The Bridge to a Snark-Free Zone

As anyone who read my previous post is probably aware, all but the short rant about John McCain was primarily tongue-in-cheek. I am aware Arnie Vinick is not real, and thus would not be a good candidate for the GOP. Also, he is about as old as Senator McCain.

I guess the point of my vitriol was the passionate distaste for the current state of the Republican party. This is the party that formed from the ashes of the Whig party, with one of its original tenants being built upon the idea that slavery was immoral, a very liberal idea in its day. Today, liberalism is damn near extinct in the party, and it resembles much more the party of Jefferson Davis than the party of Abraham Lincoln.

None of the Republican candidates remotely resemble the the salve of unity that can heal the wounds of our country. Most of them seem to feel that G.W. Bush has it right in Iraq, and I fear that if they are President, we can expect more of the same from them. All but Ron Paul and John McCain seem more than willing to embrace torture. They all seem to be trying to mimic Ronald Reagan, in the hopes that the masses will confuse Saint Gipper* with them, and therefore give them their vote. They are old, crotchety, and uninspiring, a sharp contrast to the Democrats.

Therefore, for the first time in my adult life, I am breaking my unofficial** allegiance with the GOP. I will state right here that unless something major happens, my forthcoming endorsement for the Democratic nominee is also my endorsement for the general election. If he (or she) fails to win the nomination, I am 95% sure I will endorse the victor in the primary. Please keep in mind I take no happiness from the thought that it is very likely that endorsement will be for a woman I don't care for all that much.

Stay Tuned for my Democratic Nominee Endorsement!

*I know I said this was a bridge to the snark-free zone, but I had to let this one through. IMO, the idolization of our 40th president is baffling. Sure, he wasn't bad, did restore a feeling of guarded optimism after the disaster of the 70s, and did play a role in the downfall of the USSR. However, his administration racked up huge deficits, his minions attempted to dismantle many parts of the government, and Star Wars was a joke. Sure he wasn't James Buchanan. But #1 American, ahead of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln?

**I guess I officially broke allegiance with the party in 2004, when I voted in the Democratic primary. This was mainly because there were actually candidates to vote for in that election, rather than just rubber-stamping Bush on the GOP side. However, at that point I still considered myself aligned with the GOP, despite being a major Republican-in-name-only and a hostile member who disagreed with 95% of the administrations platform.

Because Six Months isn't early enough: My '08 Presidential Endorsements

Yeah, I know it is still six months until any meaningful events happen in the 2008 Presidential races, but I felt it necessary to give my endorsements now. Part of this is because I am antsy, and want to post something. Also, I am a political dork who unfortunately can't get enough of the process and the horse race. I know, I need to seek help.

Today, I'll be taking a look at the Grumpy Old Prudes, while tomorrow will be a look at the Jackasses.

While thinking of who to endorse for the GOP nomination, I thought long and hard on the issue. Seeing as most of my politics fall in line with the Democrats (yeah, I know, I know, I'm a cheese eating surrender monkey), none of the candidates seem to jump out to me.

Save for one. Yeah, he's not officially in the race, he was a television star, and the Republicans seem to love him. Here is a clip of him speaking, right after a liberal protest against eminent domain. He sure does have a way with outlining the true nature of the GOP, doesn't he?

Yeah, it looks like he might have a legal problem, but I'm sure President Bush can commute his sentence.

Seriously, I can't really find a candidate on the Republican side to give my endorsement. Yeah, I could give it to Tancredo, T. Thompson, or Hunter on the grounds of they give the Dems the best chance to win. However, I legitimately want to pick the best candidate available, regardless of my personal views.

I thought long and hard about going with the candidate leading this poll. However, a search of the FEC records found no mention of this Mr. (or Ms.) Oftheabove, and an exhaustive search of cool new people on MySpace came up with Chris Dodd, Rudy Giuliani, and sexxxychik69, but no Oftheabove. Therefore, I have to believe that that Oftheabove is one of those illegal aliens, and is trying to take over our government. So I have to respectfully decline giving him or her my endorsement.

I honestly can't believe Brent Musberger is running for President. I know he is a celebrated sports broadcaster, but that can't possibly qualify him to be leader of the free world. Sure, his brief cameo in Rocky II helped heal the nation from the wounds of Watergate, but that was thirty years ago. The nation is a much different place...Oh wait, that isn't Brent Musberger? Mitt Romney you say. He is a former governor of Massachusetts? OK, that makes a little more sense. But why is a Democrat running in the GOP primaries?

....

Really, they have Republicans in Massachusetts? Fancy that. I'm sure he is way too liberal for the conservative base, though, so I'll pass on him.

The next candidate to consider is Rudy (9-11) Giulia(9-11)ni. Outside of a (9-11) stint as (9-11) May(9-11)or of New (9-11) York, he doesn't have any politi(9-11)cal experience. Altho(9-11)ugh I dig so(9-11)me of his vie(9-11)ws on so(9-11)cial issues, he see(9-11)ms way to eager to prof(9-11)it off of a horrible trag(9-11)e(9-11)d(9-11)y. Damn if I can(9-11)'t remem(9-11)ber it though. America's Mayor, I'm afraid you don't get my endorsement.

I wont bother with Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, or Tommy Thompson. They have a snowball's chance in hell, and I already mentioned they would be a gift to the Democrats.

I do not endorse Fred Thompson, partially because he isn't officially in the race, and partially because a successful stint on "Law & Order" does not make a President. Also, he seemed to be a little too friendly with the Nixon people, and too many Bush followers seem to be flocking to him.

Thus, we are left with Representative Paul and Senator McCain. Seven years ago I would have been McCain all the way. His straight talk was uniquely refreshing to a young man preparing to vote in his first Presidential election. I was sad that Bush beat him, and looked forward to his possible running again in either 2004 or 2008.

Unfortunately, he decided it was best to cozy up to fatheads like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. He started playing buddy-buddy with the man who intimated he had an illegitimate child in South Carolina, and lost a lot of "maverick" credibility. He probably deserves some credit for standing pat on his beliefs in regards to Iraq and immigration. However, I won't give him that credit, mainly because I believe he feels those who disagree with Mr. Bush's war are somehow inferior, somehow less of a patriot than those who follow Mr. Bush's "surge" without question.

(Yeesh, it suddenly turned cold in here)

Uh...Also he looks like a Chipmunk with walnuts in his mouth, and he is like 97.5 years old (Seriously, he is older than Reagan was in 1980). OK, we're back from the precipice of real discussion. Walnuts!

Then there is Ron Paul. Yes, I give him points for being the one Republican with the cajones to question the war in Iraq. Yes, I think some of his views are on the mark. And yes, honestly, he impressed me the most of the candidates. However, his internet supporters are so damn annoying, I can't in good conscience reward their efforts.

That leaves just one candidate, and one candidate alone. Sure, he's a dark horse, and he is almost as old as John McCain. But he is socially moderate, enough so that he was elected by a large state. He also has deep convictions, and most assuredly won't cynically use the passion of the fundamentalist right of the party for his gains (because he is an admitted atheist).

Arnie Vinick '08!

Welcome to August Prairie

Last September, I wrote a retrospective of my experiences on September 11, 2001. At the end of that piece, I promised a follow-up on the five years since that horrible day. As you all probably know, that piece never arrived.

There are many excuses or reasons I can put forth. I probably could hide behind the fact that I moved 1/3 of the way across the country and started a new job. However, the new job didn’t really lessen my ability to write. I only work 40 hours a week, and there are many hours of the work day in which I have time to write.

Another excuse could be my typical lack of effort and tendency to abandon things I start. Although more accurate, this really isn’t the reason at all. Between the Vermilion Expat and Quo Vadimus, I have managed to post material, and continue to do so to this day.

Closer to the mark is my general disinclination to discuss politics or religion, outside of a few friends and family members in my “inner circle”. I like to keep things polite and pleasant when engaged in conversation with people. Politics and Religion are two intensely personal things, and can inflame passions quicker than almost any other topic.
Unfortunately, removing politics and religion from my writing and conversations removes like 50% of what I think about on a daily basis. Those who know me know I can be very quiet, sometimes going hours without saying much of anything. My desire to keep things polite is one reason I don’t converse much. Only if I know where someone stands, and am comfortable enough revealing where I stand, will I engage in conversation on these perilous topics.

Thus it is my desire to keep Quo Vadimus focused on sports, entertainment, and other lesser topics. Although these topics can inflame passions and create arguments, the arguments are usually good-natured and/or short-lived. Without debate on who the best hitter in baseball is (Ted Williams), or what team is the greatest Super Bowl champion of all time (85 Bears), sports wouldn’t be as interesting or fun, and we would have little reason to follow it.

However, I feel that I really want to let my feelings and thoughts on be made aware, and to generate debate in these most contentious areas. I have many things I want to get off my chest, and I would like to entertain the thoughts of others on these issues.

From this idea sprung forth August Prairie. Here, the impolite topics are now open to discussion, and no view will be turned away. You may not agree with me on what I have to say, and I may not agree with you. That is okay, because debate is good, as long as it is civil, informed, and free of cheap shots.

That isn’t to say it won’t be heated. One cannot be passionate about their beliefs, unless one is willing to defend those beliefs intensely. However, that heat must be controlled, or the debate will descend into a world of flame wars and pointless bickering In other words, the debate would be nothing more than what passes as discussion on most of cable news.

Therefore, I welcome you to August Prairie, and hope you’ll stick around and join the discussion. I’ll be posting some things soon, including the long-awaited follow-up to the 9/11 post. Also forthcoming is my endorsement for the 2008 election.

P.S. I am looking for additional contributors to August Prairie. If you want to get involved, let me know.

This Most Hallowed Week

Although you couldn't tell from the new edition of "The Week Ahead" on Quo Vadimus, I actually do consider the anniversaries of the historical events that are happening this week to be important. The events of these days, Particularly July 1-4, were crucial to the founding and continued existence of our nation.

Of course, the most well-known and important anniversary happening this week is Independence Day. 231 years ago Wednesday, a group of patriots put everything on the line and declared our independence from Great Britain. Although thousands of lives would still be lost and it would take seven years for the Treaty of Paris to make it official, our nation was truly born that July day in Philadelphia.

In the course of setting up a nation, many things were accomplished. One issue, however, was not settled. Despite many founders wishing to abolish the "peculiar institution" of slavery, there was no way this could happen if the United States wanted to include South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. Thus, the founders made a compromise on the issue, and left it to another generation to solve.

That generation would come almost ninety years later, and the resolution would be not by laws and debate, but by blood. For four years the brother states of the North fought the brother states of the South, costing over 600,000 American lives and leaving scars that have yet to heal.

Two turning points in that horrible war occurred during the sweltering early days of July, 1863. One took place on the verdant fields and ridges of Pennsylvania; the other took place at a stronghold on the vital Mississippi River. This week is is the 144th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg and the surrender of Vicksburg.

Today is July 2, the middle day of the Battle of Gettysburg. Although most people think of Pickett's Charge and day three of the battle when they think of Gettysburg, the second day was actually the bloodiest. Places, such as Devil's Den, Little Round Top, and the Wheatfield would reverberate throughout time, echoes of the triumphs and tragedies that took place that day.

July 2 is the day Sickles led his corps off of the main Union line, jeopardizing the entire position, killing many men in the III Corps, and costing him his leg. It is the day Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine stood on the Union left, and held off the Alabamians at all costs. It is the day Hancock saw a gap in the Union line, and ordered the 1st Minnesota forward. The 1st Minnesota succeeded in holding the line, but at a cost of 82% of the regiment killed, wounded, or missing.

As the two exhausted armies sat outside of Gettysburg on July 4th, an event just as important was taking place in Mississippi. After many failed attempts, U.S. Grant had found a successful way to envelop Vicksburg. In a brilliant campaign, he crossed the river downstream from Vicksburg, captured the state capitol in Jackson, and trapped John Pemberton's force, while Joe Johnston barely nipped at the Union's heels.

After a siege of over a month, Vicksburg was starting to crack. The Union approaches were getting ever closer to the Confederate lines, and the Confederates were running out of supplies. Finally, 144 years ago Tuesday, Pemberton sent a note asking Grant for terms. After some negotiating, terms were settled, and Vicksburg would be surrendered. Much to the delight of Unionists everywhere, the city was formally surrendered on July 4, Independence Day. Although Mr. Lincoln appreciated the country's birthday present, the city of Vicksburg did not, refusing to celebrate Independence Day until World War II.

Although the Mississippi wasn't truly in Union hands until Port Hudson fell on July 8, Vicksburg was the last key to control of the river. The river wasn't completely safe, and raiders such as Forrest did their best to keep it that way. However, the Union had split the south in two, achieved one of the major goals of the Anaconda Plan, and made victory much more likely. Vicksburg also marked another illustrious moment in U.S. Grant's career, a career that would lead him to Appomattox and the White House.

Whatever you choose to do with your Independence Day, remember the sacrifices and struggles of those who came before you. Reflect on the challenges we face today, and the possibilities of what tomorrow might be if we just try to live up to the standards of our previous generations. And then get back to your grilling, your fireworks, and your lazy summer day.