The War on Terror deserves serious discussion. There is a worthwhile debate over the method by which we fight this war, but both parties seem to be ignoring that debate in favor of sound bites.

There is a dichotomy between two camps with differing views of America. One sees America as a country of and for itself, which was attacked without provocation by a hidden enemy. To respond to that requires firm resolve and an unshakable belief that what we’re doing is right, even if we’re doing it wrong.

The other side sees America as the progenitor of its attackers. Our foreign policy choices have bred anger in our attackers and we must address our own failings to stave off their assault. To them, the war in Iraq is yet another example of the failed foreign policy that has led to our current situation. To fight terrorism, they disconnect those who oppose and attack us in Iraq from those that oppose and attack us in New York.

Serious Americans recognize that there is a degree of truth to both arguments and our cause is not helped by both sides marginalizing the other’s beliefs. Our cause is also not helped by talking points that over-simplify the world.

The President, yesterday, broke out just such a talking point.

“Iraq is the central front in this war on terror,” he said. “If we leave the streets of Baghdad before the job is done we will have to face the terrorists in our own cities. We will stay the course. We will help this young Iraqi democracy succeed and victory in Iraq will be a major ideological triumph in the struggle of the 21st century. I firmly believe we’ll succeed.”

This is, to say the least, ridiculous. Does anyone believe the peaceful handover of Baghdad to the Iraqi people will end the worldwide scourge of terror? There was no war in Iraq when we were attacked in 2001. There was no war in Iraq when we were attacked in 1993. To claim that finishing the mission in Iraq will somehow guarantee we are not attacked stateside is a specious claim at best and laughably ignorant at worst.

A serious discussion needs to take place, but the nature of our Attention Deficit Media prevents that. Comments like these also do little to advance that agenda.

I’ve seen a lot of media attention given to the now confirmed disclosure that it was Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and not the White House, that leaked Valerie Plame’s name. Most of it points out that critics of the administration spent the better part of three years claiming those closest to the President threw her under the bus to get even with her husband.

The one thing I have not seen is any public apologies or retractions from those who so often repeated those charges. Where is the public statement from Howard Dean, John Kerry, or even Kos?

People should call on them to say, “Oops. We blew it. It turns out we were way off base. In an attempt to reset the political discourse to a reasonable level, we’ll grudgingly acknowledge that we flew off the handle, made wild accusations with no facts, and sullied the reputation of two guys that apparently did nothing wrong.”

Something tells me we won’t be seeing any comments like that.

For me, there are few things better than someone completely losing their shit except being there when it happens.

Now that we have the Internet, we can preserve these moments for posterity. My buddy Paul over at The Pop View has a link to $6/hour DJ Inetta the Moodsetta going off on air and quitting her job at WBLZ-FM in Mobile, Alabama.

From now on, if I leave a job, I’m walking out the door to the sound of me shouting, “I quit this bitch!!”

The wall Street Journal yesterday carried an article about labor organizing around the coming election. In it, there was a significant fact. Union membership is down to 7.8% of the private sector employment. That means 92% of the private sector isn’t covered by a union. That becomes very significant very quickly. Keep reading.

Denver is making a bid to host the Democrat’s convention in 2008. They are on a short list of cities and will learn of their fate later this year. Back in May, I posted on the reasons I think they should win. Today there is an indication that I may have overestimated the Democrats desire to win.

The AP is reporting the Democrats might skip Denver because of union loyalty.

You see, the Minneapolis-St. Paul bid benefits from the fact that 13 out of the 96 hotels that would be used are union. Denver doesn’t have any union hotels. So despite the fact that 92% of private sector employees are not union, and the fact that only 13.5% of the Minnesota hotels are unionized, that is still reason to turn your back on the West.

It really is a stupid argument, but one I think might actually hold sway with the liberal party. The Democrats stand to gain so much more if they make a concerted push into the mountain West based on an agenda that pushes less institutional rigidity and more recognition of individual liberty. They’re likely, however, to cave to the unions because that’s what they do.

I still stand by my prediction that they’ll end up in Denver. The truth is the people pushing the lack of Union hotels are the people competing against Denver for the convention. The Democrats are, however, tied to their antiquated machinery. It would not surprise me if they pick a union friendly city rather than making a serious effort to appeal to the purple states of the Rocky Mountain region.

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has put together a piece titled “The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani“. It’s an interesting read.

I don’t agree that staving off the downfall of Western civilization depends on overturning Roe v. Wade, so I’ll skip over the stuff about abortion. If that is your single issue, more power to you, but I care a lot more about the other stuff. So let’s digest it.

Second Amendment/Gun Control – Rudy supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban. Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that these two bills haven’t done much to keep criminals from using guns, and look at the larger issue of the federal government encroaching on our personal freedoms. Do I think the constitution guarantees the right to own a bazooka or an armory full of automatic weapons? No. Do I think that these laws are a step toward taking away any kind of guns? Yes. Little in the government’s history leads me to believe they are capable of restraint. Once they start, they generally keep going until they fuck it up.

I have concerns with Rudy’s position on this.

Gay Marriage - I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If you can look at another guy’s hairy ass and find love, good for you. Homosexuality doesn’t appeal to me at all, but then neither does ice dancing. Some people really enjoy it, and we should not use that as a reason to discriminate. Not too long ago, people thought that being black was an aberration and that whites and blacks shouldn’t marry. It was a stupid bullshit argument then and hasn’t gotten any better after changing the characters around.

Rudy is Pro-Illegal Immigration - Honestly, I don’t buy for a minute that he is in favor of illegal immigration. I don’t think anyone is saying, “Throw open the doors, bitches! It’s a party up in here!”

I think this is more a question of recognizing the practical reality of trying to round up 12 million people to send them away – especially knowing many of them will be back inside of a month. We have a porous border, and nothing short of giant walls (remember Berlin?) will keep people out.

We need a better approach to immigration, and nobody is advocating it. You have one side that wants a crackdown and one side that advocates keeping those who have been breaking the laws the longest, but tossing out the new guys. It’s really kind of stupid. Rudy’s position is really no worse than anyone else’s. I’d like to see a better plan out of him, but I’d like to see a more realistic plan from the “throw them out” crowd.

Rudy is a more charismatic version of Arlen Specter - Come on, my sofa is more charismatic than Arlen Specter. If he’s a liberal, say he’s a liberal. Don’t pick the least charismatic guy in the party and tell me Rudy is more charismatic. That just makes me like Rudy more.

Addressing the liberal point, Hawkins writes, “Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst.” So the worst thing you can say about Rudy is he governed a far, far left city from the middle to slightly left? Let’s see, in New York that would make you…. a Republican. Congrats, Rudy.

Rudy has Bill Clinton Disease – Apparently, divorcees need not apply for America’s highest job and guys who want to chase women are untrustworthy. Honestly, I couldn’t care less if he was doing the Secretary of State doggy-style on the front lawn at the White House in full view of visiting dignitaries as long as he wasn’t screwing the rest of us at the same time.

You show me a guy that looks like Rudy, but can still get laid, and I’ll show you a guy that’s going to fuck around. Chris Rock once said a man is only as faithful as his options. Normally, guys that look like Giuliani have few options. This guy, despite his appearance, can get some tail, so I’m in no position to fault him for that. In fact, I say, “Brother, go close some ass.”

Hawkins closes with the argument that Rudy is just plain unelectable. On that point, I agree completely. The guy has a massive electability problem starting with the fact that the other candidates in the primaries will throw enough of the charges above at him for at least a good portion of it to stick.

There are a lot of people who care more about the tertiary issues than the important stuff. For instance, was Rudy really responsible for turning New York around? It went from a cess pool to a tourist destination in a few short years, and was riding a wave when 9-11 happened. The crime rate was way, way down, the hospitality was way, way up. Did that have anything to do with Rudy? I care a lot more about that than whether he has gay friends who helped him out when he was going through an ugly divorce.

But I seem to be a rarity in our party.

It’s unlikely that he can get through the primary. The “extreme makeover” that Rudy would require is more extensive than the one McCain will need and far less than a lot of other conservatives running.

Assuming he can get the GOP nod (which I don’t), he still needs to convince the American people that he’ll be better than the hack the Democrats throw up. Fortunately, we’re very good at polishing turds and can make just about anyone shine long enough to beat the Democrats.

John is right about Giuliani not being a conservative if you are defining that solely as “social conservative”. Does he appeal to the fiscally conservative, socially moderate South Park Republican crowd? Unclear.

I’d like to see someone put the effort into looking at his policy positions on business, economics, and such. I’d like a dissection of his beliefs on the environment, and health care. Then I could tell you if I think the conservative case against Giuliani has been made.