Home from the Democratic National Convention

Been crazed at my real job this week, but some thoughts on my couple of days at the DNC will come soon. I wasn't actually in the convention center, but i learned a couple of things just being there and talking to delegates, Democrats, and Denverites.

In the mean time, check out this classy (and of course, politically smart) spot by McCain that will run tonight during the convention.

East Village Republican vs. Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

Our latest debate over my last post:

BCPL:
the mccain campaign's press release for this ad confirms that all these quotes were pre-2006, when mccain's brand as a straight-talking bi-partisan maverick was still alive and well.

EVR:
Please, the accolades stopped because everyone knew he was going to run for president. Minus some recent (and slight) political maneuvering, McCain’s bi-partisan brand of governing is alive and well. See: Feingold’s latest praise.

This is in sharp contrast to your boy Obama who is second-to-none when it comes to Clinton-esque triangulation and can’t claim a single battle scar from choosing principle over popularity. This is why he lacks any significant across-the-aisle respect.

BCPL:
it's too bad he is in the process of reversing that image with his:

1. flip-flops (now supporting regressive bush tax cuts for the super-rich, now seeking political support of the christianist "agents of intolerance"),

EVR:
1) Looking at the entire picture, McCain’s original stance against the Bush tax cuts was due to his desire to have them accompanied by spending cuts. He’s been a supply-sider his entire career and has been as tough as anyone on fiscal restraint. He took a principled stand against the Big Government Conservatism that Bush brought to the White House, knowing that it could haunt him one day. He also rightly admits that at this point, repealing the cuts would be devastating for the economy.

2) The Bush tax cuts were incredibly PROGRESSIVE. The wealthiest 1% of the pop earn 19% of the income but pay 37% of the income tax. The top 10% pay 68%. The top 25% pay 85%. The bottom 50% pay 13%.

3) Can we please put the "seeking support of evangelists" complaint to bed? He needs these votes if he has any chance to win. Would I like him to denounce these crazies? Yes. Do I blame him for looking for their support? No. There is a stark difference between looking for evangelical votes (or votes from "agents of intolerance") and actively joining and participating in a church that is lead by a total religious nut case. For the sake of intellectual honesty, let's not equivocate on this one.

BCPL:
2. double-speak (erroneously offering off-shore drilling and a gas-tax suspension as a salve for high gas prices, falsely claiming "obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign"), and

3. political chicanery (blaming barack "paris/brittney" obama for high gas prices, claiming that obama snubbed wounded troops because he couldn't bring along cameras).

EVR:
Agree that the claim that Obama snubbed wounded troops was lame. But claiming that Obama is more deserving of a front cover on Entertainment Weekly than Congressional Quarterly is a fair argument. Second, I agree that the Dems would rather lose the war than lose their power. Their treatment of this war has been one of the most disgraceful things I've ever witnessed as an American. From Harry Reid declaring, prematurely, that the war is lost, to Obama's refusal to admit that the current stability in Iraq might be due mainly to the surge, it certainly appears that these positions have more to do with Democratic Party politics than a desire to see America achieve victory.

Regarding energy, off-shore drilling and a gas tax suspension would indeed lower gasoline prices at the pump. Drilling would drive prices down immediately (see: laws of supply and demand and global speculation) and the gas tax suspension is obvious. That said, the gas tax suspension is a quick fix political ploy and no substitute for sound, long-term strategy. Besides all the political maneuvering, the truth is that we need a comprehensive plan; one which includes both short term, environmentally sound drilling, and long term investment in renewables and nuclear. P.S. hasn't Obama actually recently reversed on drilling? Gosh, what a quandary for the Democrats! A candidate is actually making sense on energy! Also, Paris Hilton may be on to something on this issue.

BCPL:
much like these video quotes, i've always maintained respect for mccain and his message even while disagreeing with many of his policy positions. however, he has allowed this campaign to bring out the worst in him, and that respect is now in incredibly short supply.

and sorry, no uber-links this time. ;)

A Response to The Pinko Commie Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Commie Pinko responded to my previous post. My responses are interstitial within his:

wow. okay, this will be easy:

1. obama's campaign did not approve the publication of the prayer nor did they distribute its contents beforehand. it's clear the paper is trying to find a defense against their possibly-illegal violation of privacy charges. the offending student who took the note has since apologized and the note has been returned.

EVR: And yet, Obama hasn’t denied it and the spokesman’s line, "We have neither confirmed nor denied the prayer to anyone" is pretty damn hazy.

2. while despicable to me (as both a political junkie and a secular humanist) the politicization of faith in american politics is nothing new. see such exhibits as:

A. GWB's lying about his conversion with billy graham, in order to curry political favor with evangelicals and be elected president.

EVR: Read the article and it doesn’t convince me that Bush lied. Graham didn’t outright say that he wasn’t the one to convert Bush (plus, I wouldn’t expect Graham to disregard humility and take credit for something as subjective as, “the moment I truly accepted jesus.”

This is in Stark contrast to Obama’s clearly political “come to jesus moment” when he was “interviewing" churches that could provide him with a black political face card: (click view single page, then word search for "Trinity United Church") http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all


B. lieberman's embrace of a fundamentalist christian who preaches a gospel that praises the destruction and painful death of lieberman's very people via the rapture.

EVR: This is the most complex topic of the bunch. As a Jew, I understand the cognitive dissonance that a relationship with the fundamentalists inspires. I believe that Lieberman is a good man and an honest man and while I disagree with 90% of his politics, I’ll trust him that this wasn’t a political move. You may disagree, but I think it is highly subjective. What I know for a fact, is that in a world in which it seems that you’re still everyone’s scapegoat … in a world in which the land that we belong to (and belongs to us is questioned daily, threatened daily) we are faced with choosing friends that make strange bedfellows. I’d also say that since we don’t really believe in the fundamentalist version of the apocalypse, it’s easier to take their hand in friendship. Only the future knows the philosophical (and perhaps political) cost of this odd symbiosis.

C. and most galling of all, mccain's complete and utter flip-flop regarding jerry falwell and other "agents of intolerance". i strongly support mccain's 2000 position on this issue. this reversal is most disturbing.

EVR: Blah blah blah … McCain betrayed some values here for sure. But it’s different to accept support from one of these crazies than to sit in their church every Sunday for 20 years. This is no subtle distinction.

all-in-all, this entire "god triangulation" charge smacks of typical right-wing campaign smear jobs, where issues are not debated honestly (see: mccain's current crop of dishonest TV propaganda) and personal attacks on one's character substitute for political discourse (see: mccain's "would rather lose a war" nonsense).

EVR, i'm disappointed to hear your voice in that echo chamber.

EVR: I'll see you at 8p for dinner tonight you damn Commie Pinko. We'll slug it out more then.

Just Beat It ... Again: A Response to the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal

My well-intentioned friend, the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal, recently posted a piece about the evil Republican joy of torture. BCPL listed 5 reasons he’s against the use of any "enhanced" information seeking techniques:

1. Immoral and inhumane
2. Universally illegal (under the Geneva Conventions, UCMJ and US Law, among others)
3. Ineffective
4. Counter-productive, making us less safe
5. Inconsistent with American values

At the end of last year, I posted a few thoughts on the subject; inspired by the previous evening’s Democratic debate. You’ll see that while I don’t condone torture for torture’s sake, there is something to be gained from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The ticking bomb scenario may be mostly academic, but it’s a necessary discussion none-the-less and ultimately separates those who support a reasonable security measure vs. those who are dogmatically demented by liberal ideology.

Here’s my take again:

The United States must not be in the business of torture. However, to be brutally honest, I believe there are more important things to care about than whether or not a few EVIL ANIMALS WHO SEEK TO MURDER INNOCENT PEOPLE get roughed up a bit by their American captors. The main points against it (what it may do to our moral standing in the world; it makes us less safe) seem a bit naive -- these Islamic Crazies were killing women and children way before Bush and Cheney took office and began "ruining" America's international good will.

Further, only three terrorists were actually subjected to waterboarding, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind operations chief of 9/11. His interrogation was conducted not to extract a confession but in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when further attacks seemed likely and intelligence about Al Qaeda's operations was limited. The CIA Director testified that these interrogations saved lives. To put it bluntly, I'm not losing any sleep knowing that bad guys like KSM are being thoroughly questioned.

Maybe the BCPL should be concerned about more important issues, like the fact that Iran may have nukes soon and Obama only wants to sit down and have a little chat about it.

A Re-rebuttal to the Commie Pinko's Obama Comments

Below is the list of arguments made by the Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal in rebuttal to my previous Obama post (see below). Here's my re-re-buttal.

Look out for the EVR ripping the commie pinko liberal a new ass on his blog shortly.


EVR argument #1

Obama is not a post-partisan politician.

Commie Pinko rebuttal

You can't expect BO to be his own man because he's too new. Also, just look at his time spent as a state senator and you'll see he's bipartisan.

The truth

I actually did look at BO's record. It is the ultimate example of a man legislating as politcal operative. Check it out.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., do we want a president whose favorite vote seems to be, "present"?

EVR argument #2

BO's premise that his good judgement overrides his lack of experience is flawed: This country needs a man who makes decisions based on what he thinks is right and not what is politically expedient.

Commie Pink rebuttal

Look how far that argument has gotten us with the devil, W. Also, both McCain and Obama combine principled leadership with politcal strategery, just look at the littany of flip-flops on each side.

The truth

McCain is an imperfect candidate and at times seems to buck the party line just to tweak the GOP's nuts, but he's a man with convictions. He's proven time and again that he's willing to do tough work that won't make him popular (i.e. Immigration reform, Campaign Finance reform, the Gang of 14 vote on judges, etc.). He pissed me off by voting against the Bush tax cuts, and even used very liberal language to rail against them ("lining the pockets of the wealthy," etc.), but his main motivation for the "nay" vote was that he felt that any tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. In my mind, a bad vote that will be used against him, but a vote made in the name of principle none-the-less.

BO, on the other hand, has now pivoted from former positions on: an immediate Iraq pullout, the D.C. gun ban, the terror suveillance program, unilateral action on NAFTA, and public campaign fincancing. Obama seems to be promising a third Bush administration with all of these right wing views!

More Obama Myths to come soon ... plus rebuttals on the Billyburg Pinko Liberal's posts. Stay tuned...

A New Blog Format

Dear EVR readers,

We're trying a new format here for a while. A fellow New York resident and friend has just started a new blog across the Williamsburg Bridge in Brooklyn. He's a tried and true New York commie pinko bastard and we're going to try a little point/counter point and see if we can make things interesting leading up to the election.

I hope it proves stimulating, fun, or just downright nasty.

Here's where he can be found:

The Billyburg Commie Pinko Liberal (good lord!)

We'll do a bunch of linking to make it easy to toggle between our discussions.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican

Red Sox Flip Flop Dooms Giuliani in Republican Race

“I will be rooting for the Red Sox…you won the division and we lost. Somehow it makes me feel better if the team that was ahead of the Yankees wins the World Series, because then I feel like, well, we’re not that bad.”

-Former New York Mayor and Die-Hard Yankee Fan Rudy Giuliani on campaign trail in New Hampshire (Red Sox country)


When the New York Post reported Rudy’s BoSox claim, it was October 23rd and he was leading the national polls and well ahead in big pre-Super Tuesday states like Florida. A Quinnipiac University Poll had Giuliani at 30 percent and John McCain at 14 percent. It also showed him beating Hillary 46-43 and Obama 47-40. In the final outcome on January 29th, Florida was the guillotine for the former New York Mayor’s dumb all-or-nothing campaign strategy which bet it all on a victory in the Sunshine State.

As you know, it didn’t work, and he placed a very distant third (14.6%) to winner John McCain (36%) and runner-up Mitt Romney (31.1%). What happened? There were no big blow-ups, no Dean-like screams, no floosies. Some pundits will complain that the New York Times pulled a front page hit job on him every other day and he got clobbered by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. He also looked stupid taking a phone call from his wife in the middle of an NRA speech – an attempt to look like a family man (or something), though it came across as staged and rude.

But let’s face it, most readers of the Times and most members of the NRA weren’t going to give Rudy their vote anyway. So what really happened? The Red Sox flip-flop is what happened. Rudy’s whole thing was that he was a foreign policy hawk, a national security strongman, a man who may be unlikable, but whose backbone was strong. The Red Sox flip-flop brought his entire character into question. For sports fans (and especially Boston and Yankees fans) this infidelity was tantamount to saying, “If America loses in Iraq, I hope Al-Qaeda takes over the world so at least we lost to the best.”

Suddenly Republicans started to question Rudy's meddle in the face of evil. And once they began to do that, McCain looked like a much more attractive candidate. These guys were fighting for the same national security votes, but McCain didn’t switch alliances because it was politically convenient. McCain also didn’t have questions about shady business dealings or questions about public money paying for his mistress’s limo rides. McCain was willing to say the hard things that needed to be said (though it cost him in Michigan) and primary voters trusted him even if they disagreed with him.

It seems like a small thing, but sometimes these little details completely affect the brand image that voters conjure when pulling the lever in the voting booth. I’m curious to see what happens next time Rudy shows up at a Yankees game. He might fare worse than he did in the Republican Primary.

10 New Year's Wishes for 2008

1) No Hillary
2) No Obama
3) A New York Giants Super Bowl Victory
4) Status Quo on Health Care (if there’s a Democratic President and Congress)
5) Major comprehensive Health Care Reform (if the Republicans make a sweep)
6) A New York Yankees World Series Victory
7) A doubling of my blog’s readership (this will bring total eyeballs to 8. For any Democrats reading this, that’s 4 people)
8) Catch Osama
9) No nukes for Iran
10) A New York Times cease fire on Rudy

Can U.S. Troops Leave Iraq Anytime Soon?

After watching this video of American soldiers training Iraqi soldiers, the clear answer is: No, we're screwed.

Newt Gingrich On The Free Market vs. Government Bureaucracy

Newt makes his first appearance on The East Village Republican.

Are U.S. Sugar Quotas Making Us Fat?

This week WebMD reported that we are “Drinking ourselves to obesity -- Americans now get nearly twice as many calories from beverages as they did in the 1960s.” This isn’t surprising. Obesity rates have ballooned to over 30% of the adult population – double what they were in the early 1980s. But what’s changed about our beverages?

High Fructose Corn Syrup
Around the same time these obesity rates began to rise, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) started finding its way into many of our favorite food and drink products. Its critics call it the “Devil’s Candy” and it is thought of as one of the natural food movement’s evil-doers, along with MSG, Trans Fats, and Partially Hydrogenated Oil. HFCS sweetens obvious favorites like Coke, Pepsi, and Snapple iced tea, but it also lurks in unexpected places like Ritz crackers, Wonder bread, and Campbell’s tomato soup.

How Protectionism Brought Us HFCS
In the book, “Fat Land,” journalist Greg Critser makes the case that U.S. policies that aimed to stabilize food prices and support corn production in the 1970s led to a glut of corn and then HFCS. Anti free market trade legislation sought to protect domestic sugar producers from international markets, which in turn drove up the cost of sugar and made alternatives like corn-derived sweeteners very attractive to food and beverage makers. An article in the Economist summed up the situation well: "Outrageous import quotas keep the domestic price of sugar at double that of the world price."

This is clearly a case of protectionism for the benefit of powerful domestic producers and is simply bad policy. U.S. steel quotas illustrates the issue well. When the government protected the steel industry from foreign competition, the price of steel skyrocketed. Shielded by this false market mechanism, the steel business appeared healthy and employment grew. But trade restrictions neither create nor destroy jobs; they reallocate them. Employment in businesses using steel, like auto and appliance manufacturers, paid higher prices and lost their ability to compete in international markets. For the American consumer, the cost of a Chevy was now more expensive (or lower quality) due to the higher prices that General Motors had to pay for steel. A cheaper, higher quality Toyota suddenly became a very attractive option. Ultimately, output and employment shrank in the U.S. automobile business and offset any gains in the steel industry.

But how did bad trade policy drive American obesity rates?

No simple explanation
The answer is a bit tricky. Like everyone else, I’ve been hearing all the bad things about HFCS. The story goes like this:

1. Its introduction strongly correlates with obesity rates
2. The body processes the fructose differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to deliver more fat into the bloodstream.

But according to an article in the NY Times,

“the name "high-fructose corn syrup" is something of a misnomer. It is high only in relation to regular corn syrup, not to sugar. The version of high-fructose corn syrup used in sodas and other sweetened drinks consists of 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose, very similar to white sugar, which is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose. The form of high-fructose corn syrup used in other products like breads, jams and yogurt — 42 percent fructose and 58 percent glucose — is actually lower in fructose than white sugar.”

The hypothesis has been mistaken for sound science, as most scientists believe the idea that HFCS is bad for us is tenuous at best.

What about the strong correlation between obesity rates and HFCS?
HFCS is responsible, but indirectly. Around the same time sugar quotas made HFCS a very cheap alternative, consumer behavior began to undergo significant changes. Manufacturers were able to makes lots of sweet stuff on the cheap and Americans officially entered into its Super Size Me mentality. The same NY Times article reports:

“From 1980 to 2000, per-person consumption of sweetened soda rose by 40 percent, to 440 12-ounce cans a year, according to the Agriculture Department's Economic Research Service. During roughly the same period, the inflation-adjusted price of soda declined by about one-third, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

“In 1983, for example, 7-Eleven rolled out its 44-ounce soda and, in 1988, the huge 64-ounce. And McDonald's began supersizing its drinks in the late 80's.”

Who knows?
So we’ve basically got a bunch of hypotheses, but it’s highly possible that the nutritional value (or lack thereof) of HFCS isn’t making us fat, but the overwhelming prevalence of cheap, over-sweetened food and beverage products that Americans consume on a yearly basis.

Our inability to control our appetite for sweets isn’t grounds for making U.S. trade policy, but it is certainly an example of the unintended consequences of barriers to the free market. The protection of one resource may tilt the balance towards another, often with poor results.

What Trent Lott's Retirement Says About U.S. Politics

This is an interesting article from Wednesday’s Washington Post, about Minority Whip Trent Lott’s retirement and the Senate’s fading ability to compromise across party lines.

The piece states, “A major overhaul of the nation's immigration laws went down in flames. Just two of a dozen annual spending bills passed Congress, and one of those was vetoed. Repeated efforts to force a course change in Iraq ended in recrimination and stalemate. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) filed 56 motions to break off filibusters to try to complete legislation, a total that is nearing the record of 61 such "cloture motions" in a two-year Congress.

“Lott's departure from Capitol Hill in the coming weeks after 34 years in Congress -- 16 in the House, 18 in the Senate -- is further evidence that bonhomie and cross-party negotiating are losing their currency, even in the backslapping Senate.”

The truth is, the legislature isn't becoming partisan – it’s been that way for a long time. But it does feel like we’re living in a totally polarized political environment. Perhaps my view is skewed because I live in the East Village, in New York City -- the locus of liberalism on the East Coast.

I once worked next to a copywriter who would have loud daily conversations with his work partner likening Israel to Al-Qaeda, wishing for centralized government, and spewing hateful 9/11 conspiracies about President Bush and Dick Cheney. I'd overheard enough one day and defended some reasonable conservative ideals. I suddenly became branded throughout the company as a right-wing nut. In fact, the Chief Creative Officer, who I was friendly with, came up to me at a work function and said, “I never would have thought you were a Republican … you seemed … so normal.” I keep my name off this blog because it would be bad for my career.

To be fair, I’m sure the same scenario in reverse occurs in Lubbock, Lincoln, and Salt Lake. But it tells me that we’re spreading further apart on issues that used to be considered private or local. Many of today’s key debates were once deemed the domain of individuals, families, towns, and states. They’ve unfortunately become national and are consistently shaped by those on the margins –- left and right. I’m a die hard conservative on fiscal policy, foreign policy, and ideas about government’s role in our lives, but I believe that reasonable people, red and blue, can come to some consensus about topics like immigration, social security, and abortion.

Even better, perhaps our national debates on these hot button issues should be kicked back to the local level and not be national at all. Should we have really been discussing the fate of Terry Schiavo on a national scale? Do we really need federal government dictating appropriate sexual health lessons in schools when needs are different in Vermont, Harlem, and Kansas? Conversely, why can’t I decide what to do with my retirement funds? The dead-on-arrival plan to invest 3% of our own SS money in a private account is not that radical.

This polarization of politics shows me that we shouldn't be leaving everything up to the politicians. I don't want a bunch of backslapping, pork-slopping legislators deciding what the future of healthcare looks like for my generation. The Bridge to Nowhere is not just in Alaska. In the incompetent hands of beaurocrats, it potentially leads to our future as well.

The New York Times Advocates a Tax Hike, but Low Taxes Work

The New York Times ran an opinion piece on taxes and national healthcare that is clearly the antidote to a healthy economy. It’s scary to think that this is the type of view that a Democratic president would champion. The Times says:

“This country’s meager tax take puts its economic prospects at risk and leaves the government ill equipped to face the challenges from globalization.

"Germans…paid more in taxes, as a share of their economies.”

But when you look at what makes an economy tick, it’s generally low taxes, limited regulation, and a fair system of justice. Major tax cuts have historically proven that individuals - champions of innovation and limitless human ingenuity - drive positive and robust growth when government is not overbearing. For example, Kennedy’s major tax overhaul, Reagan’s supply-side reform, and Bush’s 2003 program, show cutting taxes, not raising them is the handmaiden of success. Take a look at the three charts at the top, which show revenue, employment, and GDP growth since the Bush cuts were enacted. The third box also shows that the middle class is not shouldering this burden. In fact, it's just the opposite.

Think this only works in the United States? In a 2005 op-ed, Thomas Friedman extolled the virtues of lowering taxes in Ireland, a perennial bottom-feeder.

This is what he had to say:

“Ireland today is the richest country in the European Union after Luxembourg…while those following the French-German social model are suffering high unemployment and low growth…a program of fiscal austerity, slashing corporate taxes to 12.5 percent, far below the rest of Europe...And overall government tax receipts are way up.”

Growth and innovation are on the march in the land of St. Pat's. The world is certainly flat when Dell, Intel, and other corporate captains of industry call Ireland home. Among other things, they were both attracted by “low corporate taxes.”

The Times is also a proponent of a Hillary Clinton-type national healthcare:

“From universal health insurance to decent unemployment insurance, other rich nations provide their citizens benefits that the United States government simply cannot afford.

“The consequences include some 47 million Americans without health insurance and companies like General Motors being dragged to the brink by the cost of providing workers and pensioners with medical care.”

Greg Mankiw, professor of economics at Harvard University counters this perspective nicely:

"What the Times seems to be saying is that because companies like General Motors have promised levels of compensation too large to make them competitive in the international marketplace, we should shift the responsibility for some of that compensation from the companies to the taxpayer. An alternative approach is for the companies to reduce compensation to levels they can afford. One might respond that reduced compensation would be hard on workers. But so would the higher taxes needed to pay for the national health insurance the Times is lobbying for. There is no free lunch here."

As economies in the 21t century become more knowledge and information based, successful governments will allow individuals to flourish and promote a light-footprint approach. Heavy-handedness will only serve to stifle both rich and poor alike.

Jon Stewart is a smug weenie

I watched Jon Stewart when he hosted the very first talk show on MTV. I 'd never heard of him before, but I found him funny, irreverent, and, well, likeable. Unfortunately, the show got yanked and he ended up doing a late-night show that replaced Arsenio Hall on channel 9 in NY. It didn't last that long, but he'd made his mark and his career would soon take off big time.

His big breakthrough came when he replaced Craig Kilborn as the new host of the Daily Show on Comedy Central in 1999. Again Stewart was great and we all know what it's become (It won an Emmy in 2001). But it's been down hill ever since. I can't really watch it anymore. Jon Stewart went from funny and original to smug and predictable.

I'll admit upfront that I disagree with his politics. I'm a Republican and he's obviously a very far-left-leaning liberal. But it shouldn't matter in comedy. A good joke is a good joke, even if you don't necessarily like who's at the butt. But Stewart has become a one-note band. The definition of a joke is the delivery of something incongruous or unexpected. Yet I know what's going to come out of Stewart's mouth every time: Iraq's a bungled mess, Bush is dumb, Cheney is secretive and evil, the Republicans are hypocrites. Yeah he'll make fun of Hillary every now and then, but it's never as biting; never venomous.

I really wish the Daily Show could still keep us on our toes. Give us a little misdirection once in a while and say something awful about Barack Obama or Harry Reid. Not be so damn obvious all the time. Even its comedic offspring (Stephen Colbert) has an act of pseudo-conservatism that's predictable and tired.

The worst part for me is that Stewart used to be a great interviewer. But he's lost credibility with his softballs to Ralph Nader and Noam Chomsky and his obvious disgust for anyone he disagree with. Even when Mr. Stewart is "trying" to be cordial (see below clips of guest Lynne Cheney), he comes across as a smug weenie. To me, he even came across as a jerk when he called Tucker Carlson a "dick." I wasn't even a fan of CNN's Crossfire and I essentially agree with Stewart's premise that America needs less far right/far left screaming matches, but I saw the smugness that day and it's only gotten worse since then.

Much of the bloggeratti feel like Stewart may have gone "easy" on Mrs. Cheney the other day, but I think he couldn't help but let the weenie come out just a little bit. His assertion that six years without an attack on American soil is meaningless because "they" waited "eight years between WTC attacks last time" is simply absurd. I'm not saying that things are great over in the Mid-East, but let's get real about how this war started (EVERYONE, including Bill Clinton, the U.N., the French, and the Russians thought Hussein had WMD) and let's get real about what that part of the world, in fact, what the entire world could be like should we hit the reset button and get out. I guarantee it would be a million times worse both long and short term with more American lives sacrificed home and abroad.

Anyway, Cheney is sweet as can be and Stewart is just annoying in the clips below (it gets pretty bad in pt. 2). See for yourself:

Hello

I'd like to introduce myself. I've been in New York since 2000 and moved to the East Village in 2002. I work at a well known advertising agency and have been in the ad business since 1999.

I plan to use these pages to discuss politics and foreign affairs, but I'll also talk about sports and pop culture. While I'm one of a million Yankees fans in the city, I promise you that I've never met another conservative in my neck of the woods in all the years I've been here. South of 14th and east of 3rd is a bastion of the most leftward-leaning folks in the entire nation. Per capita, there are more Che Guevara T-shirts than any other form of currency or legal tender, and I plan to write about the world from the perspective of a lonely Republican in the East Village.

One other thing before I sign off my first post. I'm not your typical establishment Republican. If you've read P.J. O'Rourke or listened to Dennis Miller, you might know where I'm coming from. I'm into free markets, free choice, and know that we've got no choice but to have the strongest military in the world and be unafraid to use it wisely. I did say wisely.

Thanks for reading.

The East Village Republican