![](\"http:\/\/cyber.law.harvard.edu\/blogs\/static\/dowbrigade\/colrice.jpg\")
Here
\n in the cradle of liberty we like to think of ourselves as early adopters,
\n of things like independence, democracy, abolition,
\n women’s suffrage, public education, private education, professional
\n sports, microbreweries, indoor plumbing and massively corrupt and mismanaged
\n public works projects. For nigh on 300 years, where we led, the
\n rest of the nation followed.<\/p>\n
And we continue to lead, courageously championing the latest advances
\n in science, in technology, in social progress and in multiculturalism.
\n However, it
\n has
\n become obvious
\n that
\n the rest
\n of the country doesn’t want
\n to go
\n where
\n we are
\n leading.<\/p>\n
It’s not that they don’t understand, or are unfamiliar with the territory
\n we are exploring. They see it every night on their TV’s, double
\n on weekends and holidays; Janet Jackson’s bared breast, rap videos whose
\n wanton denigration of women and glorification of violence rivals Al
\n Qaeda, a dysfunctional and drug-addled Ozzie Osbourne making a millionaires’
\n mockery of American family values, Howard Stern flipping the bird at
\n the FCC, Seinfeld’s smug cynicism. They’ve seen it all, and they
\n want no part of it. Who can blame them?<\/p>\n
The true Lords of Globalization, the suits in the boardrooms, penthouses
\n and corner suites of the world’s multinational corporations, are trying
\n to sell a sophisticated, secular vision of world development to the
\n planet’s teeming masses. They see themselves as inheritors of a
\n tradition stretching back to Leonardo, Michelangelo and the Enlightenment,
\n shilling science, entertainment and consumerism as the solution to poverty,
\n pestilence and perverted political philosophies. Unfortunately, they aren’t even
\n buying that line back in the heartland.<\/p>\n
If any homegrown political movement (and what other kind has ever been
\n successful in America?) wants to seriously challenge the looming Republican
\n Century it had better come to the table with a firm moral compass. It
\n needs to get square with God, and build itself on the REAL traditional
\n American values: rugged individualism, tolerance, protection of the weak
\n and defenseless, promoting healthy families,chivalry – take that you
\n neo-feminists – personal honor and responsibility, common sense and an
\n achievement-based economic system where hard work is rewarded and saving
\n rather than borrowing is the way to improve one’s status and standard
\n of living.<\/p>\n
The betting in this corner is that the movement in question will not
\n have anything to do with the Democratic Party as presently constituted. It is more likely to begin
\n as a disillusioned splinter of the Republicans. Colin Powell’s resignation
\n today could be an auger of things to come. An admittedly ambitious man,
\n it has become clear he will not rise to the top job while the Republicans
\n are in the White House, not with an endless supply of Bushes and Bushoids
\n waiting in the wings.<\/p>\n
The Democratic party, in our book, is basically cooked, run out of ideas
\n and tied to a declining base of ineffectual losers. They have demonstrated
\n in two straight elections that the are so deeply mortgaged to the existing
\n economic power centers that they are incapable of offering
\n a viable
\n alternative
\n to the present politburo. The Republicans put on the better show, threw
\n the bigger party, and who can blame the American people for wanting to
\n hang with the swaggering winner over the hesitant Hamlet?<\/p>\n
The Dems will probably run poor Hillary in ’08, and she’ll get pulverized
\n on a scale not seen since George Mc Govern captured an incredible 17
\n electoral votes. She is doomed to living with an unrequited lust for
\n power and
\n the dubious honor of presiding over the dissolution of the Democratic
\n Party as a force in American politics.<\/p>\n
She has made too many enemies during her years at the center of the
\n maelstrom, and she wasn’t that likeable to begin with. Republicans are
\n never going to vote for her, and she has already lost a large chunk of the
\n Democratic electorate with her self-serving and transparent political
\n positioning. In America today only a Republican woman could win the presidency outright. She
\n would get all of the Republican votes on principle, and enough of the
\n sisterhood to tip the balance.<\/p>\n
In fact, Condi Rice may be making a run at the White House sooner than
\n any of us think. If she gets named Secretary of State she would
\n probably be accepted, popular and successful. And that chair, as we all
\n know, is only two seats from the head of the table.<\/p>\n
Rice article from the Here in the cradle of liberty we like to think of ourselves as early adopters, of things like independence, democracy, abolition, women’s suffrage, public education, private education, professional sports, microbreweries, indoor plumbing and massively corrupt and mismanaged public works projects. … Continue reading
\n New York Times<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"