Sunday, April 23, 2006

Yes, we're on hiatus

My dad died, my fiancee is in the hospital, and the shit keeps rolling downhill... I'll be back as soon as conditions allow for me to think straight...

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Conspiracy Theorists' Corner

Aaaaargh! Since the veteran rarely indulges the notions of conspiracy theory, a subject which gets little enough media attention, I'd like to introduce "Conspiracy Theorists' Corner", a place for the [more verifiable] evidence available on certain subjects loved by those tinfoil-hat-wearing fans!

Today's subject is: 9/11!!!

Today, we have an article through Yahoo! News, focusing on audio recordings made during the 9/11 incident at the World Trade Center in New York. Keep in mind, folks, that the veteran is stone cold drunk while writing this.
Certain first-responders to the incident reported blasts that seemed entirely too much like controlled demolition blasts during the collapse of the buildings. Subsequently, certain people judging themselves as engineering experts have decided that the blasts were an elaborately-planned event by PNAC (the Project for a New American Century) to propogate american anti-Muslim sentiment and nationalist pride to contribute to a sole-superpower status for America. Yes, the veteran entertains these notions sometimes. Your beloved veteran's father died this past Saturday (03/25), the veteran is intoxicated, and willing to entertain ANY notion! The veteran is not qualified to legitimately argue against the theory put forth by many of the tinfoil hat people (many of them borrowed from legitimate engineers), so the veteran must therefore lend credence to these people, regardless of belief, as they may hold the truth! Aaaaargh!!!

Monday, March 20, 2006

The Veteran Has Been Smacked!

Those sweet, lovable, hardworking ladies at I Talk Too Much were kind enough to give the ol' veteran's bloggything one smack! This may not sound like much, but hey, I was amazed at that much (let's be real here, it's not the most impressive site in the world, and IT2M HATES political blogs...). So, without further ado, the review:

This person refers to themselves in third person. It’s “this veteran” this and “this veteran” that. It’s a little odd, but not hard to read.

The template is clean and easy to read. Nothing fancy, and often that’s a good thing. Unfortunately it’s a political blog. This reviewer does not much care for politics. However to this veteran’s credit, for the times that material was lifted from another site, credit is given and there is usually some commentary about it (which, amazingly enough, usually isn’t dry). No plain regurgitation here. That deserves at least one smack.

Anyway, we'll get to some news tomorrow... After classes... After fixing the car windows... Sometime...

Friday, March 10, 2006

Quick Update: The Ports Deal... Again

I was just informed that the whole thing is a sham. Apparently, they're not actually giving up the deal, but simply turning it over to an American company for the duration of the review. Check it out over at Finding Center.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Sad, Sad Shit

Yes, it most definitely is. The veteran learned today of allegations that some of his fellow military members have been participating in orchestrated rapings of children at the nefarious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Yes, this is sick. According to the accusation, this technique is being used to coerce information from the parents of these children, themselves prisoners. When did we stoop so low? WHY did we do this? If anyone can prove these allegations false, please tell us. This is about as sick as it gets. More can be found over at Daily Kos.

In other news, the port deal has officially been sacked. The House voted overwhelmingly to stop the deal, and Dubai Ports World, the UAE-owned company that would have been taking over, has rescinded any claim to the operations of our ports. The full story is over at Yahoo!

That's about the gist of it today. The veteran is tired now. Back to Law & Order...

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

New Changes Afoot!

The veteran is, once again, playing with his blog template. While the vet was certainly a decent troubleshooter, he's never been much of a webmaster. If any of you fine folks can recommend a good place to get a free Blogger template with a patriotic style, please comment. Until then, if things look a bit odd, don't be concerned. The veteran thanks you for your patience.

And Now, a Return to the News...

Lately, the veteran has been off on a few philosophical tangents, as well as bringing you some personal news. The veteran hopes you have enjoyed this foray into his life and his political philosophy. Now, however, it's time for a return to news-based commentary.

A founding Neocon claims the ideology is "now in shambles" (Fukuyama, as reported by Alex Massie), and that it should be dropped as a failed experiment. Francis Fukuyama, a member of the Project for a New American Century (along with Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al) pushed as far back as the Clinton administration for regime changes to autocratic nations, such as Iraq. The concept of neoconservatism, born of an altered leninist ideology, has come under massive fire during the last six years. Approval ratings for the President have stayed consistently low for well over a year now, the war in Iraq has become massively unpopular, and members of all sides of the political spectrum have resorted to massive mudslinging attacks in the absence of a definitive solution to the many problems born of this controversial political worldview.

The White House has lost much of the support it enjoyed during the early years of the administration, both from the Congress and from the public at large. Republicans in Congress, especially in the Senate, have been scrambling over the past year to distance themselves from the Bush White House and to adopt a more moderate, mainstream stance on both fiscal and social policies. Even here, in high conservative country (Johnson City, Tennessee), the veteran is seeing fewer and fewer Bush stickers and more anti-war stickers. Thankfully, the "Support the Troops" motto seems to have stuck around, as the veteran dearly loves his brothers and sisters in the Marine Corps and the other branches of the armed services (yes, even the Coasties).

In other news, the controversial sale of six East Coast ports to Dubai Ports World by the executive branch has widened the split between White House officials and the legislative branch. Amid little support from the House and the Senate, President Bush has stated that he will veto any legislation drafted to delay or block the deal. In a newer development, Bush has claimed that he had no knowledge of the agreement until after the fact, but he backs it wholeheartedly and will tolerate no dissent. Questions have arisen concerning the legality of the review process used to evaluate the coming deal, especially whether the administration was required to utilize a longer, forty-five day process instead of the twenty-five day process that occured.

While scattered reports have claimed that port security would be turned over entirely to the Dubai company, owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, President Bush has claimed, in a new development, that customs and other security duties would still be carried out by Americans. While the veteran can clearly see the possible trade opportunities this sale would entail, he also recognizes that security will become a greater risk under this new port management. The average percentage of incoming containers screened runs at only about five percent currently, and this is simply another possible opening for a group, friendly to the government of the UAE, to infiltrate and attack U.S. soil or interests. Leaving all this aside, in the middle of a conflict marked by heavy anti-American sentiment abroad and anti-Arab feelings on domestic soil, this deal simply doesn't make sense politically. There was NO WAY that the administration didn't see the backlash coming from the populace on this one. Some reports (Google it) have gone so far as to claim this deal is the result of personal friendships between administration officials and the Dubai Ports World company. The veteran isn't sure about that, but he's certain this deal never should have come down the pipeline. What were they thinking?

Some excellent info on this controversy can be located over at the highly-controversial, entirely conservative, and very sexy blog of Michelle Malkin.

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Personal Update

The veteran isn't going to touch much on the Cheney shooting scandal today (other than to point out that similar circumstances for normal people usually lead to manslaughter charges), but instead, is going to let you, the readers, into his personal life a little.

This has been a spectacularly bad year. This blog usually isn't used for my personal cries for help, but it's bad lately, so I feel I should explain the recent lack of posts.

My birthday's this week. I'll be twenty-six. Yay!
That's the good part. Now for the bad.
My grandmother died a few months ago. You all know about that, if you've read far enough down. It looks pretty well like my father might be next. About two weeks ago, he broke his neck while cutting down a tree. It fell the wrong way, which is a bit of a fluke for him, as he's been cutting his own firewood since before my birth. If that hasn't complicated things enough, he's since been assaulted by pneumonia and a pesky staph infection. He's currently paralyzed from about the waist down, and portions of his upper body aren't working. He's breathing with the help of a tracheotomy, a ventilator, and his stomach muscles. His diaphragm is non-functional. He can move his arms, but has no motor control in his fingers. He re-broke his foot, which was broken the first time only about six months ago. In short, he's in bad shape. He's not quite lucid enough to be considered of sound mind yet (painkillers and antidepressants), but he's been asking for the docs to pull the equipment and let him go. Dad's always been very active, and once said something to the effect that he'd sooner die than sit behind a desk all day. Well, folks, it's looking like he probably wouldn't even be able to do that, at least for several years. He's only fifty-two, and this has come on him in addition to severe diabetes and heart problems. Believe me, I can understand where he's coming from, even if I can't say I've been there. I know that even if (when) I try to talk him out of this, if his mind's set on it, he's going to do it. I don't want my dad to die. Hell, I just finally really got to know him when he quit drinking in 2001, after my return from Japan.

I'm not going to go any further into this, or into the things going on with college and work. I thought you should know, though, and don't think I've forgotten you, even if I don't have time to write much right now. I'll be back soon enough.

-The Veteran

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Reprinted with Permission...

The veteran saw this little questionnaire on the site of his bro Poldark Maximus, who is probably one of the greatest somewhat-conservative thinkers of our time. I felt the need to answer a few of these questions...

"So we use Warner and Romney as our examples of candidates who can play +/- 5 feet to the right or left of the yellow line. Examples only, as there will surely be others who emerge. BUT EVEN AMONG THEM, they will need to answer certain “questions” which will then help us choose from among those who would pretend to unite us. Nothing will bore the nation quicker than candidates strenuously agreeing with each other on everything. So how will Romney and Warner respond to these very simple “Questions”?"

1. Is there anything better in life than a BLT? What is it?

-Hardee's Thickburgers. Or, perhaps, the Collosal Burger from Ruby Tuesdays.

2. You see an injured deer on the side of the road in its obvious death-throes. What do you do? A) Drive on down the road B) Call the State Police C) Draw your sidearm and shoot it in the heart D) Call your campaign manager and ask them what action would carry Ohio?


3. Do you pray at your desk, in bed, or in the shower? To whom?

-Wherever I can, and to my own personal understanding of God.

4. Smooth or Ribbed?

-Screw that. Studded. If at all (monogamous relationship)

5. Boxers or briefs? (Women may choose between cotton or silk)

-Boxer-Briefs, also known as Trunks

6. Is the NSA doing God’s work or the devil’s work?

-Andy Kaufman's work. You decide.

7. You meet Jacques Chirac at a bar sipping his drink. You A) Buy him a Bud B) Buy him a Stella Artois C) Buy him a whiskey and tell him to go fuck himself.

-Buy him 151 and coke drinks until I can derive the secret of the nationalized 35-hour work week. Then I slap him on the back of the head before stalking off.

8. You meet Angela Merkel at a bar sipping her drink. You A) Sit next to her and buy her a whatever B) Ask her if she knows the real story behind Ronnie Regan and Maggie Thatcher C) Let her buy you a drink and thank America for liberating the world from Fascists and terrorists at the cost of thousands of American lives.


9. The battery on your pacemaker has run out and you feel your heart stop. You A) Tear through your wallet for a picture of your wife and kids B) Try to remember who you asked to run as VP C) Ask the driver to stop at the next Wal-Mart.


10. One pass, one completion, 30 yards for 100 years of World Peace. Who do you choose? A) Brady B) Manning (Peyton for God’s sake) C) Rothlisberger D) Hasselbeck

-I play football. Watching it on TV just bores me. Sorry.

11. True or False. Smaller states should be merged into larger ones to reduce the total to around 20, saving the American Taxpayer $750 billion a year in stupid and redundant state overhead and taxes.

-In an ideal nation, yes. Sadly, it ain't gonna happen.

12. You find yourself in the middle of a corn field with the sun high overhead and slightly to the North. You whistle and your dog answers, running to where you crouch on one knee as you sift good earth between your fingers. There is no sound other than the wind rustling though the corn husks. Your own sweat cools you as God intended it. You A) Are late for a meeting B) Take out your cell phone and check the stock-ticker C) Remove the batteries from your pacemaker, lie down in the corn, close your eyes and let go.

-A (I'm always fashionably late)

13. The penalty for CEO’s who defraud their shareholders of billions of net-worth and pensions should be A) 10-20 years B) 10-20 amps C) 10-20 minutes of degrading questions from Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid.

-B (I'll take C if it's televised, though, or perhaps a combination of the two)

14. You are in the middle of a dream which has you face down in the muff of your favorite starlet. You A) Thank God for the universally accepted concept (in all religions) of a “freebie” B) Wake up and rip the cat off your face C) Get distracted by some random thought of Nancy Pelosi and ruin this dream for everyone.


15. Ribs or Brisket?

-Brisket AND Ribs.

16. Wet or dry Ribs?

-Hot Sauce.

17. “Compassionate Conservative” or “Hands-off-the Wheel” liberal?

-Pragmatic Moderate.

18. “Scoop” Jackson (D) or Nelson Rockefeller (R) ?

-Rockefeller on Mondays and Jackson on Thursdays.

19. Hubert Humphrey (D) or Barry Goldwater(R) ?

-Goldwater. All the time.

20. Bill Clinton (D) or Hillary Clinton (D) ?

-Slick Willy.

21. Ronald Regan (R) or George W. Bush (R) ?

-Ron Reagan (the son)

22. Angelina Jolie or Kate Beckinsale?

-Which one is on my face?

23. Barbara Streisand or Kathleen Turner?


24. Doris Day or Rock Hudson?


25. You are incredibly concerned about the cultural and social fabric of the United States. The Census Bureau predicts the 300 millionth American will come into being in 2006, most likely in the Southwest and most likely illegally. Pentagon planners tell you the country will need 28-30 combat ready divisions for the next 30 years. Northern white boys have slipped into a world of moral equivalency spewed forth by Bill Maher, Al Franken and Howard Dean. You A) GET IT – in one of the greatest Ahha ! moments of your lifetime B) Don’t get it and continue to draft mindless immigration legislation C) Check the batteries in your pacemaker to see if they were made in Guadalajara?


26. True of False. “I know the second verse of ‘America the Beautiful’”

-Oh, beautiful for pilgrim's feet...

27. “ I own … A) a John Deere tractor B) a John Deere hat C) John Deere stock D) all of them and a Kubota front-loader to boot”

-A lawnmower.

28. Jesus, God, Allah and Mohammed are A) Gods and prophets B) Interesting and presumably nice residents of the Middle East dead for roughly 2000 and 1400 years respectively C) The largest cause of death and unrest in the world (perpetrated in the name of peace and eternal salvation) D) Close friends who exchange Christmas Cards in the after-life.

-A and C

29. “I have in my mind today and am willing to discuss … A) the names of my key cabinet appointees B) the names of my Federal judge and SCOTUS appointees C) The names of all White House intern appointees D) The names of those I will pardon in the 8th year of my presidency”

-A and B. C is omitted due to privacy considerations.

30. The worst American President/Governor of the last 5 years was A) Jimmy Carter B) Bill Clinton C) George W. Bush D) Jimmy Carter

-The whole freakin' lot.

31. The Best Invention of the last 20 years was A) Lethal Injections B) memory foam house slippers C) Punch Card voting D) the AFLAC Duck.


32. The Worst Invention of the last 20 years was A) Title IX B) lights at Wrigley C) “Self Affirmation” as an American religion D) Atlanta Airport E) Al Gore

-The Stairmaster.

33. “ When I can’t sleep at night I … A) Drink warm milk B) Jerk-off for the good of the Republic C) Blog D) first c, then b. “


Hopefully that was as informative for the rest of you as it was for me. Thanks, PM!

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Why Overturning Roe v. Wade Is a Non-Issue

Oooooookay... The veteran is going to break this one down for you Barney-style (as we say in the Corps). The Supreme Court should not (and WILL not) overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a multitude of very complicated reasons for this, but the ol' vet's going to give you one of the simpler ones: The decision of Roe v. Wade is based heavily (almost entirely) on the premise of an implied right to privacy in the Constitution (this is based partially on Amendments III-V, as well as a few other lines). When Roe v. Wade was decided, it became a major affirmation of that right. The two are intertwined on a high level. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Constitutional constructionists will be able to easily argue that the right to privacy is non-existent, and therefore, need not be observed beyond those instances specifically cited in the Bill of Rights. Let me put this into perspective for you...

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, within the proceeding years we face the possibility of:
-Child Protective Services performing random, unannounced inspections (whether you're home or not)
-Properties other than residences being subject to search or inspection without warrant (yes, you Conservatives, that means your places of business)
-Stronger laws governing how you have sex, when you have sex, and IF you have sex
-and various other possible infringements.

The Supreme Court will not take such possibilities lightly. Yes, the possibility exists that enough of the court is mad enough to take the chance, but it's highly unlikely.

Sunday, January 22, 2006


If you're perusing the blogroll, you may find that a few links have vanished. These links were removed according to a variety of very loose criteria ranging from whether I think adding them was one of those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' things to whether they've linked back to me (no, you need not do so to get onto my blogroll, but it helps). If anyone now missing would like to return to the blogroll, shoot me an email (you can find it in my profile) and let me know. Return links are always appreciated, especially if you've been on my roll for a long freakin' time. Also, I'm going to do some other cleaning and organizing in the near future...

Saturday, January 14, 2006

On Alito

The veteran feels the need to weigh in on the paradigm that is Sam Alito (affectionately referred to by my more lefty buddies as 'Scalito'). There are several points that make the veteran distrust this candidate for the Supreme Court. First of all, his record of opinions (which has been analyzed by both Harvard and Annenberg) strongly suggests a pro-business bias detrimental to individual litigants. While the veteran readily acknowledges the need for corporate entities and their vital role in our capitalistic hodge-podge, it seems that Alito may be unfairly taking sides. Don't even get me started on the issue with Vanguard, as the excuse presented seems to change on a fairly frequent basis. His usage of membership in an overtly sexist college organization to obtain a job confounds me, and detracts from his credibility, whether he was an active participant or not. His opinions (official and unofficial) on abortion rights and privacy rights leave little to debate, regardless of whether he claims he never actually held those views. However, the veteran would like to present a theory of his own: Alito isn't a serious threat. Yes, he's going to tip the balance more toward big business, but he's not going to try overturning Roe v. Wade. The simple fact is that to do so would be madness, and may even place him in physical danger. It's not going to happen, short of confirmed nominations to a group of openly zealous fundamentalists. Yes, we should complain openly about this nomination. Yes, we should continue factfinding and analysis of Alito's past exploits. Reality, however, should keep him from making any major changes. Don't fear the Alito, but feel free to dislike the Alito. That is all.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Where Have I Been?

Heeeeeeey... The veteran has been without beautiful internet access for most of a week, but we gots it back on now! There'll be a new post tomorrow.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

The Presidential Standard, As Devised by the Veteran

The veteran would like to present, for your approval and commentary, proposals in the form of campaign speeches for a presidential candidacy. This will be a series of individual speech portions posted as I write them. This first section has been edited for typos, but not for conciseness. It deals with the addition of new checks and balances to all three branches of government, to provide a more equal balance between them.

Part I:

"Some of you are unsure of what to expect from me as a President. This is perfectly understandable... These last few years have been chaotic for those in all quadrants of the political map. I'm here to tell you today that I bring no definite, permanent solution to the table. I guarantee, however, that no other candidate can claim, in good conscience, to do so either.
I do bring, however, a plan that may well help to build our American future and reunite our divided populus. Long has partisan strife prevented effective solutions from being pushed through our august houses of legislature. The President was never meant to lead Congress. He was meant to review their decisions and to provide to them a transparent and realistic view of the situation on the ground, as well as to serve as one of many guides to help them conduct their business effectively and efficiently. The framers of our lauded Constitution saw each branch of government, legislative, judicial, and executive, as equal partners. As President I will seek to bring bipartisan cooperation and action back to our Congress through a program involving three things:
First of all, certain figures on both sides in the past have seen fit to draw voting lines in such a manner as to be overly beneficial to their individual parties. I will seek the support of the American people by direct referendum to tell the Congress that we will not accept unfair, ineffective partisan districting to upset the balance of our legislature. With your help, we can persuade the Congress to produce a nonpartisan independent committee to oversee all districting within the borders of our nation. These men and women will review all plans for redistricting prior to their implementation to ensure the maximum fair result, accurately representing all demographic sections. In this manner, we will ensure that all elected officials share power.

Second, I will work to provide appropriate criteria to ensure that members of Congress are fairly and accurately screened on a term basis for links to corrupt activity. I will NOT do so in a way that intrudes unduly into the private lives of these citizens, but rest assured, I will fight to see that all documentation detailing possible public-arena corruption are brought to light, and that these members are replaced by the good voters of their state. No state of our union should suffer the shame of a corrupt congressman pulling the wool over their eyes for years at a time. Again, I call upon you for your help in this matter. This will only be possible with the overwhelming support of the great American public, from which all our government power is born.

Last, I will seek fair and moderate term limits for the legislature. It is my feeling, and I hope you share it, that long-term members of Congress are tempted on a frequent basis to abandon the principles of good government for personal gain. No, lobbyists and large business contributors are not going to vanish, and to seek that would be a disservice to those groups and businesses that DO have the best interest of the public at heart. I propose, therefore, a stricter election standard for members who are completing their fifth term in the Congress. I propose that a congressman or senator who has maintained the trust and respect of his constituents will be able to claim a significant advantage in any term election. Therefore, I propose that members of the Congress that are seeking incumbent reelection to a sixth or further term must successfully procure a sixty percent share of the vote in a two-way election, and at least forty percent in a three way election. In the rare case of a higher split, this trend shall continue as the situation suggests. It is my sincere belief that this will keep our congressmen rotated in such a way to reduce corruption and overbearing seniority issues that cause unfair conflict in the hallowed halls of the Capitol.

As your President, I shall also seek to provide to you a fair and impartial judiciary. An overly partisan executive currently, either through proper appointments or recess appointments, can stack the judiciary in such a manner as to provide an overly biased view of our Constitution. Therefore, I propose that the Senate shall choose, by means of seniority, a committee evenly apportioned among all parties in the Senate, to provide a truly equal and fair consent for these appointments. In short, if the Senate is composed of three parties, the committee should be composed of two representatives from each party. If a party is only represented by one member, then that member shall have the authority to choose a second as his partner, with no restrictions on his choice. Thusly, we may be assured of the most impartial advice and consent possible for our judiciary nominees. In this way I feel that we can keep our Supreme Court fair and balanced, with no overwhelming majority ideology. Secondly, I propose that stricter standards are put in place for the legislature and the President to check corruption through a transparent account, on a case-by-case basis, of whether judiciary members may create a conflict of interest through opinions on certain cases.

None of this would make a true difference unless the executive branch were also appropriately and equally checked. I propose, therefore, that both the legislative and judiciary branches provide concise, accurate reports on all candidates, to be presented in an open manner to the populus at least one month prior to Presidential elections. These reports should take into account all criminal acts since the age of full majority, twenty-one. They shall also provide any evidence of corrupt activities in the political arena, as well as the private arena. Religious preferences, other personal beliefs, and other matters deemed appropriately private by the investigating committees shall not be part of the reports, as these matters are, in essence, part and parcel of these citizens' private lives and should only be discussed at the initiative of the candidates themselves. The reports should provide evidence directly, with no further analysis save for that which is deemed to need clarification, to prevent an overly biased presentation. These reports should also be revised and presented mid-term, to account for any further information the public should be privy to."

-J. Bradley Emery, Democratic Candidate

NOTE: The numbers I threw out for congressional terms are just that: numbers. Someone pointed out to me that they might be setting the bar overly high, and if I ever actually run, I'll get a research team on it so I can make them a bit more.... realistic.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

My Democratic Mantra...

I'm reprinting these comments to provide a better understanding of the driving force behind this site, and my ambitions. Reprinted from the comment annals of the Neo Con Blogger:

Poldark Maximus said...

To observe that Mr. Mountjoy occassionally shares turf held by our leftist bretheren would be the same as to suggest your boy Mark Warner could run as a Republican.
Potentially not a bad idea -- what possible turf does Warner share with Howard Dean? Turn a new leaf, Mod Vet, and power up with the True (Republican) Believers. Bring Warner with you. Poldark Maximus.

Brad said...

To some degree, I agree with you, PM. I think my reasoning may be slightly different, though... So correct me if you agree with what I say.
Mark Warner could fit the idealist Republican mold as a bastion of fiscal accountability. As a Democrat, he emphasizes the most sane and effective face of the party of the left, while still appealing to the honest sensibilities of the mainstream right. However, one must face the fact that the current section of the right wing in power doesn't so much comply with traditional Republican or conservative ideology. I'll refer you, for one point, to this:
It's a better explanation by far than my meager skills could forge without many hours of cramming and research. While Warner might work well as a Republican, to do so would equate him in the eyes of many with the current administration, which is to some degree born of broken liberalism. 'Tis sad, I think, as I'd be more than satisfied voting for him no matter which party he aligned himself with. As far as Howard Dean goes, he has let down his brethren to a nauseating degree. We thought we were getting a warrior; we thought we were choosing a master and commander of liberal thought, willing to challenge the hard right with steadfast resolve. Instead, we got a wimp. I would also like to clarify for you this: That I support the true right even as a Democrat, regardless of whether I agree with some of their ideology. This is what makes me a moderate. I cannot however, in good conscience, willingly support the travesty that composes the sect of the right that currently holds power... Also, I'm still by a significant degree more a liberal than a conservative on most issues. My greatest ambition is to create policies that fall in line with my slightly-left ideology but are also built to draw the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. To achieve true bipartisan policy is my goal, my passion, and my driving force.


*Edited for typos*

Thursday, December 29, 2005

A Quick Explanation of Extremist Moderates

The vet coined a possibly-new phrase today: The extremist moderate. Now, here's an example of what this means:

That little stick-guy there? He's an extremist moderate. What this stick-guy does is stand completely off the line, enabling him to grab onto the ends of the line, and hence, snatch up some of the ideology of the extremist ends of BOTH sides (Say, wanting a massive government downsizing but, at the same time, wanting damn near every power in the book granted to the Executive branch). Kinda like a neocon, only more honest and vocal about their opinions. That stick guy is my pal the not-so-aptly named Neocon Blogger. Maybe that'll put a few things in perspective for those that are wondering. If not, at least they'll know for certain that the vet can't do shit with a paint program.