O'REILLY PROBES WHOOPI'S FEELINGS

Whoopi Goldberg discussed Iraq on the O’Reilly Factor last week:

“We went in under misguided ideals and with no real way to get out. Nobody knows how to get out of this because it’s a mess. Everyone who said ‘let’s go in and do this’ helped create this instability in the Middle East.”

She said she based her opinion on feelings. When pressed about the relevance of feelings, she defended her feelings by explaining her feelings about the relevance of feelings.

On Star Trek, Whoopi portrayed the mysteriously all-knowing Guinan, who dispensed feelings and opinions with exotic drinks in a spaceship bar. In the series, she never had to explain herself because, like all fantasies, such characters don’t need to.

The reason police officers and scientists are required to explain their investigations is that reports limited by hunches and emotion quickly spell the end of one’s credibility – and rightly so. If, during a burglary trial for example, I testify to Whoopi and other jurors that I had a feeling that the guy I arrested was a burglar, she’d correctly find him not guilty. It’s not enough for me to say, “You can believe me, I’m a police officer.” Unless I back my hunches with coherent facts, my opinion is worthless. No self-respecting scientist or investigator relies on feelings without attacking their science. No actor relies on fact without attacking THE LEFT.

Almost by definition, actors spend their careers pretending to be real people. Some of these people presume to have something important to say when they aren’t reciting someone else’s words.

What seems to make actors and the media relevant today is the emotional consensus they generate. No one cares what Caryn Elaine Johnson has to say; but because Caryn changed her name and found success as Whoopi, a certain percentage of our population willingly confuses her talents with intellect. And in a political party built of facades, talented actors looking for face time will always have a place to blather – as long as they don’t offend lefties who provide the face time.

Whether one person or a billion agree with emotionally-based hunches and feelings, consensus does not make an unsupported opinion a fact. And because millions of Americans don’t know how, or are too lazy, to compile or investigate facts, they often side with consensus so that other people will like them. Whoopi might be wrong, but Tim and Susan Sarandon (and their moonbat fans) will love her for not embarrassing them with contradictions.

As for consensus-based fact, when black defendants were accused of breaking Jim Crow laws, they were often convicted by democrats who were too afraid of being labeled a “n—-r lover” by their restless neighbors if they said something like, Stop – let’s look at the evidence. Can we really trust the word of the white accuser? That kind of reckless defiance would have invited the same contempt that conservatives see today from liberals. Back then, democrats retaliated against such people with lynching, arson, and assault. Today they key cars, vandalize homes, and throw Oreo cookies. (If you don’t believe me, paste a few Bush/Cheney bumper stickers on your car and park it at Pavilions in West Hollywood). Whoopi doesn’t want to attract that kind of hatred, so she parrots the liberal dogma.

Most successful politicians and actors are entrepreneurial narcissists. They manufacture and sell popularity. There’s little difference between Republican and Democrat politicians. But it’s their base, not personal appeal, that makes the difference.

Republicans believe in a baby’s right to life, the US Constitution, and America as a global ideal for all of humanity. Democrats believe in killing babies under the pretext of women’s rights, running from global responsibility under the pretext of peace, and socialism under the pretext of caring for everyone.

The key to these bases is education, which leads to personal success.

Republicans rely on a strong, happy, and healthy middle class, while Democrats depend upon large populations of impoverished voters (who they control with handouts) and a liberal elite class of lawyers and academics who want to control them.

Real Republicans (e.g., not Schwarzenegger) won’t tax the middle class into poverty, while Democrats pursue ways to transfer wealth from the middle class to make more impoverished voters.

As for Whoopi’s geopolitical sensibilities, her opinions defy gravity. O’Reilly didn’t interview Whoopi because of her understanding of global events, but because she clearly articulates Hollywood’s political incoherence. Whoopi offers a glimpse into the godless intellectual vacuum of the American left – far from the noise, vandalism, and epithets that her peers rely on. And while that might not be a lot, it’s more than the rest have offered.

GIULIANI ON JUDGES

Many social conservatives are rightly concerned about Rudy Giuliani’s social positions, specifically on what type of judges he’d nominate. Today, we got that answer from Giuliani’s e-campaign. They sent out a transcript of Mayor Giuliani’s statements at South Carolina’s GOP executive committee meeting. Here’s what Mayor Giuliani said:

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that’s part of our freedom and when that’s taken away from you that’s terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. Somebody that…I think Chief Justice Roberts is a great chief justice and he’s young and he can have a long career and that’s probably the reason the President and Vice President chose him. I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint: Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.

I suspect that social conservatives will still be wary of Giuliani’s position on social issues but I’m equally certain that many social conservatives will appreciate his willingness to nominate strict constructionists if he’s nominated and elected. I’m happy that Mayor Giuliani favors strict constructionists. It’s also news to me that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito were former colleagues of his.

The more I learn about Mayor Giuliani, the more I like him. That’s why I signed onto his exploratory committee.

Specifically, I like Rudy’s stance on defeating the terrorists. I liked his willingness to crack down on supposedly minor crimes in his first year as New York’s mayor. The dramatic decline in crime rates in NYC are directly attributable to his no nonsense approach to fighting crime. I like his being a former federal prosecutor and a very good one at that. He’s undoubtedly a leader with a history of rising to the occasion.

Keep in mind that I’m not a squishy moderate. I’d describe myself as a Ronald Reagan Republican. I’m definitely a social conservative. Do I disagree with Mayor Giuliani on some issues? Definitely. Still, I find far more things that I like about Mayor Giuliani than I don’t like.

Getting judges right is something that conservatives have cared about since Reagan’s time in office. Rudy gets them right. That should count for alot with conservatives.

RUSH, AL GORE TOGETHER AT LAST

I didn’t think that Rush Limbaugh and would ever have anything significant in common. Yesterday, I was proved wrong when Rush and Gore were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Rush was nominated for spreading democracy, Gore for spreading….something else. Here’s what the Landmark Legal Foundation said in nominating Rush:

Limbaugh, whose daily radio show is heard by more than 20 million people on more than 600 radio stations in the United States and around the world, was nominated for the prestigious award for his “nearly two decades of tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin. These are the only real cornerstones of just and lasting peace throughout the world,” said Landmark President Mark R. Levin.
“Rush Limbaugh is the foremost advocate for freedom and democracy in the world today,” explained Levin. “Everyday he gives voice to the values of democratic governance, individual opportunity and the just, equal application of the rule of law, and it is fitting that the Nobel Committee recognize the power of these ideals to build a truly peaceful world for future generations.”

Here’s what Norwegian lawmaker Boerge Brende said in nominating Gore:

“A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference,” Conservative Member of Parliament Boerge Brende, a former minister of environment and then of trade, told the AP. Brende said he joined political opponent Heidi Soerensen of the Socialist Left Party to nominate Gore as well as Canadian Inuit activist Sheila Watt-Cloutier before the nomination deadline expired Thursday. “Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up,” Brende said.

Let’s compare Rush’s accomplishments to Gore’s accomplishments:

Rush has helped spread democracy by being an eloquent and persuasive advocate for the institutions of freedom.
Al Gore has helped spread propaganda about global warming, whose goal is to regulate away liberties. Global warming is a political movement masquerading as science.

Rush has spoken from the heart about the transformative power of freedom in the Middle East.
Al Gore has produced “An Inconvenient Truth”, a movie that warns of a climatological catastrophe if we don’t do exactly as repressive Big Government says.

Rush has spoken about the power of rugged individualism, the cornerstone of peace and liberty.
Al Gore has spoken of the ‘goodness’ of governments when speaking about the need for more regulation. Those regulations frustrate people, which leads to turmoil.

Rush doesn’t have a chance of winning this prize just as President Bush didn’t after liberating 50 million people. If there was truth in advertising they’d have to rename the Nobel Peace Prize to the Liberal Appeasers Lifetime Achievement Award. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with people spreading liberty and enduring peace.

BORDER ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVELY NONEXISTENT

Neither US Border Patrol Agents nor US National Guard troops are allowed to protect the US-Mexico border region. Border Patrol Agents are prosecuted for doing their jobs and National Guard troops are not allowed to use their weapons against Mexican gunmen who cross our border illegally. Many people have and are speculating that it is the trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) that has taken precedence and authority over US sovereignty. Note: The SPP effectively provides no borders to illegal immigrants throughout the North American continent. Only legal citizens are, now, required to provide passports.

Recently, two USBP Agents—Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean—were convicted and sentenced for shooting admitted drug dealer Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila in his buttocks as he fled back across the border into Mexico. Aldrete-Davila was transporting over 700 lbs of marijuana (said to be worth over $1 million) into the US. Instead of prosecuting the drug dealer, US gave Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution for his testimony against the Agents. Prosecutors claimed that they “proved” the drug dealer did not have a gun, at the time he was confronted by Ramos and Compean. Question: As Aldrete-Davila had fled back across the border into Mexico, how was there any way to know—with certainty—that he had no gun? However, prosecutors took a drug dealer’s word over US Border Patrol Agents. There is also a question as to whether or not the law used to convict the Agents was correct. The ballistic results from Ramos’ gun are also being questioned. Still, the Agents were convicted of shooting the drug dealer and remain in federal prison—while the drug dealer continues to ply his trade. The drug dealer has also filed a $5MM lawsuit against the US government for ‘violation of his civil rights’. Note: No doubt the “right” to practice his drug-dealing.

Then, we have the National Guard, which has—for all intents and purposes—been shackled and chained from protecting themselves; let alone the border. At the US-Mexico border area of Sasabe, AZ, on 3 January US National Guard troops were confronted by 6-8 Mexican gunmen who were wearing military uniforms, body armor and carrying automatic weapons. Testing their strategy, the gunmen are reported to have split into two groups and then surrounded the observation post. In order to avoid confrontation, the guardsmen backed away, entered their Humvees and reported the incident to the USBP—leaving the gunmen in control of the US post. Spokesman for the Arizona Guard Major Paul Aguirre said the guardsmen acted appropriately. The illegals have now learned that the US National Guard has no authority to affect anything to protect our border. So, they are becoming bolder each and every day.

Another strong indication of this emboldening is an incident that occurred Sunday near Sells, AZ. Illegals who were crossing the border pelted the US National Guard with rocks and KVOA News reported: “Current rules of engagement prohibit National Guard troops from taking offensive action while stationed along the border.” They can only report the crossings to the USBP—which has already had much of its authority removed by both the US and Mexican governments. As a side note, the Mexican government has offices in USBP locations to ensure that many illegals get through.

With Democrats now back in power, it’s doubtful that any viable border fence will ever be built. Along with pretend Republicans, the Democrats are poised to vote for bills that will give amnesty to illegals—which will, more than likely, include terrorists and their Mexican drug dealers. But, what this lack of enforcement of the border portends is far graver. This trend has every indication of spreading to local law enforcement nationwide. Law enforcement in so-called US “Sanctuary Cities” is already prohibited from detaining or arresting illegal aliens, for their lack of legal status. With this rule of law effectively ignored, which other ones will be next? Already, we’re seeing signs of this inclination in our nation’s capitol. During last weekend’s anti-war protest march, demonstrators were allowed to spray-paint graffiti on both the Capitol building steps and surrounding buildings. The Capitol Police were told to stand down, not to interfere and not to arrest anyone! As increased lawless behavior is allowed in the country, more lawless acts (does anyone remember the word “anarchy”?) will be committed—and they will increase. Without the practice of following and upholding the laws of this country, all-out chaos will begin to ensue—and the mandatory imposition of country-wide Martial law will not be far behind. And this will have begun with the refusal to protect our own borders—which greatly define our sovereignty.

With the new mandates that the lawless factions now take precedence over those who actually adhere to the law, one must now seriously wonder how long our once-great nation can survive. If you look closely at our country’s Seal, you might actually be able to see a tear in the Eagle’s eye.

References:
http://www.spp.gov/
White House.gov
WorldNet Daily
WorldNet Daily
Arizon Republic
KVOA
RenewAmerica.us
Washington Post

—

Sher Zieve is writer is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

WHY I AM SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire. According to the report: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level." Yeah right...we've heard all this before.

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

Sorry .. I'm still a skeptic. In no particular order here are just a few of the reasons why I'm not buying this man-made global warming scare:

• The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
  
  
• Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
  
  
• Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
  
  
• The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
  
  
• It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
  
  
• It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
  
  
• How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
  
• Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
  
  
• The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
  
  
• The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
  
  
• Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
  
  
• Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
  
  
• What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
  
  
• Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
  
  
• Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
  
  
• In the United State, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
  
  
• There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
  
  
• Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
  
  
• Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
  
  
• Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
  
  
• Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
  
  
• During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
  
  
• Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
  
  
• Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
  
  
• On July 24, 1974 Time Magazine published an article entitled "Another Ice Age?" Here's the first paragraph:

  "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Hey ... I could go on. There's much more where that came from. But I need to get ready to go on the air. Just know that many of the strongest proponents of this "man-made" global warming stuff are dedicated opponents to capitalism and don't feel all that warm and fuzzy about the United States.

DEFEATIST RESOLUTION A "DISGRACE"

That’s what the Washington Times’ Charles Hurt is reporting. I wholeheartedly agree.

“This resolution is a resolution of defeat and disgrace,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who, as a member of the House, voted in 2002 for the war. “There’s no other way it could come out,” Mr. DeMint said of the two resolutions that have been authored. “That is the choice that they’re making. That is the decision they’re making because we know if we withdraw and leave this to the Iraqis when they’re not ready, that we will lose all.”

It appears as though Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s coming out against the Hagel-Biden resolution on Face the Nation has stemmed the Republican tide. The American people will take note of that when they vote next. They will have seen that Republicans stood on principle when it would’ve been easy to cave. They’ll also know that the Democrats will have chosen expediency over victory. I can’t picture that as a winning position to take in 08.

Sen. John Cornyn, (R-TX), was not serving in the Senate for the vote authorizing the war but has been an ardent defender of it. He said Congress is sending mixed messages to the troops, to voters and to the world with a “no confidence” vote that carries no force. “We can’t claim to support the troops and not support their mission,” he said in a floor speech yesterday. “If we don’t support the mission, we shouldn’t be passing nonbinding resolutions. We should be doing everything in our power to stop it.”
Instead, Mr. Cornyn said, “we should send them the message that, yes, we believe you can succeed and it’s important to our national security that you do.” He has been drawing up a resolution to do that.

That’s the only logical, defensible position to take. To vote for the Biden-Hagel resolution is declaring yourself as a defeatist. Voting for Biden-Hagel is declaring that the US military can’t defeat the terrorists anywhere. That’s some message to send to American troops serving in harm’s way.

“That’s just nonsense,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, (D-IA), who voted for the war in 2002. “What undermines the troops is keeping them fighting in a civil war, to keep them fighting for a mistake.”

Sen. Harkin is a disgrace and an idiot. He’s a political opportunist who doesn’t believe in the U.S. military’s ability to win wars. That’s a difficult position to hold in light of our military record in wars. The only war we lost is Vietnam. That war wouldn’t have been lost if the counterculture hadn’t split this country like it’s doing today.

“One thing I don’t like is when people back home say they support the troops but not the war,” one soldier interviewed said. “If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.” Spc. Tyler Johnson said, “You’re not supporting what they do. They died for you. It don’t make sense to me.”

Democrats have said that they support the troops thousands of times by now but by what do they measure their support? Have they prayed for the soldiers? Have they praised them for the victories in battle that they’ve won? Have they recognized the intelligence, perseverance and courage that they’ve shown? Here’s how the Washington Post’s William Arkin responded to Spc. Johnson:

“These soldiers should be grateful that the American public … do still offer their support to them, and their respect,” wrote Mr. Arkin. “Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.” The NBC report “is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary; oops sorry, volunteer; force that thinks it is doing the dirty work,” he added.

Let’s hope that the Washington Post fires this jackass before noon Thursday. If they won’t rein in their anti-war haters, then they should expect their circulation to drop precipitously. If they tolerate that type of behavior, they’ll deserve to lose credibility and readership.

The truth is that they’ve tried and convicted the Haditha Marines before investigations were completed. They’ve accepted awards from groups that harass military families as they visit their loved ones at Walter Reed. They’ve sat embarrassed while Sgt. Mark Seavey told two pompous jackasses off:

“Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)
“Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn’t have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.
“And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn’t come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That’s reprehensible. I don’t know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high.”

That isn’t support; that’s lip service.

Sen. Durbin compared the military personnel who serve at Gitmo to Pol Pot, Hitler and the KGB who guarded the Soviet gulags. That isn’t support; it’s the epitome of loathing the military.

Ted Kennedy said that Abu Ghraib wasn’t that different from when Saddam ran it, saying:

“On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, (D-MA). “Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.”

That isn’t supporting the troops; it’s berating them and hating them.

The truth is that today’s Democrats aren’t much different than Vietnam Era Democrats. They’ve even returned to their ‘glory days’ by spitting on soldiers. The only thing missing from their counterculture days is calling soldiers baby killers.

There were a few tense moments, however, including an encounter involving Joshua Sparling, 25, who was on crutches and who said he was a corporal with the 82nd Airborne Division and lost his right leg below the knee in Ramadi, Iraq. Mr. Sparling spoke at a smaller rally held earlier in the day at the United States Navy Memorial, and voiced his support for the administration’s policies in Iraq.

Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protesters spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

Democrats need to get some integrity. Democrats desperately need a patriotism transplant ASAP. Democrats need to stop thinking of the American military as a loathsome bunch. In short, they need to stop acting like Jane Fonda, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. They need to stop acting like post-JFK Democrats.