Disagreeing With Dennis

I like Dennis Prager. He has a radio talk show out of LA that I am fortunate enough to hear in San Diego. He is calm, rational, a passionate conservative, endorses my favorite cigar shop but unfortunately this time, is wrong. To what am I referring? In this morning's San Diego Tribune Mr. Prager has an editorial piece titled "To GOP disaffected: Stay angry, but vote 'smart' and Republican anyway". Now I do not disagree with everything he says, but Mr. Prager creates a false dicotomy in his article by presuming that the only alternative to voting Republican is to vote Democrat. For smaller-government folks like me there are alternatives such as the Libertarian Party, for more socially conservative (yes, believe it or not there are those more conservative than the Republicans), there is the Constitution Party, and even for those who are really contemporary liberal in California I suggest you look at the Peace and Freedom Party or at a national level the Green Party. Now where I agree with Mr. Prager is that disaffected Republicans shouldn't vote Democrat. That would send the WRONG message to the National Republican politicos as well as making Democrats think that people actually support their ideas. Those of us whole fall under the Goldwater/Reagan brand of Republicanism don't and it would be wrong for us to vote Democrat simply to spank those Repulbican politicians in DC. If you are for smaller government, help the Libertarians. If you really are more theocratic, seriously consider parties such as the Constitution Party. As Ryan Sager points out in his excellent book The Elephant in the Room, both branches of the old "fusionism" have been abandoned by the current cabal of "big government conservatives" currently occupying the halls of power. Now granted, if enough of us did switch to third parties this election cycle Democrats would be the ultimate winners, but there HAS to be some way to tell the ruling Republicans that enough is enough and that WE WANT OUR PARTY BACK!

Does He Expect Us To Believe This?

I fear that Christianity has become infected by the liberal virus. What do I mean? Well, it is well known that the liberal elite consider evangelicals to be stupid, weak willed, and easily led. It appears that this same feeling is now among the evangelical elite. Consider the recent shenanigans of evangelist and former president of the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals) Ted Haggard. Now let's face it, people in places of power are mighty tempting targets for their opponents so it is not beyond the pale of belief that someone was "gunning" for him and started spreading stories about his hidden trysts with a gay prostitute. But, if they were not true, simple denial and demand for evidence should suffice. However, me thinks that "Rev" Haggard protests too much in his attempt to follow former President Clinton's "I smoked but didn't inhale" defense. I mean, really, does Ted Haggard actually think that the people who follow his ministry and the the people he associated with as head of the NAE believe that he:

Bought meth because he was curious about it, then threw it away.

Went to visit a male prostitute for a massage and didn't engage in sex.

Of course, what is as embarassing is how the politicos are playing it, chalking it up to some conspiracy because it is close to election time and using it to hurt either (1) the gay-related initiative in Colorado, (2) Rebpulicans in general (they don't need help in doing that, thanks Mr. Foley), and (3) George Bush himself since he calls himself evangelical.

Is this the best we conservatives can do (please note I call my self conservative, NOT Republican as I no longer believe they two are close enough to be properly interchangeable)? Are we really so stupid to believe Haggard's story AND the Republican response? I pray we aren't.