As of today we’re also $344 shy of the pace needed make the monthly goal

9 $25 Tip jar hits will solve the 1st problem, 14 will solve the second but any hit will move us closer to both goals.  That’s one less that yesterday but until time runs out I don’t mind if the ball moves slow as long as it continues to move in the right direction

Help keep us moving by hitting DaTipJar below.

We are only 59 1/4 new subscribers at $20 a month to cover both the Mortgage and the Magnificent Seven without a daily shake of DaTipJar all year.

The Breaking of the 60 subscriber barrier is a great leap but not as great as the ability to know the Mortgage & Magnificent Seven are going to be pain in full on the 1st instead of on the 30th.

Give yourself a Christmas present that will inform and entertain you 365 days a year in 2014. Subscribe below.