PJ Media

A few things:

“Iraq and Afghanistan are the first wars in which expensive – but accurate – smart bombs are the norm. Al-Qaeda’s constant violations of international law – and Iran and Syria’s steady supply of ever more sophisticated IEDs – forced a re-think of tactics. Humvees were armor plated, body armor was upgraded, and new vehicles were introduced.”

– Uparmoring of humvees was not in response to more sophisticated explosives. The HMMWV was never intended to be a armored vehicle. The vast majority of HMMWVs never had anything one could consider armor anywhere in their construction. The addition of armor was a reaction to the use of explosives to conduct harrassment of military movement on the ground. Also, the devices coming out of Iran are not IEDs, they are factory-produced EFPs. An IED similar to the EFP is the platter charge, which does not require Iranian assistance to make. (EFPs aren’t all that sophisticated either, as they used in many antitank mines with an average cost of less than $3.00 a copy).

“As war costs soared, it became easier to slip in a million here or a million there for the home district. President Bush slipped in a lot more than that when he added “Part D” prescription benefits for Medicare. It didn’t do Republicans a bit of good on election day.”

– What does “war costs” have to do with anything? Defense spending in the United States is tiny in comparison to social spending (social spending which is in violation of the 10th Amendment). The Part D Medicare ripoff of current and future generations of Americans was a disgusting vote-buying scheme executed by Republicans for the benefit of baby-boomers and incumbent politicians. However, this is unrelated to war spending. The amounts don’t even begin to compare. (Medicare part D is a massive financial whole the depth of which can only be GUESSED at right now.)

“The war on terror – or more accurately, the Democrats’ treachery – has shifted the stool in favor of national defense. Fiscal conservatism has suffered.”

– This is not logical. There is no reason why the need to be strong and proactive in defense should require additional social spending to buy votes. Your statement implies that it is. You are comparing apples and bricks.

“John McCain’s strength lies in national defense. In many ways his candidacy is as much a reaction to the Democrats surrender-mongering as Huckabee’s was to Clinton’s peccadilloes.”

– John McCain’s strength lies in manipulating good-hearted, but politically, civically, and economically unaware Americans. McCain is an expert at waving flags and delivering soundbytes. He is a puppeteer. There are plenty of other Americans who could and would continue the fight against AQ. We are not forced to rely on McCain for this.

“Criticism has been conservative voters’ reaction to the entire GOP presidential field. But criticism is not leadership.”

– Give me a few million and some political connections to run for office and I’ll fight this damn war. I don’t need some vote-buying slickster to execute the duties of the office of president. I criticize the GOP and the sheep-like voters for betraying the idea that was America. I value individualism and liberty. I value property rights. I value individual responsibility. I know that you cannot have any freedom without also having a corresponding responsibility. I reject ‘moderates’ and ‘liberals’ as socialists who should live in Europe, where the nanny-states reign. America is not for spineless parasites awaiting handouts from government. I encourage those who fit that description to leave for other shores. I seek to deny them respresentation in government and shut out their voices from expression in our nation’s laws. This is accomplished when individualists in America elect men and women who will represent a responsible, individualist platform. None of the major candidates in this election fit that bill.

“To be successful, conservatives must stay on the full message and define their own movement rather than allowing their reaction to Democrats to define it.”

– Immaterial that they react to Democrats. What matters is how they react. Instead of calling socialism the use of dependency to enslave an ignorant public, the GOP has been competing with the Democrats to see who can be more socialist than the other. Everytime conservatives call the GOP on this tactic, the GOP falls back on the tired excuse that ‘at least we’re not as bad as Hillary’. What? Go play in the traffic.

“It is time for Republican candidates – presidential, congressional, and gubernatorial – to once again find that voice.”

I agree with this statement if Republican is switched to the name of a new, third party of rational, competent individualist Americans that may replace the current GOP. If you haven’t noticed, the GOP of 2008 is now the Democrat party of 1988. I have no further use for it.