Do you guys ever re-read what we’ve written here? I mean really page back a couple of months and see where we were then, as compared to now?
I have been going back tonight (this morning) and looking over old threads, and I see something that seems to apply to recent discussions.
In the debates we’ve had over the need and expediency of a “wall” between Mexico and the US, Ryan (and James, to a degree) seem to think that it is necessary based on its basis as the “law of the land” first, and as a factor in national security second. Isn’t that a mantra of Ryan’s? “Enforcement first”?
In our debates of the question of “aggressive interrogation”, Ryan (and James) seem to think that it is expedient to do what is needed to achieve greater national security, regardless of established American law, while I advocate adherence to the “law” as a primary basis for conducting the interrogations, even at the cost of potential (if not actual) applicable intelligence.
In short, YOU say that the wall should be built because it is the LAW to have it built. I say that water-boarding is ILLEGAL because the current Code of Federal Regulations defines it as such, and has since 1949.
How can one be right in one instance, but not both? How did Ryan say it? “So, you are either pro-law enforcement or pro-anarchy ... there's no in between.”
So, are you pro-law enforcement or not?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Here's one for you...
Many times we have discussed the role of the media in current affairs, especially the role of biased media in the War on Terror, and it’s battlegrounds in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many times we have all contrasted the difference between the media’s coverage in ’91 to the media’s coverage in ’01 and beyond.
Now, the role of “embedded” journalists in the Gulf War of ’91 has been understood to be “regulated” by the military. The primary source of information concerning the war was given by the Pentagon, and not by professional journalists in the field. Footage from the field was seen to support or corroborate the information that was being given in the Defense Department briefings that we all recall seeing on a daily basis.
I still think this was a good way to manage information to the country. No one could cry “foul” with any real enthusiasm, as the bulk of the nation and ALL of the opposition groups that wanted a voice could find whatever they needed in counter-point journalism online or on TV at any time. However, it meant something (to me, anyway) that the PRIMARY source of official news was the US Military… and not CNN or ABC or CBS. As important a source as CNN was during this conflict, they still could only scroll between the reporters in Baghdad and the Pentagon press room.
Tragedies like the bombing of the Amiriyah bunker in Feb. of ’91 brought to light some of the failings of this kind of information dissemination, but don’t (in my opinion) negate its function in society. Had the military announced the action immediately as the unfortunate collateral deaths of hundreds of civilians caused by the Iraqi policy of using non-combatants as shields from Coalition bombs, rather than remaining mute until the story was completely broken by the BBC and other foreign media outlets, perhaps the impressions made at home would have been more favorable.
The intervening years brought many criticisms of the policy from the public sectors, and mainly from the mainstream media outlets. Calls that the information given was intended to make the war look sterile and automatic were legitimate, but no more so than the bias now brought about by the agendas of the anti-Bush liberal press in their coverage of the Iraq War. I have always failed to see why the military would be expected to give any different point of view than the one that they are expected to hold when executing combat operations… i.e. that they maintain a cold, detached and distant position from the operations they conduct, and the consequences of those operations.
In discussing this issue, we here at the Bund have agreed that some degree of “official” regard to what information is made public and what isn’t and when it is made public is a GOOD THING. So many points could be made in defense of this… historical, tactical, strategic, moral, ethical… that I won’t even try to go into them now. The other side of the coin would argue that ALL information must be made available IMMEDIATELY as a guaranty of the freedoms of the First Amendment.
As much of a supporter of the First Amendment as I am… this argument is absolute crap.
For example…
The blog run by Matt Drudge called the “Drudge Report” (see Ryan’s link to the right) is a frequently-cited source for many conservative pundits looking for topical news headlines. Little of what one find on the page is original material… the rest is simply links to other news or information outlets. Yesterday, Drudge ran an article link stating the British Royal Prince Harry was pulling front-line service with his Household Cavalry Regiment, Blues and Royals.
This surprise was made all the greater when it was learned that he had been there for more than 10 weeks, and that the BBC and other British and Commonwealth news agencies had promised to keep the news quiet until such time as the Prince and his units were no longer under an added degree of danger because of the Prince’s position. This is important… it wasn’t only the Prince that was being protected, but the 1500 men he serves with due to the nature of Harry’s position and his perceived value as a terror target. It seems that 25 weeks of combat duty on the front-lines of Afghanistan is tough enough, without the added threat of such a “valuable” target as the third in line for the British Throne.
So, Drudge breaks the story. In only hours, every media outlet in the world is broadcasting the news that Harry is in the mountains of Afghanistan, only a few miles from the Pakistani border… some of the most dangerous ground in the war on terror one could hope to find.
My question is this: What purpose does this serve? How is the “conservative” cause fronted by Drudge better off with the news that Harry is serving in the Stan? Does it matter to anyone that this man literally fought tooth and nail to get the assignment at all, and now it will be cut short because the news broke early? Did Drudge have a responsibility… ethical, if not legal… to check with someone before posting it to his website? Say Whitehall? Or Downing Street? Or even the US State Department?
I’m not judging here. This is a serious question. I know the man has the RIGHT to publish the news, guaranteed under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However, just because one has the right to do something, doesn’t mean it should be done. Just because one CAN do something, does that mean one MUST do that thing?
Now, the role of “embedded” journalists in the Gulf War of ’91 has been understood to be “regulated” by the military. The primary source of information concerning the war was given by the Pentagon, and not by professional journalists in the field. Footage from the field was seen to support or corroborate the information that was being given in the Defense Department briefings that we all recall seeing on a daily basis.
I still think this was a good way to manage information to the country. No one could cry “foul” with any real enthusiasm, as the bulk of the nation and ALL of the opposition groups that wanted a voice could find whatever they needed in counter-point journalism online or on TV at any time. However, it meant something (to me, anyway) that the PRIMARY source of official news was the US Military… and not CNN or ABC or CBS. As important a source as CNN was during this conflict, they still could only scroll between the reporters in Baghdad and the Pentagon press room.
Tragedies like the bombing of the Amiriyah bunker in Feb. of ’91 brought to light some of the failings of this kind of information dissemination, but don’t (in my opinion) negate its function in society. Had the military announced the action immediately as the unfortunate collateral deaths of hundreds of civilians caused by the Iraqi policy of using non-combatants as shields from Coalition bombs, rather than remaining mute until the story was completely broken by the BBC and other foreign media outlets, perhaps the impressions made at home would have been more favorable.
The intervening years brought many criticisms of the policy from the public sectors, and mainly from the mainstream media outlets. Calls that the information given was intended to make the war look sterile and automatic were legitimate, but no more so than the bias now brought about by the agendas of the anti-Bush liberal press in their coverage of the Iraq War. I have always failed to see why the military would be expected to give any different point of view than the one that they are expected to hold when executing combat operations… i.e. that they maintain a cold, detached and distant position from the operations they conduct, and the consequences of those operations.
In discussing this issue, we here at the Bund have agreed that some degree of “official” regard to what information is made public and what isn’t and when it is made public is a GOOD THING. So many points could be made in defense of this… historical, tactical, strategic, moral, ethical… that I won’t even try to go into them now. The other side of the coin would argue that ALL information must be made available IMMEDIATELY as a guaranty of the freedoms of the First Amendment.
As much of a supporter of the First Amendment as I am… this argument is absolute crap.
For example…
The blog run by Matt Drudge called the “Drudge Report” (see Ryan’s link to the right) is a frequently-cited source for many conservative pundits looking for topical news headlines. Little of what one find on the page is original material… the rest is simply links to other news or information outlets. Yesterday, Drudge ran an article link stating the British Royal Prince Harry was pulling front-line service with his Household Cavalry Regiment, Blues and Royals.
This surprise was made all the greater when it was learned that he had been there for more than 10 weeks, and that the BBC and other British and Commonwealth news agencies had promised to keep the news quiet until such time as the Prince and his units were no longer under an added degree of danger because of the Prince’s position. This is important… it wasn’t only the Prince that was being protected, but the 1500 men he serves with due to the nature of Harry’s position and his perceived value as a terror target. It seems that 25 weeks of combat duty on the front-lines of Afghanistan is tough enough, without the added threat of such a “valuable” target as the third in line for the British Throne.
So, Drudge breaks the story. In only hours, every media outlet in the world is broadcasting the news that Harry is in the mountains of Afghanistan, only a few miles from the Pakistani border… some of the most dangerous ground in the war on terror one could hope to find.
My question is this: What purpose does this serve? How is the “conservative” cause fronted by Drudge better off with the news that Harry is serving in the Stan? Does it matter to anyone that this man literally fought tooth and nail to get the assignment at all, and now it will be cut short because the news broke early? Did Drudge have a responsibility… ethical, if not legal… to check with someone before posting it to his website? Say Whitehall? Or Downing Street? Or even the US State Department?
I’m not judging here. This is a serious question. I know the man has the RIGHT to publish the news, guaranteed under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However, just because one has the right to do something, doesn’t mean it should be done. Just because one CAN do something, does that mean one MUST do that thing?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Spot on ....
It's no secret that Jambo & I are simpatico on the fence issue - planning, cost, implementation & necessity are something we've agreed upon for years now. But there is an insidious problem within our political/social/business structure that is hindering this well thought out, practical, common sense approach that Jambo explained in the post before. And Titus is a glaring example of what it is - CERTAIN PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT! Titus and the American left think it ethnocentristic. They scoff at the very idea of not allowing people in at will as something bordering on racist elitism. Then the other prong of two in delaying this fence is the business community that benefits from slave labor at an untold rate. And from the outside, staring at these two wondering why they're soaking up good oxygen, stands the common sense, law abiding Americans like Jambo & I, asking "what the f***? Just build the damn thing, it's the law!"
In truth if any of you whom oppose this fence, real & virtual, cared at all about the humane treatment of these people, the safety of American lives, drug trafficking, or enhancing American based industry then you would join forces with us and insist that the human trafficking, slave wage enabling, desert dying, hashish smuggling, terrorist vulnerable Southern border be ENFORCED! And FYI: the government, in extreme situations, can cut red tape with the best of them & buy from Home Depot or whomever else will get it done at a reasonable cost. But like I said, enough people with beltway power & influence don't want it done and thus the converse is true - the feds can implement red tape in extreme situations (i.e. desperately wanting to maintain the status quo) with the best of them.
The bottom line is that there is no sane argument for opposition to this barrier. After all, it is the law. So, you are either pro-law enforcement or pro-anarchy ... there's no in between.
In truth if any of you whom oppose this fence, real & virtual, cared at all about the humane treatment of these people, the safety of American lives, drug trafficking, or enhancing American based industry then you would join forces with us and insist that the human trafficking, slave wage enabling, desert dying, hashish smuggling, terrorist vulnerable Southern border be ENFORCED! And FYI: the government, in extreme situations, can cut red tape with the best of them & buy from Home Depot or whomever else will get it done at a reasonable cost. But like I said, enough people with beltway power & influence don't want it done and thus the converse is true - the feds can implement red tape in extreme situations (i.e. desperately wanting to maintain the status quo) with the best of them.
The bottom line is that there is no sane argument for opposition to this barrier. After all, it is the law. So, you are either pro-law enforcement or pro-anarchy ... there's no in between.
Man, I never for the LIFE of me...
... thought I'd sympathize with Ryan, but you have lost your freaking mind.
I cannot help it if the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior and the United State Border Patrol cannot collectively pull its head out of its ass. Any legislative body that wants to waste 20 million on an experiment for a "virtual" fence can come and clean two year old storm debris out of my neighborhood.
What I advocated, and still do, is the construction of an ACTUAL fence, you know, chain link? Posts set into the ground? A physical barrier? Still can get that deal, for easy math let's call it ten bucks a foot for a ten foot high fence with some barb wire on the top to discourage climbing and jumping. And I'll even pay for 2000 miles, because our government can't do anything on time and under budget anymore. So, $10 per foot at 5,280 ft. per mile is $52,800 per mile. Multiplied by 2000 miles is $105,600,000.
The off the shelf surveillance equipment I discussed last time was about $.50 per foot fifteen years ago. I'll give you 100% inflation and say our government would spend a buck a foot on off the shelf quality surveillance. To wire the border for video is $10,560,000. This is an initial expense, not a maintenance fee or something that accounts for the personnel to man and watch the TVs. Just the install fee.
What is so freaking hard about that? For a nation that is going to spend 1.75 TRILLION (nine zeroes, ladies and gentlemen) for 2009, what is the migraine over a fence?
Now just because some idiot is getting his nuts roasted in front of an oversight committee because they blew 20 mil on a bad idea does not make mine bad. My idea is feasible, workable, fiscally doable and exactly what the country has been screaming for since 2001.
I cannot help it if the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of the Interior and the United State Border Patrol cannot collectively pull its head out of its ass. Any legislative body that wants to waste 20 million on an experiment for a "virtual" fence can come and clean two year old storm debris out of my neighborhood.
What I advocated, and still do, is the construction of an ACTUAL fence, you know, chain link? Posts set into the ground? A physical barrier? Still can get that deal, for easy math let's call it ten bucks a foot for a ten foot high fence with some barb wire on the top to discourage climbing and jumping. And I'll even pay for 2000 miles, because our government can't do anything on time and under budget anymore. So, $10 per foot at 5,280 ft. per mile is $52,800 per mile. Multiplied by 2000 miles is $105,600,000.
The off the shelf surveillance equipment I discussed last time was about $.50 per foot fifteen years ago. I'll give you 100% inflation and say our government would spend a buck a foot on off the shelf quality surveillance. To wire the border for video is $10,560,000. This is an initial expense, not a maintenance fee or something that accounts for the personnel to man and watch the TVs. Just the install fee.
What is so freaking hard about that? For a nation that is going to spend 1.75 TRILLION (nine zeroes, ladies and gentlemen) for 2009, what is the migraine over a fence?
Now just because some idiot is getting his nuts roasted in front of an oversight committee because they blew 20 mil on a bad idea does not make mine bad. My idea is feasible, workable, fiscally doable and exactly what the country has been screaming for since 2001.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
As you can tell...
I have some down-time here at the casino.
After spending the first 3 hours of the shift actually doing what I am supposed to do for 8 hours, and then spending another 5 hours working on a budget proposal for the department I work in, I now find myself with the last 2 hours of the night to myself. So, I choose to "Bund" as my Liz loves to call it.
So, I start reading the headlines. What catches my eye first? 1,881 national and international headlines outlining the story that Michael Chertoff and Chief Aguilera of the Border Patrol are on the Congressional "hotseat" over a failed virtual-fence expense of $20 million.
Man, I thought... what's $20 million when you ar talking about 1969 miles of Mexican border? Of course there are going to be hick-ups and budget screw-ups! Get a grip...
Then I read further...
$20 million dollars to install this virtual fence... for less than 30 miles of border! Are you kidding me? Where is the substantial savings in time and money that James and Ryan assured me would appear once the plan for an "actual" fence was shelved in favor of the vaunted "virtual" one? James even had it mapped out that it could be done for the WHOLE border for around $300 million!
Okay, let's check my math... which, if memory serves me correctly, Ryan called into question the last time this topic was brought up here at the Bund... 1,969 miles of Mexican frontier, with a price tag running right at $20,000,000 for every 28 miles of "virtual" fence...
Hmmm...
12 times fourteen, carry the 9, divide by the age of the dog (in human years)...
Yep, just the "virtual" fence will cost $1,406,400,000 in unadjusted dollars. Why unadjusted, you ask?
Well, this 28 mile stretch took more than 5 years to build! So, going back to pencil and paper, we see that it will finally be completed in the year 2394 AD... a paltry 386 year construction project. Hell, Notre Dame Cathedral only took 88 years! The Great Pyramid was finished in less than 22 years! The TVA (the largest public works project in US history) was basicly finished in 37 years.
Now, now... I know that Ryan is wringing his hands at my propensity for exageration. Five years of planning and experimenting that we won't have to do anymore can't count, right? Sure, that's legitimate. But so is MY argument that the 28 miles they managed to complete is 28 miles of the EASIEST terrain on the border! What happens when they start working in the rugged, isolated areas of the region, on mountain sides and river valleys? Do we expect to have delays and snags then?
*sigh*
The funny thing is this...
The Congressional hearings weren't over the COST at all. They were about the fact that the fence doesn't work. It hasn't stopped anyone from crossing... not one documented detainment of an illegal.
This really is simply too pathetic to be funny.
After spending the first 3 hours of the shift actually doing what I am supposed to do for 8 hours, and then spending another 5 hours working on a budget proposal for the department I work in, I now find myself with the last 2 hours of the night to myself. So, I choose to "Bund" as my Liz loves to call it.
So, I start reading the headlines. What catches my eye first? 1,881 national and international headlines outlining the story that Michael Chertoff and Chief Aguilera of the Border Patrol are on the Congressional "hotseat" over a failed virtual-fence expense of $20 million.
Man, I thought... what's $20 million when you ar talking about 1969 miles of Mexican border? Of course there are going to be hick-ups and budget screw-ups! Get a grip...
Then I read further...
$20 million dollars to install this virtual fence... for less than 30 miles of border! Are you kidding me? Where is the substantial savings in time and money that James and Ryan assured me would appear once the plan for an "actual" fence was shelved in favor of the vaunted "virtual" one? James even had it mapped out that it could be done for the WHOLE border for around $300 million!
Okay, let's check my math... which, if memory serves me correctly, Ryan called into question the last time this topic was brought up here at the Bund... 1,969 miles of Mexican frontier, with a price tag running right at $20,000,000 for every 28 miles of "virtual" fence...
Hmmm...
12 times fourteen, carry the 9, divide by the age of the dog (in human years)...
Yep, just the "virtual" fence will cost $1,406,400,000 in unadjusted dollars. Why unadjusted, you ask?
Well, this 28 mile stretch took more than 5 years to build! So, going back to pencil and paper, we see that it will finally be completed in the year 2394 AD... a paltry 386 year construction project. Hell, Notre Dame Cathedral only took 88 years! The Great Pyramid was finished in less than 22 years! The TVA (the largest public works project in US history) was basicly finished in 37 years.
Now, now... I know that Ryan is wringing his hands at my propensity for exageration. Five years of planning and experimenting that we won't have to do anymore can't count, right? Sure, that's legitimate. But so is MY argument that the 28 miles they managed to complete is 28 miles of the EASIEST terrain on the border! What happens when they start working in the rugged, isolated areas of the region, on mountain sides and river valleys? Do we expect to have delays and snags then?
*sigh*
The funny thing is this...
The Congressional hearings weren't over the COST at all. They were about the fact that the fence doesn't work. It hasn't stopped anyone from crossing... not one documented detainment of an illegal.
This really is simply too pathetic to be funny.
Man, this pisses me off...
Once again, I am forced to lsiten to a "Reagan Conservative" complain about NAFTA and it's "liberal" roots.
How does someone like Wilkow get top billing on a platform like Sirius Radio (ahead of Hannity, for God's sake!) when he actually seems to think that the North American Free Trade Agreement was authored by Bill Clinton? Has this man even looked it up? Doesn't his show make enough money to hire hack-interns to do the research for him?
NAFTA is the end product of the US-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which was the brain-child (perhaps "heart" child is a better term, as it was something he dearly believed in) of Ronald Reagan... the very man these people take their label from! NAFTA as it stands today was signed into being by President George H W Bush in 1992, and it was passed through Congress by sweeping bi-partisan support from both sides... that includes MAJORITIES of GOP Senators and Representatives. These pro-NAFTA members of Congress include such "bleeding heart liberals" as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Tim Hutchinson, and John McCain.
For ten minutes this guy rants about how the "liberals" that are crying for a raise in the Federal Minimum Wage need to blame Clinton for the fact that NAFTA is taking jobs out of the country and into places like Mexico, or that farmers in America need to stop bitching about not being able to compete with Mexican produce prices because Clinton enacted NAFTA. What should Clinton have done? Vetoed the Bill? Stopped what Reagan had started with the very words of his First Inaugural Address?
THIS man is the "new" generation of conservative in America? THIS is the man that wants to bring back the Reagan principals to American politics? If he is... then someone better tell him who Reagan REALLY was and what Reagan REALLY wanted for America pretty damn quick.
What a dumb ass...
How does someone like Wilkow get top billing on a platform like Sirius Radio (ahead of Hannity, for God's sake!) when he actually seems to think that the North American Free Trade Agreement was authored by Bill Clinton? Has this man even looked it up? Doesn't his show make enough money to hire hack-interns to do the research for him?
NAFTA is the end product of the US-Canadian Free Trade Agreement, which was the brain-child (perhaps "heart" child is a better term, as it was something he dearly believed in) of Ronald Reagan... the very man these people take their label from! NAFTA as it stands today was signed into being by President George H W Bush in 1992, and it was passed through Congress by sweeping bi-partisan support from both sides... that includes MAJORITIES of GOP Senators and Representatives. These pro-NAFTA members of Congress include such "bleeding heart liberals" as Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, Tim Hutchinson, and John McCain.
For ten minutes this guy rants about how the "liberals" that are crying for a raise in the Federal Minimum Wage need to blame Clinton for the fact that NAFTA is taking jobs out of the country and into places like Mexico, or that farmers in America need to stop bitching about not being able to compete with Mexican produce prices because Clinton enacted NAFTA. What should Clinton have done? Vetoed the Bill? Stopped what Reagan had started with the very words of his First Inaugural Address?
THIS man is the "new" generation of conservative in America? THIS is the man that wants to bring back the Reagan principals to American politics? If he is... then someone better tell him who Reagan REALLY was and what Reagan REALLY wanted for America pretty damn quick.
What a dumb ass...
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Question of the Week...
That damn fine piece of trivia has been on the board for MORE than a week... and not even a GUESS from any of you SPACE LOSERS!
Sheesh.
The answer is the $2 bill, featuring Jefferson in a design that dates back to the 70's unchanged. That's even older than the $1 design which was last changed in 1989.
Philistines.
Sheesh.
The answer is the $2 bill, featuring Jefferson in a design that dates back to the 70's unchanged. That's even older than the $1 design which was last changed in 1989.
Philistines.
Nice Nazis
Bill Cunningham opened a McCain rally in Cincinnati today by torching Obama. I am not a listener of Cunningham, and reading those comments I wasn't shocked by them. Coulter says worse to a much broader audience every time she speaks on FOX.
What surprised me was McCain's IMMEDIATE apology for the statements. I mean, the echos are still reverberating in the hall. The reporters didn't even get a chance to ask him about it, and he's there taking ownership of the issue and saying it won't happen again. No BS about "Someone in the campaign being overzealous," or "Cunningham's speech wasn't cleared by my people," or blah blah. He said someone on his campaign cleared Cunningham to speak and apologized for the content.
(I don't think it carried over to the comments comparing Albright to "death warmed over" or the difference between Rob Portman and Barney Frank [Portman's wife, Jane] but I digress.)
This gives me hope. For the first time since 1984 we may have a campaign that is going to focus on ISSUES and not who can one up on the catapulting of mud. (And I'm not saying Mondale didn't try and throw mud, but come on. It's Walter Mondale.)
This ties in with what Titus discussed today about conservative radio hosts derailing the "conservative" movement. Coulter calling "liberalism" a disease is not making measurable and specific strides concerning valid issues of social welfare and development. Cunningham picking on a gay congressman or a past Secretary of State does nothing to further McCain's campaign or help identify "core" conservative issues.
Dial the way back machine to just after Al Gore invented the internet, and the Bund's driveway was in a place called Wealthwood Park. We were often accused of being Nice Nazis because the name calling and bashing hid the core issues and problems. I am glad McCain seems to be an honorary member.
What surprised me was McCain's IMMEDIATE apology for the statements. I mean, the echos are still reverberating in the hall. The reporters didn't even get a chance to ask him about it, and he's there taking ownership of the issue and saying it won't happen again. No BS about "Someone in the campaign being overzealous," or "Cunningham's speech wasn't cleared by my people," or blah blah. He said someone on his campaign cleared Cunningham to speak and apologized for the content.
(I don't think it carried over to the comments comparing Albright to "death warmed over" or the difference between Rob Portman and Barney Frank [Portman's wife, Jane] but I digress.)
This gives me hope. For the first time since 1984 we may have a campaign that is going to focus on ISSUES and not who can one up on the catapulting of mud. (And I'm not saying Mondale didn't try and throw mud, but come on. It's Walter Mondale.)
This ties in with what Titus discussed today about conservative radio hosts derailing the "conservative" movement. Coulter calling "liberalism" a disease is not making measurable and specific strides concerning valid issues of social welfare and development. Cunningham picking on a gay congressman or a past Secretary of State does nothing to further McCain's campaign or help identify "core" conservative issues.
Dial the way back machine to just after Al Gore invented the internet, and the Bund's driveway was in a place called Wealthwood Park. We were often accused of being Nice Nazis because the name calling and bashing hid the core issues and problems. I am glad McCain seems to be an honorary member.
Something to ponder...
Today on the news, I heard that the average cost of health care in America will now consititute one out of every five dollars spent in the USA. By April, the cost of fuel and gasoline will constitute one out of every FOUR dollars spent in America.
In case your math is a bit lacking...
That means the average American will have to work 5 out of every 20 days just to pay for health care, and another 4 out of the SAME 20 days will go toward putting a month's worth of gas in the vehicles.
9 of 20 days to earn enough for just TWO budgetary items vital to the American way of life.
If the GOP still thinks it can dismiss these issues during the campaign year... they are in for a rude awakening.
In case your math is a bit lacking...
That means the average American will have to work 5 out of every 20 days just to pay for health care, and another 4 out of the SAME 20 days will go toward putting a month's worth of gas in the vehicles.
9 of 20 days to earn enough for just TWO budgetary items vital to the American way of life.
If the GOP still thinks it can dismiss these issues during the campaign year... they are in for a rude awakening.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
And here is a BLOG worth checking out!
Got bored and was doing some "history" surfing on the web, and what do I find?
Sherman's Fifth Corps
Now you tell me, if this isn't one of the most creative history blogs you've ever seen? And correct me if I'm wrong, but can you find a BETTER means of collaborative writing or sharing ideas between authors that are thousands of miles apart?
Check this out... seriously.
Sherman's Fifth Corps
Now you tell me, if this isn't one of the most creative history blogs you've ever seen? And correct me if I'm wrong, but can you find a BETTER means of collaborative writing or sharing ideas between authors that are thousands of miles apart?
Check this out... seriously.
Here's a book worth reading...
... and I won't say that about most of his other books!
David Frum has written a new book... Comeback! Conservatism that can win again!... that I think is a must read for any "conservative" hoping for a win in '08.
First off, let me say that I am not a huge Frum fan. The only other book of his that I am familiar with is called The Right Man and is a shockingly bland and banal apology of President Bush and his first Administration. He has written at least half a dozen other conservative rags, but this latest is so shockingly GOOD that I have to recommend it.
This man knows the power of a good analogy! He uses them time and time gain to show WHY conservative radio and news pundits are derailing the conservative agenda by constantly referring to "What would Reagan do?" One of the best was the thought that if you could go back to Jan. 1981 and ask the newly sworn-in President Reagan how he was going to "bring back" the golden years of 1969-1970 and the great successes of the Nixon Administration... what would Ron's response be?
"Get the hellout of my office!" is what Ron would say. "This is 1981, not 1970, and Nixon isn't President... I AM" is another very likely response.
His analysis of politics (in this book, anyway) seems spot on. For the bulk of Republicans to continue to dismiss 3 out of 4 American's concerns for the environment is the fastest way to alienate 75% of moderate, independent or undecided voters IN AN ELECTION YEAR! Even George W. learned that lesson pretty fast, and he's as lame-duck as you could hope to find. To deny that the median average annual salary in this country has NOT MOVED ONE PENNY UP since 2000 is the fastest way he (and I) know to make yourself look like an idiot on a stump. To defend "America's" right to drive gas-guzzeling SUVs and to decry the use of ethynol-products in fuel production shows those same voters that you don't care about energy independence OR the cost to the consumer in America.
He recommends seperating the "hysteria" from the "concerns". Ask John Q. Public which of the current Presidential candidates has the best record on environmental issues, and the answer is a resounding "Barak Obama"... when, in fact, he has one of the WORST environmental records in Congress (mostly because he didn't ever VOTE for anything, one way or the other). John McCain, who has consistantly voted a solid, "conservative" environmental line is unknown to the public.
He recommends that the GOP frankly and honestly address the fact that the reason that the median average annual salary hasn't gone up in 8 years is because whatever gains the average Joe has made in wages over that time have been eaten up by the rising costs of health care... which has TRIPLED in the same 8 years for the average family of four. Do not dismiss the public's concerns about these costs as a general advocation of "universal health care"... because it ISN'T! It is a cry for help from more than 16 million uninsured Americans, and another 120 million that can barely afford the premiums they are paying now.
He recommends that candidates (for ANY seat, and not just President) STOP trying to make America see them as the next incarnation of the semi-divine Reagan, and START showing America that the GOP has the best interests of the NATION at heart, when compared to the concilliatory attitude of "globalism" that the Dems keep vaunting. Show the public the REAL Democratic record instead of defending a non-existant Republican one, in other words.
I'll tell you what, this Frum guy hit the nail on the head this time. I can forgive him all his apologetic platitudes for Bush, just for writing this book.
David Frum has written a new book... Comeback! Conservatism that can win again!... that I think is a must read for any "conservative" hoping for a win in '08.
First off, let me say that I am not a huge Frum fan. The only other book of his that I am familiar with is called The Right Man and is a shockingly bland and banal apology of President Bush and his first Administration. He has written at least half a dozen other conservative rags, but this latest is so shockingly GOOD that I have to recommend it.
This man knows the power of a good analogy! He uses them time and time gain to show WHY conservative radio and news pundits are derailing the conservative agenda by constantly referring to "What would Reagan do?" One of the best was the thought that if you could go back to Jan. 1981 and ask the newly sworn-in President Reagan how he was going to "bring back" the golden years of 1969-1970 and the great successes of the Nixon Administration... what would Ron's response be?
"Get the hellout of my office!" is what Ron would say. "This is 1981, not 1970, and Nixon isn't President... I AM" is another very likely response.
His analysis of politics (in this book, anyway) seems spot on. For the bulk of Republicans to continue to dismiss 3 out of 4 American's concerns for the environment is the fastest way to alienate 75% of moderate, independent or undecided voters IN AN ELECTION YEAR! Even George W. learned that lesson pretty fast, and he's as lame-duck as you could hope to find. To deny that the median average annual salary in this country has NOT MOVED ONE PENNY UP since 2000 is the fastest way he (and I) know to make yourself look like an idiot on a stump. To defend "America's" right to drive gas-guzzeling SUVs and to decry the use of ethynol-products in fuel production shows those same voters that you don't care about energy independence OR the cost to the consumer in America.
He recommends seperating the "hysteria" from the "concerns". Ask John Q. Public which of the current Presidential candidates has the best record on environmental issues, and the answer is a resounding "Barak Obama"... when, in fact, he has one of the WORST environmental records in Congress (mostly because he didn't ever VOTE for anything, one way or the other). John McCain, who has consistantly voted a solid, "conservative" environmental line is unknown to the public.
He recommends that the GOP frankly and honestly address the fact that the reason that the median average annual salary hasn't gone up in 8 years is because whatever gains the average Joe has made in wages over that time have been eaten up by the rising costs of health care... which has TRIPLED in the same 8 years for the average family of four. Do not dismiss the public's concerns about these costs as a general advocation of "universal health care"... because it ISN'T! It is a cry for help from more than 16 million uninsured Americans, and another 120 million that can barely afford the premiums they are paying now.
He recommends that candidates (for ANY seat, and not just President) STOP trying to make America see them as the next incarnation of the semi-divine Reagan, and START showing America that the GOP has the best interests of the NATION at heart, when compared to the concilliatory attitude of "globalism" that the Dems keep vaunting. Show the public the REAL Democratic record instead of defending a non-existant Republican one, in other words.
I'll tell you what, this Frum guy hit the nail on the head this time. I can forgive him all his apologetic platitudes for Bush, just for writing this book.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
A response to Ryan...
Look, I'm not a conspiracy buff blaming "Big Oil" or "Big Brother" for all the problems in my life. I am more than willing to listen to rational, reasonable arguments to the point that the ten largest oil companies in this country are NOT gouging the US public with inflated gasoline prices.
In fact, Ryan did have one interesting point in his last post: Is it wrong of me to blame the "private sector" for gouging, when in fact I should be blaming the Feds for artificially raising the cost of production with un-needed taxes and expenses?
An example of Ryan's point...
It is undeniable that, at times over the past 8 years, the US has had a surplus of crude oil stocks, but gasoline prices have continued to rise due to "bottle-necks" at the refinery-end of the formula. Not enough refining capacity to work the crude we already have, in other words.
My point...
According to the 2004 Annual Report of Exxon-Mobil, not one dollar has been spent by that company since 1984 on NEW oil refinery facilities, and in the last 11 years, only $135 million has been spent on improving or upgrading existing facilities (and much of that is due to new Federal regulations of refining procedures, as Ryan has said). Yet this company alone managed to post a $30 billion dollar profit in 2006!
According to the Economic Report of the President (2008), it would cost an estimated $36 billion a year for 6 years to TRIPLE the refining capacity of the US as it stands now. This cost would be spread over 50 to 60 years via guaranteed government loans by participating companies... but Exxon-Mobil at least, isn't having any of it. As can be seen from their annual report, they prefer to maintain huge, bloated cash reserves that give them the AAA corporate credit rating that makes their stocks so attractive on the world markets. The President's Report shows that NO Big Oil company is building or expanding its refining capacity in 2009. None.
Without sounding like a conspiracy hack... is it unreasonable to think that perhaps the oil companies are NOT rushing to spend the money to build new refineries because they ENJOY the periodic (almost weekly) price hikes at the pump that WE, the consumer, are forced to pay because of the lack of refining facilities? Hasn't it been determined that Big Tobacco did the same thing by marketing smokes to kids, in the hope of getting them addicted early so they spent more money over their lifetimes? All "legal" free-market practices at the time, right? Or is it the job of the Federal Government to MAKE the companies expand thier facilities? When is the interests of the national economy and national security as a whole more important than "laissez faire" from DC?
Call me a conspiracy monger all you want. I'll tell you what I know to be true, right now...
This nation went from chalk-board theory to having the ability to vaporize a moderate sized city in less than 5 years, ending a war that had the potential to kill 1,000,000 American servicemen before it was over.
This nation went from shooting basketball-sized projectiles into space for a day to getting three men to the MOON and back in less than 10 years, all because one man asked that it be done before he was killed.
What I want someone to tell me is WHY this government is dragging its feet at the prospect of spending substantial money and effort to develop and produce alternative sources of power and energy that would at least lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. If you read the 2009 Budget, you'll see that not one red cent is going to be spent in 2009 on alternative energy production... not a penny! According to the OMB, the President's $1.2 billion dollar research goal was met in mid-2008, so no more money need be spent. Why is that? If the money can't be found do to a lack of revenue, and the prospect of additional taxes is THAT outrageous in a war-time footing, then is it unreasonable to look to private industry to pick up some of the slack through their R&D abilities?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable response... just explain it to me, PLEASE!
In fact, Ryan did have one interesting point in his last post: Is it wrong of me to blame the "private sector" for gouging, when in fact I should be blaming the Feds for artificially raising the cost of production with un-needed taxes and expenses?
An example of Ryan's point...
It is undeniable that, at times over the past 8 years, the US has had a surplus of crude oil stocks, but gasoline prices have continued to rise due to "bottle-necks" at the refinery-end of the formula. Not enough refining capacity to work the crude we already have, in other words.
My point...
According to the 2004 Annual Report of Exxon-Mobil, not one dollar has been spent by that company since 1984 on NEW oil refinery facilities, and in the last 11 years, only $135 million has been spent on improving or upgrading existing facilities (and much of that is due to new Federal regulations of refining procedures, as Ryan has said). Yet this company alone managed to post a $30 billion dollar profit in 2006!
According to the Economic Report of the President (2008), it would cost an estimated $36 billion a year for 6 years to TRIPLE the refining capacity of the US as it stands now. This cost would be spread over 50 to 60 years via guaranteed government loans by participating companies... but Exxon-Mobil at least, isn't having any of it. As can be seen from their annual report, they prefer to maintain huge, bloated cash reserves that give them the AAA corporate credit rating that makes their stocks so attractive on the world markets. The President's Report shows that NO Big Oil company is building or expanding its refining capacity in 2009. None.
Without sounding like a conspiracy hack... is it unreasonable to think that perhaps the oil companies are NOT rushing to spend the money to build new refineries because they ENJOY the periodic (almost weekly) price hikes at the pump that WE, the consumer, are forced to pay because of the lack of refining facilities? Hasn't it been determined that Big Tobacco did the same thing by marketing smokes to kids, in the hope of getting them addicted early so they spent more money over their lifetimes? All "legal" free-market practices at the time, right? Or is it the job of the Federal Government to MAKE the companies expand thier facilities? When is the interests of the national economy and national security as a whole more important than "laissez faire" from DC?
Call me a conspiracy monger all you want. I'll tell you what I know to be true, right now...
This nation went from chalk-board theory to having the ability to vaporize a moderate sized city in less than 5 years, ending a war that had the potential to kill 1,000,000 American servicemen before it was over.
This nation went from shooting basketball-sized projectiles into space for a day to getting three men to the MOON and back in less than 10 years, all because one man asked that it be done before he was killed.
What I want someone to tell me is WHY this government is dragging its feet at the prospect of spending substantial money and effort to develop and produce alternative sources of power and energy that would at least lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. If you read the 2009 Budget, you'll see that not one red cent is going to be spent in 2009 on alternative energy production... not a penny! According to the OMB, the President's $1.2 billion dollar research goal was met in mid-2008, so no more money need be spent. Why is that? If the money can't be found do to a lack of revenue, and the prospect of additional taxes is THAT outrageous in a war-time footing, then is it unreasonable to look to private industry to pick up some of the slack through their R&D abilities?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable response... just explain it to me, PLEASE!
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What I believe...
I keep mulling over in my head what Ryan wrote in his “Obama” post.
I am not a Marxist, and I do not believe that Karl Marx was correct about anything he said or wrote. In fact, I have fought quite eloquently to the contrary of nearly everything he DID say or write. Communism cannot and will not work because it goes against some of the very foundations of human nature, foremost the fact that every generation raises its offspring with the sole hope of seeing it in a better position than the last generation.
I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth, as it flies in the face of a guiding principal in this society since its foundation: a day’s wage for a day’s work. Why would someone do his or her best work, knowing only a small portion of that work is going into their pockets… with the rest going to those that haven’t worked their best, or at all?
I do not believe that Marx or Lenin’s “Labor Theory or Value” has any value at all… in fact, it is a complete load of horseshit. No better refuting statement has been penned concerning this “theory” than Robert Heinlein’s quote from Starship Troopers: “All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart…(pg 92)”, so I will not expand on this any further.
What I do believe is that this nation is at WAR. We are at war with forces and ideologies that are constantly striving to destroy everything we believe in as a society, and that no facet of our society is safe from these attacks. Since 9/11, more than 6,000 Americans have died in this war, and more than 3,000 of them were civilians. The sad reality is that by 9/11/01, this war had been going on for more than 10 years… most of us just didn’t know it.
Politicians like Obama, and Hillary and most other far-left members of our government would have us believe we are NOT at war, and that no threat exists outside of what Bush and Co. have manufactured to further their own ends. They would have us believe that they, and they alone, have the capacity to end this (and all future) conflicts by changing this society from what it is NOW to what the rest of the world wants it to be in the future.
I also believe that, while this is a fight we MUST win, much of what has already played out in this war has been very poorly managed and directed by its civilian government. That goes for the fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the fight against global terrorism in general. I believe our current President, from the very days following 9/11, was so focused on keeping the cost of this war as low and immeasurable as possible that HUGE amounts of money, material and human lives have been wasted in the effort. Bush and Co. wanted us to back the “effort”, but didn’t want to have any of us “see the bill”, so to speak. This would be a “lightning-quick” effort… the Taliban over-thrown in only weeks, Saddam’s regime crushed in less than 28 days, bin Laden a hunted, hounded shadow of his former self, and new, democratic governments installed and functioning by the end of his terms. All this, and not a bump or hic-up in the American economy to show for it. I believe that this is the most asinine and juvenile way to manage a nation at war that I have heard of since Chamberlain waved the paper and shouted “Peace in our time!”
I believe I have been told, in 5 out of 7 State of the Union Addresses, that the President is grateful for my sacrifices and sufferings during these troubled times. Travel hang-ups and delays due to increased security measures at airports, higher gas prices at the pumps, a general restructuring of HUGE portions of the Federal Government before, during and after such hard-hitting natural disasters as Katrina and Rita. Bad news from Iraq would be followed by good news, I was assured… Secretary Rumsfeld and the President had it all well in hand, I was assured time and time again. I believe I have been told countless times that a strong American economy is our greatest defense against the trials and tribulations that the “jihadists” want to bring down on our homes and our lives.
I do NOT believe that my trials and sufferings should be driving the profits of 6 multi-national oil companies into the tens of billions of dollars every six months, however. If I am to feel the pinch at the pumps and suffer stoically, why should the 122,789 individuals that own 57% of the shares of those six largest oil companies in the US gain by it? (source here) By this same token, I do NOT believe that Ryan’s analysis of the “shareholder” reaping the benefits of the Big Oil profits equaling the hike in value to 401k accounts and increased job opportunities… not when just over 120,000 INDIVIDUALS are sharing 57% of $28,000,000,000 dollars in 2006 ALONE, I don’t. That’s an awful lot of dividends I’m not seeing, my friends… and no one else reading this blog is either, I’d bet.
In 1942, the Hershey Chocolate Company of Hershey, PA saw the cost of West African cocoa increase 1800% due to German U-boat interdiction in the Atlantic and the need for commercial vessels to transport military supplies and material overseas. 1800% increase in the commodity vital to its viable production of chocolate… that’s a whole lot more than the $34/barrel of crude oil since 1991, I can assure you all. None the less, because the company had guaranteed contracts with the US military for (literally) millions of tons of chocolate bars, the company was able to freeze the price of chocolate at pre-war prices. Limits on chocolate after that were based on rationing availability rather than cost-production ratios. This is, in my opinion, a very good example of a company forgoing record-profit potential to benefit the entire nation, while still maintaining a profit suitable to keep shareholders and consumers happy and dedicated to the product. If the American public was expected to “do without”, then Hershey Chocolate could certainly “make it last” as well.
I believe that this is even more important today because the commodity we are discussing isn’t cocoa beans from West Africa… it is 18 million barrels of light, sweet crude imported from the very nations that are working to see the US destroyed EVERY SINGLE DAY. As long as the commodity behind these profits is coming from nations whose policies and agendas are directly contrary to our own AND this commodity is as vital to every aspect of our society and culture as oil is, then I feel that a company like Exxon-Mobile (the largest importer of Saudi and Syrian oil in the US) posting returns of $28 billion in the last half of 2006 borders on criminal. Why is it wrong to think that more than a paltry $88 million over the last 7 years (by Exxon-Mobile) out of estimated (by me, understand) $392 billion they have earned in the same 7-year period might be re-invested into domestic or alternative sources of energy? Or in the production and distribution of such sources as hydrogen fuel cells or bio-waste fuels? I’m sorry, my friends. I have traded in my gas-guzzler and gotten a fuel efficient 4-cylinder car with nearly 30 mpg… and the $3.17 I paid to fill it up just tonight at 6:30 pm EST is still too much. How much sacrifice and suffering am I supposed to put forth to see this “war effort” through to a successful conclusion, while watching these kinds of numbers roll across my cable news channel’s stock ticker minute by minute?
I believe our grandparents and great-grandparents put up with rationing and availability issues because they could see the progress of the “war” each and every day. Yes, there were set-backs and failings… there always are. They saw the progress, though, and reaped the rewards in the end. I don’t see an end to this problem in the near, or far, future. I see no concerted effort on the part of the Federal government and private industry to invent, produce or develop solutions to this crisis the way we did in the early 40’s.
I believe that is our greatest failing in this current effort, as well.
I am not a Marxist, and I do not believe that Karl Marx was correct about anything he said or wrote. In fact, I have fought quite eloquently to the contrary of nearly everything he DID say or write. Communism cannot and will not work because it goes against some of the very foundations of human nature, foremost the fact that every generation raises its offspring with the sole hope of seeing it in a better position than the last generation.
I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth, as it flies in the face of a guiding principal in this society since its foundation: a day’s wage for a day’s work. Why would someone do his or her best work, knowing only a small portion of that work is going into their pockets… with the rest going to those that haven’t worked their best, or at all?
I do not believe that Marx or Lenin’s “Labor Theory or Value” has any value at all… in fact, it is a complete load of horseshit. No better refuting statement has been penned concerning this “theory” than Robert Heinlein’s quote from Starship Troopers: “All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart…(pg 92)”, so I will not expand on this any further.
What I do believe is that this nation is at WAR. We are at war with forces and ideologies that are constantly striving to destroy everything we believe in as a society, and that no facet of our society is safe from these attacks. Since 9/11, more than 6,000 Americans have died in this war, and more than 3,000 of them were civilians. The sad reality is that by 9/11/01, this war had been going on for more than 10 years… most of us just didn’t know it.
Politicians like Obama, and Hillary and most other far-left members of our government would have us believe we are NOT at war, and that no threat exists outside of what Bush and Co. have manufactured to further their own ends. They would have us believe that they, and they alone, have the capacity to end this (and all future) conflicts by changing this society from what it is NOW to what the rest of the world wants it to be in the future.
I also believe that, while this is a fight we MUST win, much of what has already played out in this war has been very poorly managed and directed by its civilian government. That goes for the fight in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the fight against global terrorism in general. I believe our current President, from the very days following 9/11, was so focused on keeping the cost of this war as low and immeasurable as possible that HUGE amounts of money, material and human lives have been wasted in the effort. Bush and Co. wanted us to back the “effort”, but didn’t want to have any of us “see the bill”, so to speak. This would be a “lightning-quick” effort… the Taliban over-thrown in only weeks, Saddam’s regime crushed in less than 28 days, bin Laden a hunted, hounded shadow of his former self, and new, democratic governments installed and functioning by the end of his terms. All this, and not a bump or hic-up in the American economy to show for it. I believe that this is the most asinine and juvenile way to manage a nation at war that I have heard of since Chamberlain waved the paper and shouted “Peace in our time!”
I believe I have been told, in 5 out of 7 State of the Union Addresses, that the President is grateful for my sacrifices and sufferings during these troubled times. Travel hang-ups and delays due to increased security measures at airports, higher gas prices at the pumps, a general restructuring of HUGE portions of the Federal Government before, during and after such hard-hitting natural disasters as Katrina and Rita. Bad news from Iraq would be followed by good news, I was assured… Secretary Rumsfeld and the President had it all well in hand, I was assured time and time again. I believe I have been told countless times that a strong American economy is our greatest defense against the trials and tribulations that the “jihadists” want to bring down on our homes and our lives.
I do NOT believe that my trials and sufferings should be driving the profits of 6 multi-national oil companies into the tens of billions of dollars every six months, however. If I am to feel the pinch at the pumps and suffer stoically, why should the 122,789 individuals that own 57% of the shares of those six largest oil companies in the US gain by it? (source here) By this same token, I do NOT believe that Ryan’s analysis of the “shareholder” reaping the benefits of the Big Oil profits equaling the hike in value to 401k accounts and increased job opportunities… not when just over 120,000 INDIVIDUALS are sharing 57% of $28,000,000,000 dollars in 2006 ALONE, I don’t. That’s an awful lot of dividends I’m not seeing, my friends… and no one else reading this blog is either, I’d bet.
In 1942, the Hershey Chocolate Company of Hershey, PA saw the cost of West African cocoa increase 1800% due to German U-boat interdiction in the Atlantic and the need for commercial vessels to transport military supplies and material overseas. 1800% increase in the commodity vital to its viable production of chocolate… that’s a whole lot more than the $34/barrel of crude oil since 1991, I can assure you all. None the less, because the company had guaranteed contracts with the US military for (literally) millions of tons of chocolate bars, the company was able to freeze the price of chocolate at pre-war prices. Limits on chocolate after that were based on rationing availability rather than cost-production ratios. This is, in my opinion, a very good example of a company forgoing record-profit potential to benefit the entire nation, while still maintaining a profit suitable to keep shareholders and consumers happy and dedicated to the product. If the American public was expected to “do without”, then Hershey Chocolate could certainly “make it last” as well.
I believe that this is even more important today because the commodity we are discussing isn’t cocoa beans from West Africa… it is 18 million barrels of light, sweet crude imported from the very nations that are working to see the US destroyed EVERY SINGLE DAY. As long as the commodity behind these profits is coming from nations whose policies and agendas are directly contrary to our own AND this commodity is as vital to every aspect of our society and culture as oil is, then I feel that a company like Exxon-Mobile (the largest importer of Saudi and Syrian oil in the US) posting returns of $28 billion in the last half of 2006 borders on criminal. Why is it wrong to think that more than a paltry $88 million over the last 7 years (by Exxon-Mobile) out of estimated (by me, understand) $392 billion they have earned in the same 7-year period might be re-invested into domestic or alternative sources of energy? Or in the production and distribution of such sources as hydrogen fuel cells or bio-waste fuels? I’m sorry, my friends. I have traded in my gas-guzzler and gotten a fuel efficient 4-cylinder car with nearly 30 mpg… and the $3.17 I paid to fill it up just tonight at 6:30 pm EST is still too much. How much sacrifice and suffering am I supposed to put forth to see this “war effort” through to a successful conclusion, while watching these kinds of numbers roll across my cable news channel’s stock ticker minute by minute?
I believe our grandparents and great-grandparents put up with rationing and availability issues because they could see the progress of the “war” each and every day. Yes, there were set-backs and failings… there always are. They saw the progress, though, and reaped the rewards in the end. I don’t see an end to this problem in the near, or far, future. I see no concerted effort on the part of the Federal government and private industry to invent, produce or develop solutions to this crisis the way we did in the early 40’s.
I believe that is our greatest failing in this current effort, as well.
Generalizations?
I did no more of that then you just did - for I have never advocated that even the slightest regulation of oil would cause an economic death knell. First off we have to seperate OPEC from American oil companies. OPEC may be unregulated but Exxon, Standard Oil, and the BP that operates within the US, they are all regulated. In California there is a seven blend proccess before you are able to bring it to market (even though 30% of their smog is said to some from China!). How much do you think that costs the consumer? And that is another angle you "big oil is gauging us" conspiracy theorists - and it IS a theory unless you have imperical evidence & making lots of money ain't evidence - don't ever bother bringing up: government taxes on corporations. One thing is for sure, corporations do not actually "pay" taxes. They build them into the price of their commodity and the consumer pays it. If you knocked off the gas tax you'd save $0.50 a gallon the same day. Every American oil CEO could give up his entire salary for the year & it wouldn't come close to that reduction. Not to mention, we haven't built a single refinery in 30 years. That's a HUGE part of the problem, built into the price - we can't convert the crude into feul fast enough. Let me see, less supply, more demand, economics 101, the price goes up. We don't drill in ANWAR at all or off the coast of California as much as we should, and although the Chinese and Fidel's little brother can make deals all day long to drill off the coast of Florida, the most powerful nation on earth is hamstrung by tree hugging dolphin fornicating enviromentalists whom have forced their junk science occult of man-made global warming on the rest of us! and although ANWAR by itself won't solve all our energy needs, not by any stretch, you combine these efforts together (drilling in several rich locations, more refineries and more nuclear plants) and 6 mos later you look up and the price of gas has dropped as significantly as it's going up now.
And therein lies my beef with Democrats/leftists who bitch about the cost of gasoline - they immediately blame the private sector that enables its flow RATHER then the government and enviromentalists whom DISABLE its flow via taxes and refinery/drilling regulation at every turn. Don't you dare talk to me about the cost being too high due to private sector gauging when you have professional gaugers in government and the"green" movement doing there damned level best to ensure that gasoline is as expensive and hard to provide as possible! Gore, their pope, even admitted that their movment would be made much easier if they could just get the price of gas up to 6 or 7 dollars a gallon - it was in his book! But no, it's not the government taxation or Algorian religion of global warming whom has a hand in the high price, it's capitalists at Exxon says he. And by the way, I can demonstrate their impact on high prices in about ten minutes, as opposed to your "accusations" of gauguing by US oil execs. So next time you spend $80 to fill up, rather then cursing Exxon Mobile under your breath, take your verbal damnation to culprits much more guilty of causing high prices - government and those three-toed sloth worshipping, phony science preaching, enviromentalists.
And while we're at it lets be honest at what you're driving towards Titus - your repition of the phrase "essential" commodity is really masking what you think ought to happen. Federalization of the oil industry. You want the feds to march in like Chavez and snap up the industry under the banner of "essential" to the economic lifeblood of the US. And I don't care if you only want to do it with that indistry while you leave tobbacco et al alone - it is still Marxism.
And therein lies my beef with Democrats/leftists who bitch about the cost of gasoline - they immediately blame the private sector that enables its flow RATHER then the government and enviromentalists whom DISABLE its flow via taxes and refinery/drilling regulation at every turn. Don't you dare talk to me about the cost being too high due to private sector gauging when you have professional gaugers in government and the"green" movement doing there damned level best to ensure that gasoline is as expensive and hard to provide as possible! Gore, their pope, even admitted that their movment would be made much easier if they could just get the price of gas up to 6 or 7 dollars a gallon - it was in his book! But no, it's not the government taxation or Algorian religion of global warming whom has a hand in the high price, it's capitalists at Exxon says he. And by the way, I can demonstrate their impact on high prices in about ten minutes, as opposed to your "accusations" of gauguing by US oil execs. So next time you spend $80 to fill up, rather then cursing Exxon Mobile under your breath, take your verbal damnation to culprits much more guilty of causing high prices - government and those three-toed sloth worshipping, phony science preaching, enviromentalists.
And while we're at it lets be honest at what you're driving towards Titus - your repition of the phrase "essential" commodity is really masking what you think ought to happen. Federalization of the oil industry. You want the feds to march in like Chavez and snap up the industry under the banner of "essential" to the economic lifeblood of the US. And I don't care if you only want to do it with that indistry while you leave tobbacco et al alone - it is still Marxism.
More generalizations...
When have you ever heard me bitch about the "profits" reaped by tobacco companies? Or by Miller Brewing Company? Or by Chrysler Motors? The Wii platform is going to put Nintendo into triple-percentage profits... have I bitched about that?
WHEN I have bitched, it is about a segment of our industrial complex (constituting less than 2% of our stockmarket volume) that controls the prices and availability of an absolutely vital element of our society... OIL.
No facet of our vaunted economy could last more than 10 days without a continuous (and, indeed, GROWING) supply of oil and oil-based products. Yet only this week I heard a report that, due to the increased cost of oil and gasoline and people's need to save money in a troubled economy, we have a SURPLUS of 30% in our national reserves of BOTH gasoline and crude oil... yet the price for gas here in NEPA went up AGAIN from $3.039 to $3.069 just today.
Who is correct? Do we have the surplus? Or is this simply "Big Oil" gouging the nation in anticipation of the promised "$1200" rebate that everyone is convinced will save the economy?
"Big Tobacco" has posted profits EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1951... that is 57 years of shareholder dividens in an industry that has seen Government regulation of the growth, production, sale and marketing of key products for that entire time. Why is THAT industry able to post profits with five decades of regulation and "Big Oil" can't? Since when has the American economy... hell, the very foundations of our society... rested on the "de-regulation" of tobacco products and the unrestricted ability of the parent companies to post profits?
I'll pay $4.50 a deck for smokes... because I know it is a luxury, nothing more. I do not NEED tobacco to function in society. I do not NEED tobacco to get to and from work. Our society hasn't developed around the availability of cheap, easy-to-get tobacco. Our society HAS developed around the availability of cheap, easy-to-get GASOLINE though... and when companies post profits measured in BILLIONS at a time when even a 5% reduction in fuel costs have been estimated to return a hundred-fold in the general economy... how can one NOT see that as price-gouging?
I'm not denying that Obama is spouting crap by the gallon to get votes and headlines... it's undoubtedly true. Call him a Marxist all you want. But don't call ME that until you can name another commodity on the market that is as vital to our economy and our national security the way crude oil is. In a day when that dependence has gotten SO out-of-control, to suggest that a degree of Federal regulation would ring the "death-toll" of our economy and our society is absolutely as crap-ridden as anything Obama is vomiting up.
WHEN I have bitched, it is about a segment of our industrial complex (constituting less than 2% of our stockmarket volume) that controls the prices and availability of an absolutely vital element of our society... OIL.
No facet of our vaunted economy could last more than 10 days without a continuous (and, indeed, GROWING) supply of oil and oil-based products. Yet only this week I heard a report that, due to the increased cost of oil and gasoline and people's need to save money in a troubled economy, we have a SURPLUS of 30% in our national reserves of BOTH gasoline and crude oil... yet the price for gas here in NEPA went up AGAIN from $3.039 to $3.069 just today.
Who is correct? Do we have the surplus? Or is this simply "Big Oil" gouging the nation in anticipation of the promised "$1200" rebate that everyone is convinced will save the economy?
"Big Tobacco" has posted profits EVERY SINGLE YEAR since 1951... that is 57 years of shareholder dividens in an industry that has seen Government regulation of the growth, production, sale and marketing of key products for that entire time. Why is THAT industry able to post profits with five decades of regulation and "Big Oil" can't? Since when has the American economy... hell, the very foundations of our society... rested on the "de-regulation" of tobacco products and the unrestricted ability of the parent companies to post profits?
I'll pay $4.50 a deck for smokes... because I know it is a luxury, nothing more. I do not NEED tobacco to function in society. I do not NEED tobacco to get to and from work. Our society hasn't developed around the availability of cheap, easy-to-get tobacco. Our society HAS developed around the availability of cheap, easy-to-get GASOLINE though... and when companies post profits measured in BILLIONS at a time when even a 5% reduction in fuel costs have been estimated to return a hundred-fold in the general economy... how can one NOT see that as price-gouging?
I'm not denying that Obama is spouting crap by the gallon to get votes and headlines... it's undoubtedly true. Call him a Marxist all you want. But don't call ME that until you can name another commodity on the market that is as vital to our economy and our national security the way crude oil is. In a day when that dependence has gotten SO out-of-control, to suggest that a degree of Federal regulation would ring the "death-toll" of our economy and our society is absolutely as crap-ridden as anything Obama is vomiting up.
Barak Heussein Marx ...
I want to briefly address a "belief" that's gotten completely out of hand. In a Houston speech last night Obama said the following, "[W]e believe in the free market, but when a CEO makes more in 10 minutes then a worker makes in a whole year, something's wrong."
Really?
This coincides with Titus' rantings about record profits for oil companies and this overall feeling (and perhaps it has always existed in free market societies) that the "real" money being made in any corporation is being hoarded by some lone fat cat in a top hat and a monicle, sitting in some empty great hall lighting a cigar with one hundred dollar bill after another as he laughs his boisterous evil laugh like some rich, pasty Mr. Peanut.
Do you know to whom the vast majoprity of the oil companies, and by extension all publicly traded corporations, profits go to? Shareholders. Civil servants, be they police, firemen, metermaids or secretaries at the FBI have mutual funds, 401k's, and pension plans vested in oil. So do teachers, garbagemen, casino employees and the list goes on. Oil, and every other "evil" entity turning record profits out there enhance "worker's" (as Barak identifies US citizens in a chillingly Marxist way) retirement, college, and every other form of investment nest egg. There is NO SUCH THING as "too much" profit for a company, and by extension, "too much" salary for a CEO. There is only a well run company or a poorly run company, period. Profitable and operating inside the law, or not profitable &/or operating outside the law - that's it. Whether it's Hillary claiming she'll "take those (oil company) profits and reinvest them", or Obama claiming CEO's make too much, or Titus screaming about record quarterly profits, there is a word for the attempt of government control over earnings - MARXISM. This is insanity. And it fails every time it is tried..... rant over.
Really?
This coincides with Titus' rantings about record profits for oil companies and this overall feeling (and perhaps it has always existed in free market societies) that the "real" money being made in any corporation is being hoarded by some lone fat cat in a top hat and a monicle, sitting in some empty great hall lighting a cigar with one hundred dollar bill after another as he laughs his boisterous evil laugh like some rich, pasty Mr. Peanut.
Do you know to whom the vast majoprity of the oil companies, and by extension all publicly traded corporations, profits go to? Shareholders. Civil servants, be they police, firemen, metermaids or secretaries at the FBI have mutual funds, 401k's, and pension plans vested in oil. So do teachers, garbagemen, casino employees and the list goes on. Oil, and every other "evil" entity turning record profits out there enhance "worker's" (as Barak identifies US citizens in a chillingly Marxist way) retirement, college, and every other form of investment nest egg. There is NO SUCH THING as "too much" profit for a company, and by extension, "too much" salary for a CEO. There is only a well run company or a poorly run company, period. Profitable and operating inside the law, or not profitable &/or operating outside the law - that's it. Whether it's Hillary claiming she'll "take those (oil company) profits and reinvest them", or Obama claiming CEO's make too much, or Titus screaming about record quarterly profits, there is a word for the attempt of government control over earnings - MARXISM. This is insanity. And it fails every time it is tried..... rant over.
Question of the Week...
As Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, William H. Taft gave the Oath of Office to BOTH Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, after his appointment by Harding.
I have to assume this is the correct answer, and that the question was flawed.
Hehehe
I have to assume this is the correct answer, and that the question was flawed.
Hehehe
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Hewitt's even better ...
I've heard Bennett's show several times, although not daily - he airs 5 to 8am here. I even bought a Bulova Hack Watch (a limited edition exact replica of the WWII US Marine watch as used in the movie The Great Raid) due solely to his advertising it, his studios are the "Bullova Studios" after all. I find one thing curious though - I remember DISTINCTLY sitting in the Grand breakroom with Bennett on the telly in a punditry capacity, and you taking the cigarette from your mouth and exclaiming, "I can honestly say, THAT man scares me." What has changed? He hasn't, not since your Grand era statement anyway.
Between the Sirius radio & there being 3 different large AM stations in Vegas as opposed to the just one in Biloxi (of you don't count 870 out of New Orleans) I have been exposed to dozens of conservative talkers, and yes Bennett is one of my favorites. However, its gotten to the point that I can't listen to Hannitty anymore and barely to Rush - not that they've changed or become unpallitable but compared to Hugh Hewitt, they seem juvenile in their analysis and the substance (not to mention tone) of the conversation. Hewitt is without question the most prepared interviewer on radio. He reads the entire book before the author appears and when he has a guest, it's for one or two hours and they exhaust (to his credit) the issue so that all aspects are explored. there are no "segments" or clever (or attempts thereof) at blue humor pegging leftists (not that I mind that mind you), it is just simply a conversation of well thought out proportions. Last night (he airs live the same time Rush does, but Rush being the radio collosus he is fills that time in the morning) he had on a professor of history for Presidents Day and they went through the strngths and weakness & a timeline of all 43 US presidents grading them almost identically to the theme initiated by Titus! It was insanely more interesting and intelligent then Hannity. He has on the Beltway Boys from FOX sometimes and they discuss politics. He's had the commander of our Pacific fleet on to discuss strength readiness. He has read and can quote the Federalists Papers, Socrates, Voltaire, tons of Shakspere (& he's Catholic), it is simply a cut above from "regular" radio and I urge you to listen. I don't know if he's on 144, but find out if you can get him somehow - you wont be dissapointed.
Between the Sirius radio & there being 3 different large AM stations in Vegas as opposed to the just one in Biloxi (of you don't count 870 out of New Orleans) I have been exposed to dozens of conservative talkers, and yes Bennett is one of my favorites. However, its gotten to the point that I can't listen to Hannitty anymore and barely to Rush - not that they've changed or become unpallitable but compared to Hugh Hewitt, they seem juvenile in their analysis and the substance (not to mention tone) of the conversation. Hewitt is without question the most prepared interviewer on radio. He reads the entire book before the author appears and when he has a guest, it's for one or two hours and they exhaust (to his credit) the issue so that all aspects are explored. there are no "segments" or clever (or attempts thereof) at blue humor pegging leftists (not that I mind that mind you), it is just simply a conversation of well thought out proportions. Last night (he airs live the same time Rush does, but Rush being the radio collosus he is fills that time in the morning) he had on a professor of history for Presidents Day and they went through the strngths and weakness & a timeline of all 43 US presidents grading them almost identically to the theme initiated by Titus! It was insanely more interesting and intelligent then Hannity. He has on the Beltway Boys from FOX sometimes and they discuss politics. He's had the commander of our Pacific fleet on to discuss strength readiness. He has read and can quote the Federalists Papers, Socrates, Voltaire, tons of Shakspere (& he's Catholic), it is simply a cut above from "regular" radio and I urge you to listen. I don't know if he's on 144, but find out if you can get him somehow - you wont be dissapointed.
Losing to a teenager?
Hah! Try losing to a 9 year old!!
My sons have an XBox 360 & a Wii. Long ago I made a promise to Angela that the only violence oriented games I would allow them to own/play would be ones in which the violence was "neccessary", not gratuitous or without purpose. This allows the following: Medal of Honor European Assult; Medal of Honor Pacific Assult; Call of Duty, Airborne Division (the 101st no less); and the list goes on. My eldest has a gaming magazine subscription and it notes that the most popular theme - in purchases & rental popularity - for the most popular gaming format, "first-person shooter", is games oriented to World War II. There are currently over 50 different titles that are of the WWII geonra. We have conquered the Empire of the Rising Sun, stormed Normandy, assulted Panzer's in the Ardenne and stood tall in Berlin - at this point, when he's fighting with his younger brother & he really wants to insult him I'll hear "you freakin' German!"
He,he ....
My sons are aware already but I can just see in a few years all these kids getting into High School level history classes and being shocked that the games they played, along with the titles, are not fiction! If you think about it, it boads well for the next generation. The moment they learn all that fighting, sniping, dying, battling and evil opposition they played out, were actually done by real men, well, they'll have one hell of an appreciation that their beatnick 60's grandparents/parents did not.
And on the one on one versus mode - forget about it. 9 years old & he snipes me on a running jump. And check this out - we've done it with the XBox 360, but the same is available on the Wii console: they are computers now, not just gaming boxes & there is an ethrenet connection on the back. For $50 you get a years subscription to online gaming and you can play anybody in the world instantly with their voices coming through the speakers of the TV in real time - it's incredible technology. Peice of advice though - you run into any kid in Japan between the ages of 8 and 17, conceed ahead of time. Thank goodness we (the US) preforms better in REAL combat..... he,he.
My sons have an XBox 360 & a Wii. Long ago I made a promise to Angela that the only violence oriented games I would allow them to own/play would be ones in which the violence was "neccessary", not gratuitous or without purpose. This allows the following: Medal of Honor European Assult; Medal of Honor Pacific Assult; Call of Duty, Airborne Division (the 101st no less); and the list goes on. My eldest has a gaming magazine subscription and it notes that the most popular theme - in purchases & rental popularity - for the most popular gaming format, "first-person shooter", is games oriented to World War II. There are currently over 50 different titles that are of the WWII geonra. We have conquered the Empire of the Rising Sun, stormed Normandy, assulted Panzer's in the Ardenne and stood tall in Berlin - at this point, when he's fighting with his younger brother & he really wants to insult him I'll hear "you freakin' German!"
He,he ....
My sons are aware already but I can just see in a few years all these kids getting into High School level history classes and being shocked that the games they played, along with the titles, are not fiction! If you think about it, it boads well for the next generation. The moment they learn all that fighting, sniping, dying, battling and evil opposition they played out, were actually done by real men, well, they'll have one hell of an appreciation that their beatnick 60's grandparents/parents did not.
And on the one on one versus mode - forget about it. 9 years old & he snipes me on a running jump. And check this out - we've done it with the XBox 360, but the same is available on the Wii console: they are computers now, not just gaming boxes & there is an ethrenet connection on the back. For $50 you get a years subscription to online gaming and you can play anybody in the world instantly with their voices coming through the speakers of the TV in real time - it's incredible technology. Peice of advice though - you run into any kid in Japan between the ages of 8 and 17, conceed ahead of time. Thank goodness we (the US) preforms better in REAL combat..... he,he.
A "pundit" I can listen to...
Over the last month, I have had to work nearly all three shifts at the casino at some point in a week, due to being short-staffed. The ONLY upside to this (I'm salaried, so no overtime) is that I get 50 minutes at both ends of the day to listen to talk radio (not to mention any time I might get to listen to traditional AM programing in the office).
Of all the "Patriot 144" personalities that I hear in the course of a day, the only one that consistantly hold my attention without making me sick to my stomach with some rabid rhetoric from the extreme right is Bill Bennett on his Morning in America show.
A former Cabinet-member of Reagan and G. H. W. Bush's, this guy has rock-solid "conservative" political views that don't exclude a Democratic opinion. In fact, it wasn't until he became Sec. of Education that he changed his party affiliation from Dem to GOP. I think the man is the "poster-child" of the Reagan Democrat.
I am particularly fascinated with his views on education. A few examples of what he espouses are:
Of all the "Patriot 144" personalities that I hear in the course of a day, the only one that consistantly hold my attention without making me sick to my stomach with some rabid rhetoric from the extreme right is Bill Bennett on his Morning in America show.
A former Cabinet-member of Reagan and G. H. W. Bush's, this guy has rock-solid "conservative" political views that don't exclude a Democratic opinion. In fact, it wasn't until he became Sec. of Education that he changed his party affiliation from Dem to GOP. I think the man is the "poster-child" of the Reagan Democrat.
I am particularly fascinated with his views on education. A few examples of what he espouses are:
- Competency testing for teachers
- Opening the teaching profession to knowledgeable individuals who have not graduated from "schools of education"
- Performance-based pay
- Holding educators accountable for how much children learn
- An end to tenure
- A national examination to find out exactly how much our children know
- Parental choice of schools
He has pretty strict Catholic interpretations on social justice and abortion issues (all fine with me), but he balances those with a real, honest sense of fiscal responsiblity.
Best of all... his program avoids the inflammatory name-calling and generalizations made by the likes of Hannity, Coulter, Levin and Wilkow on a minute-by-minute basis, and he is always ready to debate a caller or guest with a differing opinion, rather than simply yelling and throwing slanders across the airways.
If you haven't heard him... check him out.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Museum Ships
So, I happen to be reading an article at work about the USS New Jersey, which is now docked as a museum ship across the river from Philadelphia, PA. Across, in fact, from the Independence Sea Port in Philadelphia, which is, itself, home to the USS Olympia (the only surviving Spanish-American Naval vessel), the USS Becuna (WWII submarine) and the windjammer Moshulu.
Having visited Philadelphia only recently and failed to see these ships, and being such a HUGE fan of museum ships like the USS Alabama, I did a little investigating…
All four of the Iowa-class battle ships of WWII (Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Jersey) have gained “museum ship” status, but only the New Jersey and the Missouri have permanent berths at non-profit museums: the Missouri in Pearl Harbor and the New Jersey in Camden, NJ. The Wisconsin is berthed at a semi-permanent station in Norfolk, VA (where I saw her in the very early 90’s) and the Iowa is parked in Suisun Bay, CA awaiting a suitable home somewhere in CA that isn’t openly protesting our Armed Forces and the Iraq war (all sarcasm intended, believe me!).
The interesting thing about these four ships (and several other retired and struck vessels) is that the US Navy has determined that the need for superior surface firepower is still something the Navy has… so none of these vessels can be altered in a manner that renders them incapable of future use in a military manner. This means that, unlike their sister ships USS Alabama and the USS Massachusetts (both South Dakota-class battleships) which are only required to supply parts and material to repair and maintain the larger Iowa-class ships, these four must be capable of full-service within a 60 day period! That is the primary condition of their no-cost “lease” to non-profit organizations… cheap, reliable maintenance of ships for the Navy, without the cost and hassle of “mothballing” them.
These four, along with the USS Midway (CV-41) and several others, are a fantastic way to celebrate our freedom and history (as museums) while still maintaining nearly functional quasi-modern battleships for our Armed Forces. Anyone coming to visit either myself or Jambo that DOESN’T stop to see one of these mammoth ships of war and contribute their paltry $8 to $18 dollars to park and tour the ships is as uncaring and un-American as I could hope to find.
In ships like these, we see an unbroken line from the ultra-modern active surface navy of today (the single most powerful armada in maritime history) all the way back through history to the very first vestiges of a US Navy… the USS Constitution, whose home is the Boston Naval Shipyard in Boston MA. That is tangible, real history going back to 1794, my friends… history you can touch, smell, walk upon, and experience with your children and your grandchildren.
Having visited Philadelphia only recently and failed to see these ships, and being such a HUGE fan of museum ships like the USS Alabama, I did a little investigating…
All four of the Iowa-class battle ships of WWII (Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Jersey) have gained “museum ship” status, but only the New Jersey and the Missouri have permanent berths at non-profit museums: the Missouri in Pearl Harbor and the New Jersey in Camden, NJ. The Wisconsin is berthed at a semi-permanent station in Norfolk, VA (where I saw her in the very early 90’s) and the Iowa is parked in Suisun Bay, CA awaiting a suitable home somewhere in CA that isn’t openly protesting our Armed Forces and the Iraq war (all sarcasm intended, believe me!).
The interesting thing about these four ships (and several other retired and struck vessels) is that the US Navy has determined that the need for superior surface firepower is still something the Navy has… so none of these vessels can be altered in a manner that renders them incapable of future use in a military manner. This means that, unlike their sister ships USS Alabama and the USS Massachusetts (both South Dakota-class battleships) which are only required to supply parts and material to repair and maintain the larger Iowa-class ships, these four must be capable of full-service within a 60 day period! That is the primary condition of their no-cost “lease” to non-profit organizations… cheap, reliable maintenance of ships for the Navy, without the cost and hassle of “mothballing” them.
These four, along with the USS Midway (CV-41) and several others, are a fantastic way to celebrate our freedom and history (as museums) while still maintaining nearly functional quasi-modern battleships for our Armed Forces. Anyone coming to visit either myself or Jambo that DOESN’T stop to see one of these mammoth ships of war and contribute their paltry $8 to $18 dollars to park and tour the ships is as uncaring and un-American as I could hope to find.
In ships like these, we see an unbroken line from the ultra-modern active surface navy of today (the single most powerful armada in maritime history) all the way back through history to the very first vestiges of a US Navy… the USS Constitution, whose home is the Boston Naval Shipyard in Boston MA. That is tangible, real history going back to 1794, my friends… history you can touch, smell, walk upon, and experience with your children and your grandchildren.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Hope springs eternal...
I'm still trying to wake up at nearly 4 pm in the afternoon, and what do I find?
My future "sons" (ages 13 and 5) playing the Wii... and the game they are playing?
Medal of Honor: Vanguard!
That's right... the "Mario Brother" twins have finally decided that an historically accute video experience of the trials and tribulations and ultimate victory of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers in WWII can, indeed, be entertaining. I watch with misty pride as they crawl through the stone walls of Anzio, the verdant hedgerows of Normandy, the canal-crossed fields of Nijmegen region of the Netherlands... slaying the hated Wehrmacht at every opportunity.
*Note: For any parent considering buying this platform... beware! The Wii controllers are "adult-proof" and I am not kidding. Yes, you can buy traditional Nintendo controllers that work with the Wii, and I have, it still puts you at a serious disadvantage from your teenage opponents. It sucks losing a one-on-one engagement with a 13 year old every single time.
That's the thought for the day...
My future "sons" (ages 13 and 5) playing the Wii... and the game they are playing?
Medal of Honor: Vanguard!
That's right... the "Mario Brother" twins have finally decided that an historically accute video experience of the trials and tribulations and ultimate victory of our grandfathers and great-grandfathers in WWII can, indeed, be entertaining. I watch with misty pride as they crawl through the stone walls of Anzio, the verdant hedgerows of Normandy, the canal-crossed fields of Nijmegen region of the Netherlands... slaying the hated Wehrmacht at every opportunity.
*Note: For any parent considering buying this platform... beware! The Wii controllers are "adult-proof" and I am not kidding. Yes, you can buy traditional Nintendo controllers that work with the Wii, and I have, it still puts you at a serious disadvantage from your teenage opponents. It sucks losing a one-on-one engagement with a 13 year old every single time.
That's the thought for the day...
I do ask that spelling be correct...
... and spelling Clemens with a T is not acceptable. My apologies.
You know, I don't ask for a lot...
... in the morning. My coffee. No screaming, fighting children. No screaming, fighting wife. And Mike and Mike in the morning on ESPN. TV or radio, hey, I'm flexible. It's my morning thing, and when you work nights your morning thing is pretty freaking important. Pitchers and catchers report next week. I need to know who these scrubs are that Minnesota picked up from the Mets.
What do I get?
The Clements hearing in front of a bunch of idiot (and that's an understatement!) congressmen.
Ryan. When you get elected, if you're sitting on a committee questioning sports guys, for the love of all that's holy KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING! These morons are just that. Morons. My kids, pick one, any of the three, know more about baseball than these idiots. So why would a baseball player take steroids or HGH? What kind of evidence, physically, would that leave? Does anyone ask intellegent questions like that? No.
Ok. First hour wasted. Now we're swinging into hour two. Still a chance to salvage this. Rap with me about the Twins. Someone talk about baseball. Like for real baseball. 2008 baseball. What do I get?
Arlen Specter talking to Goodell about Spygate.
Ok, number one, reliving the Patriots shame in 2007 isn't as painful as idiots talking to Clements. BUT... Specter sounds as Pennsyvanian as Huckabee sounds native to Arkansas. In fact. Specter sounds way more like someone from Little Rock than Huckabee. NLF anti-trust issues and Spygate is not something I want to WASTE my morning watching or listening to!
You know what? Didn't a report come out just last week saying that in the event of a major attack or a natural disaster ala Katrina, our collective National Guard aren't ready? Couldn't Congress be working on that as opposed to wrecking my morning with this bull?
Someone end this Writer's Strike so the world of Reality TV leaves Congress. JEEZ!
What do I get?
The Clements hearing in front of a bunch of idiot (and that's an understatement!) congressmen.
Ryan. When you get elected, if you're sitting on a committee questioning sports guys, for the love of all that's holy KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING! These morons are just that. Morons. My kids, pick one, any of the three, know more about baseball than these idiots. So why would a baseball player take steroids or HGH? What kind of evidence, physically, would that leave? Does anyone ask intellegent questions like that? No.
Ok. First hour wasted. Now we're swinging into hour two. Still a chance to salvage this. Rap with me about the Twins. Someone talk about baseball. Like for real baseball. 2008 baseball. What do I get?
Arlen Specter talking to Goodell about Spygate.
Ok, number one, reliving the Patriots shame in 2007 isn't as painful as idiots talking to Clements. BUT... Specter sounds as Pennsyvanian as Huckabee sounds native to Arkansas. In fact. Specter sounds way more like someone from Little Rock than Huckabee. NLF anti-trust issues and Spygate is not something I want to WASTE my morning watching or listening to!
You know what? Didn't a report come out just last week saying that in the event of a major attack or a natural disaster ala Katrina, our collective National Guard aren't ready? Couldn't Congress be working on that as opposed to wrecking my morning with this bull?
Someone end this Writer's Strike so the world of Reality TV leaves Congress. JEEZ!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
I gotta get in this thing ...
... elected office that is, sooner rather then later - I'm 32 next month! Truthfully I can't take anymore gushing in the media, on both sides, on how "articulate, good-looking & energetic" Barak Obama is. If HE is considered the gold standard on inspirational, well spoken, camera friendly politicians, well, this is where I use the Nicholoson line from Batman. "Wait till they get a load..." I know that's narcassitic as hell, I'll cop to that, but I have just had enough. You guys parallel the Kennedy brothers close enough (Jack & Bobby, minus the billionare gangster father & the head blasts), so I've got my team in place ... but knowing what it takes to replace the Beau toke rate, I'm going to need some serious donations, a volunteer staff is not in the cards ... he, he.
Yes I heard about the bears buzzing the Nimitz. It's all those damn Hollywood movies, clearly the Rusky pilots had just watched Top Gun & decided Maverick & Ice Man were going after the tower.
The best move the next president can make is IMMEDIATELY making Putin his best briend (I can't bring myslef to write "his or her" knowing who the her is this round). And not because we are weakened by foreign engagments or any nonsense like that, but because there is no down side to bringing Rusisia into a "Britainesque" relationship. Oil, troops, commerce, looser interrogation rules, black site prisons where no journalist will want to go, let alone be able to - Siberia. Here's the deal, in the first 100 days you back their claim on the continental shelf (with a sweetheart back door deal for us); move GITMO's function to an old Gulag in Siberia; put together a rediculously generous trade packagae - sign the deal in Moscow with both full cabinets their to physically mingle & develop personal relationships (that makes a HUGE difference even in, or maybe especially, this electronic age); send up a joint space team; go on joint maneuvers in the Bay of Bengal, that ought to make the chi-coms spit out their morning green tea all over their "Mao Rocks" mouse pad; and the creshendo - get them most favored nation trading status but change the law so that it is up for executive review every year. Presto that big ass Russian bear is your best friend, you've got a cheaper, bigger oil supplier whose military will garuntee their's no interruption by some rag heads trying to knock off a fake monarchy (see Saudi Arabia). You've got Bejing, and by extension Kim Jon, shatting his brown jumpsuit, and Ahmedadenajad realizes that their are some Russian jews with dual citizenship in Israel and 'wiping them off the map" will be very unhealthy for his regime. And given they occupy the largest land mass in all of Eurasia no one can ever credibly use the phrase "America's going it alone" ever again - cause you know Putin doesn't mind pissiong off (or on) Germany or France. Everyone already knows that if you attck America or Russia there will be seriously lethal consequences; but if you arrange it so that an attack on one is an attack on both then you've managed to put together a military alliance unmatched in the history of mankind.
You do this as president, solidify that relationship for the next three generations and not only do you ensure continued democracy there, you go down in history with Reagan here for the magnitude in which you affected Russian policy, and the world for that matter.
And for all those screaming about Putins "undemocratic" acts with the press, etc, peer down from that high horse at an actual history book so you don't forget we allowed slavery to remain legal for the first 89 years of our experiment in "We the People", so lets give ol' Vlad some breathing room, shall we?
FR
Yes I heard about the bears buzzing the Nimitz. It's all those damn Hollywood movies, clearly the Rusky pilots had just watched Top Gun & decided Maverick & Ice Man were going after the tower.
The best move the next president can make is IMMEDIATELY making Putin his best briend (I can't bring myslef to write "his or her" knowing who the her is this round). And not because we are weakened by foreign engagments or any nonsense like that, but because there is no down side to bringing Rusisia into a "Britainesque" relationship. Oil, troops, commerce, looser interrogation rules, black site prisons where no journalist will want to go, let alone be able to - Siberia. Here's the deal, in the first 100 days you back their claim on the continental shelf (with a sweetheart back door deal for us); move GITMO's function to an old Gulag in Siberia; put together a rediculously generous trade packagae - sign the deal in Moscow with both full cabinets their to physically mingle & develop personal relationships (that makes a HUGE difference even in, or maybe especially, this electronic age); send up a joint space team; go on joint maneuvers in the Bay of Bengal, that ought to make the chi-coms spit out their morning green tea all over their "Mao Rocks" mouse pad; and the creshendo - get them most favored nation trading status but change the law so that it is up for executive review every year. Presto that big ass Russian bear is your best friend, you've got a cheaper, bigger oil supplier whose military will garuntee their's no interruption by some rag heads trying to knock off a fake monarchy (see Saudi Arabia). You've got Bejing, and by extension Kim Jon, shatting his brown jumpsuit, and Ahmedadenajad realizes that their are some Russian jews with dual citizenship in Israel and 'wiping them off the map" will be very unhealthy for his regime. And given they occupy the largest land mass in all of Eurasia no one can ever credibly use the phrase "America's going it alone" ever again - cause you know Putin doesn't mind pissiong off (or on) Germany or France. Everyone already knows that if you attck America or Russia there will be seriously lethal consequences; but if you arrange it so that an attack on one is an attack on both then you've managed to put together a military alliance unmatched in the history of mankind.
You do this as president, solidify that relationship for the next three generations and not only do you ensure continued democracy there, you go down in history with Reagan here for the magnitude in which you affected Russian policy, and the world for that matter.
And for all those screaming about Putins "undemocratic" acts with the press, etc, peer down from that high horse at an actual history book so you don't forget we allowed slavery to remain legal for the first 89 years of our experiment in "We the People", so lets give ol' Vlad some breathing room, shall we?
FR
She's right about one thing... You're an idiot.
We're talking Russian moves to further its interests abroad by expanding its military capability as troublesome? Were we not as a discussion group ADVOCATING that very thing? Isn't it about time someone else helps us other than Great Britain?
Now granted, we do not have a warm and cozy relationship with Putin. We all know why that is. And we all know why it shouldn't be that way.
How, in the global scheme of things, do Russian and American views diverge? It's not like Putin is spreading the Revolution anymore. In fact, there's probably no greater an ally AGAINST Communism than Putin. Russia wants a stable Middle East. Stable Central Asia. Secure borders. If they want to fly two fifty year old prop driven aircraft within BB gun range of a super carrier, well, how pissed off were the CO and CAG of Nimitz? And by the way, was anyone checking sonar while the air show was on? I'm the Rear Admiral of Task Force 74 and someone faxes me a photo of the Nimitz through a perescope sight taken during the flyby, I'm eating someone's nuts for lunch.
I'm on record as furthering Russian/American relations. Putin is no angel, I'll be the first to admit, but of all the buttheads we've dealt with as a nation, this one warrants some latitude. If for the only reason, if he ends up in bed with China and India, we really have a Clancy senario.
Now granted, we do not have a warm and cozy relationship with Putin. We all know why that is. And we all know why it shouldn't be that way.
How, in the global scheme of things, do Russian and American views diverge? It's not like Putin is spreading the Revolution anymore. In fact, there's probably no greater an ally AGAINST Communism than Putin. Russia wants a stable Middle East. Stable Central Asia. Secure borders. If they want to fly two fifty year old prop driven aircraft within BB gun range of a super carrier, well, how pissed off were the CO and CAG of Nimitz? And by the way, was anyone checking sonar while the air show was on? I'm the Rear Admiral of Task Force 74 and someone faxes me a photo of the Nimitz through a perescope sight taken during the flyby, I'm eating someone's nuts for lunch.
I'm on record as furthering Russian/American relations. Putin is no angel, I'll be the first to admit, but of all the buttheads we've dealt with as a nation, this one warrants some latitude. If for the only reason, if he ends up in bed with China and India, we really have a Clancy senario.
The vision of Tom Clancy...
...played out on the evening news.
Two Tu-95 "Bear" bombers of the Russian Pacific Strategic Forces buzzed the USS Nimitz just a few days ago, and the ripples are still being felt today.
Of course, no one doubts the threat level this exercize actually contained... very low. Had the Bears really been intent on mayhem, they'd have launched from the very limits of their detectable range... not from 2,000 feet away. In fact, both planes were so close to the carrier itself, that the Nimitz's own AA guns were in range... the last line of defense for a carrier.
It's the fact that Russia and Putin are so bent on applying Cold War "bump-and-grind" manuevers to a post-war world that I find fascinating. Russia is not an irrelevant player on the world stage, post-Soviet or not. Nuclear arsenal aside, even their admittedly under-maintained naval forces can't be ignored, and Putin has dedicated BILLIONS to bring both the conventional and strategic forces of the Russian Army, Navy and Air Forces back to "super-power" status by the end of the decade.
The Military Channel did a show on the Spetsnaz forces since the fall of the USSR, and touched on the fact that Putin has increased the size and number of units from 8 to 32, spreading beyond the traditional 5 military districts of the former USSR and now deploying new battalions to other Republics that share a defense agreement with Russia.
I am beginning to feel that the reasoning behind this increase in personnel and capacity is that Putin wants to see a greater role for Russian military intervention in global trouble spots... Central Asia, Central Africa and the Middle East... to further the interests of Russia, the same way the US is furthering the interest of America abroad with its interventionist policies.
Who else thinks this is troublesome?
Two Tu-95 "Bear" bombers of the Russian Pacific Strategic Forces buzzed the USS Nimitz just a few days ago, and the ripples are still being felt today.
Of course, no one doubts the threat level this exercize actually contained... very low. Had the Bears really been intent on mayhem, they'd have launched from the very limits of their detectable range... not from 2,000 feet away. In fact, both planes were so close to the carrier itself, that the Nimitz's own AA guns were in range... the last line of defense for a carrier.
It's the fact that Russia and Putin are so bent on applying Cold War "bump-and-grind" manuevers to a post-war world that I find fascinating. Russia is not an irrelevant player on the world stage, post-Soviet or not. Nuclear arsenal aside, even their admittedly under-maintained naval forces can't be ignored, and Putin has dedicated BILLIONS to bring both the conventional and strategic forces of the Russian Army, Navy and Air Forces back to "super-power" status by the end of the decade.
The Military Channel did a show on the Spetsnaz forces since the fall of the USSR, and touched on the fact that Putin has increased the size and number of units from 8 to 32, spreading beyond the traditional 5 military districts of the former USSR and now deploying new battalions to other Republics that share a defense agreement with Russia.
I am beginning to feel that the reasoning behind this increase in personnel and capacity is that Putin wants to see a greater role for Russian military intervention in global trouble spots... Central Asia, Central Africa and the Middle East... to further the interests of Russia, the same way the US is furthering the interest of America abroad with its interventionist policies.
Who else thinks this is troublesome?
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Mark my words ...
... Obama is going to make this thing go to the convention. Now, you may ask what does that mean, and what exactly IS a "brokered convention?" Well, it is true that the primary & caucus states will have dedicated their delegates by convention night (short any faithless electors); however, the "super delegates" will be up for grabs. These are delegates afforded party big wigs, i.e. former presidents all the way down to the national president of college Democrats. It's the closest thing to the old Boss Tweed style of party boss power, still in use; and if I'm not mistaken there's around 65 on the Democrat side uncommitted. Typically, a front runner is left as the obvious nominee long before the convention comes and the super delegates are prededicated ... but not this time.
Obama's beating Hill 1175 to her 1171 with 2025 needed for victory. This is after his Maryland, VA & DC wins today (McCain also won all three). Keep in mind Obama has won 8 of the last 8 states - the momentum is clearly with him. Imagine this - he walks in to that convention leading her in delegates decided by actual votes, and she arm twists the super delegates onto her side & the DNC brass has literally screwed the first black candidate with a legitimate chance at winning the White House out of a victory the rank & file Democrats have handed him. OUCH!
On the GOP side the AZ Senator is winning 789 to Huck's 241, the magic number being 1195.
On whom the military would most prefer on the GOP side? Well, obviously we are speaking in generalities, but it's safe to say (exit polls confirm this every four years in recent history, especially the last two presidential cycles) that our armed forces vote nearly 70% Republican. Little wonder in my estimation. As you may remember, in one of the most shameful election shinanigans I've ever witnessed, Gore, in 2000, tried to get thousands of overseas active duty military absentee ballots tossed out due to a technicality. The 2000 "hanging chad" fiasco was so close he tried to gain that advantage knowing they'd mostly go for Bush. At any rate, McCain has stacked up an impressive triple digit military endorsment roster that includes grenerals, admirals, colonels, the whole works. At least for the brass their man is McCain. And I don't blame them - a POW of the infamous Hanoi Hilton, Navy Squadron commander, he's a natural favorite for them and it's well deserved, I could never deny that.
Well, I was absent a bit lately due to a phenomenon happening all throughout the greater Vegas Valley. The housing boom was huge out here and in a scenario that has played out throughout the country (but especially here) ordinary doctors, dentists, HS pricipals, etc were buying two and three extra homes on interest only loans, sitting on them for 6 mos while renting them out to cover the note, & selling at the end of a short lease because the equity was almost instant, about 10 grand a month at one point. A lot of people made a fortune. Unbfortunately, if you were in the middle of this proccess when the bottom fell out, you were left holding a home worth 20% less then you payed for it, and the mortgage bills still rolling in. So thousands of renters have found themselves with 3 day notices to evict on their door, literally out of no where - afterall, as the renter, you never see the mortgage notes, late notices, forclosure letters etc. Renters don't know until the house has been repossesed and is going up for sale. A version of this happened to us (actually the owner out of CA had a property manager collecting rent on various units in Vegas but not turning around and paying the mortgage as was his job - ours was one of these - and by the time the owner found out his man was scamming him the market had dropped and he decided to focus on saving a slender number of his properties ... ours was not one of them). So, we got the 3 day notice but the same day a realtor employed by the lien holder to sell the repossesed house we're in showed up on our door step to see if he could help in expediting our removal, and after being explained the situation by me, he was able to get us 4 weeks worth of breathing room to find a new place, plus Wells Fargo (the consigned bank) is giving us a $300 check if we leave the house in good condition and are out by the 1st of March. Luckily we've got a bead on a new joint, 300 more square ft, an extra bedroom, corner lot (reducing our neighbors by 50%), 2 stories, & right across from a park - with actual GRASS in this desert - all for the exact same rent we're paying now. We should be moving end of the month so the "puter" will be out of comission for a few days then. I think we'll rent another 12 mos until the market has so called "bottomed out", according to Cavuto, and then try and become homeowners again.
Later .....
OH - and I'm trying to predict who McCain will pick as a VP. Huckabee, with his social conservative credentials and his obvious ability to sweep the south (as he's done this entire primary season) seems a natural, but does McCain further alienate the "Limbaugh wing" of the party by picking another guy seen as soft on illegal imigration & taxes? Believe it or not Barbour was predicted to be on a short list according to a FOX pundit today. A southerner makes sense, afterall during this primary McCain has won due to states he'll never carry in the general - CA, NY etc. Any Republican that splits the south with Obama (they won't go Hillary no matter what) loses, period, so his choice for second in command will be crucial. If I were him (knowing he won't go Romney, they can't stand eachother ... although Jophnson hated the Kennedy's so you never know, but I digress ...) I'd tap the Roman Catholic, very conservative, smart youthful, camera-friendly former senator Rick Santorum of PA. Conservatives love this guy and his last loss (in 06') due to his supprt for the war has projected him into GOP martyr status - everybody from Rush to Levine to Beck can't get enough of this guy, and I've always liked him, giving him the evr important "F.Ryan" endorsmnet. Had he pulled out that PA race in 06' he'd be in this presidential race right now, of that I have no doubt. Alright, that's my prediction - Santorum. Short of that it's a southern governor.
FR
Obama's beating Hill 1175 to her 1171 with 2025 needed for victory. This is after his Maryland, VA & DC wins today (McCain also won all three). Keep in mind Obama has won 8 of the last 8 states - the momentum is clearly with him. Imagine this - he walks in to that convention leading her in delegates decided by actual votes, and she arm twists the super delegates onto her side & the DNC brass has literally screwed the first black candidate with a legitimate chance at winning the White House out of a victory the rank & file Democrats have handed him. OUCH!
On the GOP side the AZ Senator is winning 789 to Huck's 241, the magic number being 1195.
On whom the military would most prefer on the GOP side? Well, obviously we are speaking in generalities, but it's safe to say (exit polls confirm this every four years in recent history, especially the last two presidential cycles) that our armed forces vote nearly 70% Republican. Little wonder in my estimation. As you may remember, in one of the most shameful election shinanigans I've ever witnessed, Gore, in 2000, tried to get thousands of overseas active duty military absentee ballots tossed out due to a technicality. The 2000 "hanging chad" fiasco was so close he tried to gain that advantage knowing they'd mostly go for Bush. At any rate, McCain has stacked up an impressive triple digit military endorsment roster that includes grenerals, admirals, colonels, the whole works. At least for the brass their man is McCain. And I don't blame them - a POW of the infamous Hanoi Hilton, Navy Squadron commander, he's a natural favorite for them and it's well deserved, I could never deny that.
Well, I was absent a bit lately due to a phenomenon happening all throughout the greater Vegas Valley. The housing boom was huge out here and in a scenario that has played out throughout the country (but especially here) ordinary doctors, dentists, HS pricipals, etc were buying two and three extra homes on interest only loans, sitting on them for 6 mos while renting them out to cover the note, & selling at the end of a short lease because the equity was almost instant, about 10 grand a month at one point. A lot of people made a fortune. Unbfortunately, if you were in the middle of this proccess when the bottom fell out, you were left holding a home worth 20% less then you payed for it, and the mortgage bills still rolling in. So thousands of renters have found themselves with 3 day notices to evict on their door, literally out of no where - afterall, as the renter, you never see the mortgage notes, late notices, forclosure letters etc. Renters don't know until the house has been repossesed and is going up for sale. A version of this happened to us (actually the owner out of CA had a property manager collecting rent on various units in Vegas but not turning around and paying the mortgage as was his job - ours was one of these - and by the time the owner found out his man was scamming him the market had dropped and he decided to focus on saving a slender number of his properties ... ours was not one of them). So, we got the 3 day notice but the same day a realtor employed by the lien holder to sell the repossesed house we're in showed up on our door step to see if he could help in expediting our removal, and after being explained the situation by me, he was able to get us 4 weeks worth of breathing room to find a new place, plus Wells Fargo (the consigned bank) is giving us a $300 check if we leave the house in good condition and are out by the 1st of March. Luckily we've got a bead on a new joint, 300 more square ft, an extra bedroom, corner lot (reducing our neighbors by 50%), 2 stories, & right across from a park - with actual GRASS in this desert - all for the exact same rent we're paying now. We should be moving end of the month so the "puter" will be out of comission for a few days then. I think we'll rent another 12 mos until the market has so called "bottomed out", according to Cavuto, and then try and become homeowners again.
Later .....
OH - and I'm trying to predict who McCain will pick as a VP. Huckabee, with his social conservative credentials and his obvious ability to sweep the south (as he's done this entire primary season) seems a natural, but does McCain further alienate the "Limbaugh wing" of the party by picking another guy seen as soft on illegal imigration & taxes? Believe it or not Barbour was predicted to be on a short list according to a FOX pundit today. A southerner makes sense, afterall during this primary McCain has won due to states he'll never carry in the general - CA, NY etc. Any Republican that splits the south with Obama (they won't go Hillary no matter what) loses, period, so his choice for second in command will be crucial. If I were him (knowing he won't go Romney, they can't stand eachother ... although Jophnson hated the Kennedy's so you never know, but I digress ...) I'd tap the Roman Catholic, very conservative, smart youthful, camera-friendly former senator Rick Santorum of PA. Conservatives love this guy and his last loss (in 06') due to his supprt for the war has projected him into GOP martyr status - everybody from Rush to Levine to Beck can't get enough of this guy, and I've always liked him, giving him the evr important "F.Ryan" endorsmnet. Had he pulled out that PA race in 06' he'd be in this presidential race right now, of that I have no doubt. Alright, that's my prediction - Santorum. Short of that it's a southern governor.
FR
Here's a question:
I'd be curious to see THIS poll...
What is the popularity of the "three" top GOP candidates (even though Mitt's out) among our military men and women? Who will they support?
ALSO... does the US Armed Forces have a system of nomination election OUTSIDE of asentee ballots for troops serving outside of their home states? If they do not, then perhaps they SHOULD? Our active military is now numbering over 1.5 million men and women, and if you add the total of reserve units in active duty stations, I'd bet the number is getting close to a full 1% of the US population (of voting age). That's a LOT of votes that are FAR more difficult to cast than yours or mine.
More on this later...
What is the popularity of the "three" top GOP candidates (even though Mitt's out) among our military men and women? Who will they support?
ALSO... does the US Armed Forces have a system of nomination election OUTSIDE of asentee ballots for troops serving outside of their home states? If they do not, then perhaps they SHOULD? Our active military is now numbering over 1.5 million men and women, and if you add the total of reserve units in active duty stations, I'd bet the number is getting close to a full 1% of the US population (of voting age). That's a LOT of votes that are FAR more difficult to cast than yours or mine.
More on this later...
The 11th Commandment ...
First off to Badboy ..
We all (the three original founders) fancy ourselves brighter then most, more in the "know" then most, but each of us stand in awe, with wide gaping mouths (if ever so momentarily silent) to those who actually serve. I know that a part of us all wish we had - good form sir, very good form.
****
On "Reagan" and why conservatives have a problem with McCain ....
I wouldn't dare to comment further on Reagan then what Ronnie's eldest son has to say .... I will add this on McCain however. YES, Sir Ron WOULD vote for the party nominee, no doubt. I, as a "Regan-ite", as penned by Pliny The Elder, have said exactly that. However, The 11th Commandment Reagan spoke of (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican) falls in contrast, in principle, to "I didn't leave my party (the Democrat Party), it left me." A phrase (or there abouts) he made famous. So, McCain gets my support by default (taking both of those Reagan staments into consideration) due only to one fact - men of ours are in combat, & he's 10 times more liberal then me, but 100 times more conservative then Hillary or Barak.
The "Romney" he spoke of (Micheal R.) is Mitt's Dad, the former governor of Michigan that was opposed to both Goldwater (dramatically so according to Pat Buchanan) & Reagan when his time came (favoring G.H. Bush).
But to reiterate, McCain has been on the "non-conservative" side of about 5 out of the 6 hottest button issues of the last 7 years - 1.) Judges... the "gang of 14" helped to represent Democrats desire for more moderate (meaning flaming libs, more abortions "please") judges. 2.) McCain/Kennedy ... in a word, AMNESTY! 3.) McCain/Feingold, the incumbent protection Act, makes free speech its bitch. 4.) GITMO ... "shut it down" he says, but no explanation as to what to do "next." 5.) Waterboarding is "out" with him. It's "torture", etc...
Now, NUMBER SIX is the overall war on terror. He "gets" that. And that, with men in theater, is what will cause me, and men of my ilk, to pull the lever for him. Badboy, etc, as much as I have beefs with "John" (I dare not think I've earned the right to address him by first name ouside of quotation marks) deserve that much ... God knows they've earned it.....
We all (the three original founders) fancy ourselves brighter then most, more in the "know" then most, but each of us stand in awe, with wide gaping mouths (if ever so momentarily silent) to those who actually serve. I know that a part of us all wish we had - good form sir, very good form.
****
On "Reagan" and why conservatives have a problem with McCain ....
I wouldn't dare to comment further on Reagan then what Ronnie's eldest son has to say .... I will add this on McCain however. YES, Sir Ron WOULD vote for the party nominee, no doubt. I, as a "Regan-ite", as penned by Pliny The Elder, have said exactly that. However, The 11th Commandment Reagan spoke of (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican) falls in contrast, in principle, to "I didn't leave my party (the Democrat Party), it left me." A phrase (or there abouts) he made famous. So, McCain gets my support by default (taking both of those Reagan staments into consideration) due only to one fact - men of ours are in combat, & he's 10 times more liberal then me, but 100 times more conservative then Hillary or Barak.
The "Romney" he spoke of (Micheal R.) is Mitt's Dad, the former governor of Michigan that was opposed to both Goldwater (dramatically so according to Pat Buchanan) & Reagan when his time came (favoring G.H. Bush).
But to reiterate, McCain has been on the "non-conservative" side of about 5 out of the 6 hottest button issues of the last 7 years - 1.) Judges... the "gang of 14" helped to represent Democrats desire for more moderate (meaning flaming libs, more abortions "please") judges. 2.) McCain/Kennedy ... in a word, AMNESTY! 3.) McCain/Feingold, the incumbent protection Act, makes free speech its bitch. 4.) GITMO ... "shut it down" he says, but no explanation as to what to do "next." 5.) Waterboarding is "out" with him. It's "torture", etc...
Now, NUMBER SIX is the overall war on terror. He "gets" that. And that, with men in theater, is what will cause me, and men of my ilk, to pull the lever for him. Badboy, etc, as much as I have beefs with "John" (I dare not think I've earned the right to address him by first name ouside of quotation marks) deserve that much ... God knows they've earned it.....
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Hello from BFE Texas
Well I have to apologize for such a long absence but in the infinite wisdom of the US Air Force I have been sent to the vast wasteland we more commonly refer to as Texas. I am being cross trained and will be gone for several months. If this first week was any indication of my future experience here I wouldn't be surprised if I don't spend a little longer here. I'm not sure if it's my age or such a fast change in full time lifestyle but school has been a little tougher than what I have been accustomed to in the past. I'm hoping that it is just the first week and I will adjust to it soon.
Anyways I haven't read any posts in a while so I will try to make it at least an every other day affair and try to catch up. Hope all is well.
Baddboy
Anyways I haven't read any posts in a while so I will try to make it at least an every other day affair and try to catch up. Hope all is well.
Baddboy
From the mouths of babes...
I mentioned confusion at the thought of conservatives withholding support of McCain should he get the nomination recently, and at the resurgence of interest in "What would Reagan do?" in the conservative media outlets.
Well, tonight I got some resolution on those points from Reagan's own son.
Michael Reagan had his Friday show re-aired tonight on my way in, and he said on that show that his father would vote for the PARTY'S nominee... even if it wasn't his first choice. There are few people I'd trust more to know the thoughts and habits of a man than his children, and Mike Reagan seemed awfully sure that his father would have picked McCain as his first choice over Romney, simply because the Romney Ron Reagan knew fought him tooth and nail on every issue... McCain didn't.
Mike also thought that all these people spouting off about "What would Reagan do?" should shut up, as probably not one of them had ever even spoken to the man, let alone knew him well enough to have an insight into his wants, needs and aspirations.
A good show... and that is saying something coming from me.
Well, tonight I got some resolution on those points from Reagan's own son.
Michael Reagan had his Friday show re-aired tonight on my way in, and he said on that show that his father would vote for the PARTY'S nominee... even if it wasn't his first choice. There are few people I'd trust more to know the thoughts and habits of a man than his children, and Mike Reagan seemed awfully sure that his father would have picked McCain as his first choice over Romney, simply because the Romney Ron Reagan knew fought him tooth and nail on every issue... McCain didn't.
Mike also thought that all these people spouting off about "What would Reagan do?" should shut up, as probably not one of them had ever even spoken to the man, let alone knew him well enough to have an insight into his wants, needs and aspirations.
A good show... and that is saying something coming from me.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Now I am REALLY lost...
I admit to questioning the GOP's hatred of McCain, but I didn't think Romney would drop out!
Does this put to rest all the rumors that Huckabee and McCain were in kahoots to take delegates from Romney... or does this prove it? Mitt's speech in front of CPAC (where he announced the end of his bid) was short and sweet... but didn't give any real insight into the "why"of it all, did it?
I'm still hoping for an explanation of WHY "real conservatives" felt McCain was hurting the chances of a GOP win in the general by doing WELL in the primary? Yes, he was gaining delegates over Romney and Huckabee... but isn't that the point? Regardless of who gets the "nod", surely the GOP wasn't sweating a Bush-Perot style split, were they? No one spoke of running as a 3rd party, and I find it difficult to believe a Romney supporter would withhold a vote come November simply because McCain feels the need to pander "compassionate conservatism" to the "deportation NOW" crowd.
I am flat out surprised by this... and a little dissappointed, too. Given the choice of yesterday, I'd have voted for Romney (Thompson was my first choice) in the general. And were I a Republican with an opportunity to vote in the primary, I'd have probably voted Romney (given no chance for Thompson)... but I'm not a Republican and PA hasn't had their primary yet.
Anyway... I guess you can disregard all the previous posts on this thread. They seem a bit mute now that McCain is as good as the GOP nominee.
Does this put to rest all the rumors that Huckabee and McCain were in kahoots to take delegates from Romney... or does this prove it? Mitt's speech in front of CPAC (where he announced the end of his bid) was short and sweet... but didn't give any real insight into the "why"of it all, did it?
I'm still hoping for an explanation of WHY "real conservatives" felt McCain was hurting the chances of a GOP win in the general by doing WELL in the primary? Yes, he was gaining delegates over Romney and Huckabee... but isn't that the point? Regardless of who gets the "nod", surely the GOP wasn't sweating a Bush-Perot style split, were they? No one spoke of running as a 3rd party, and I find it difficult to believe a Romney supporter would withhold a vote come November simply because McCain feels the need to pander "compassionate conservatism" to the "deportation NOW" crowd.
I am flat out surprised by this... and a little dissappointed, too. Given the choice of yesterday, I'd have voted for Romney (Thompson was my first choice) in the general. And were I a Republican with an opportunity to vote in the primary, I'd have probably voted Romney (given no chance for Thompson)... but I'm not a Republican and PA hasn't had their primary yet.
Anyway... I guess you can disregard all the previous posts on this thread. They seem a bit mute now that McCain is as good as the GOP nominee.
I'm still confused...
Hannity was on re-play as I drove home this morning... and he was RAVING about a campaign letter sent out by the McCain camp comparing his "maverick" status within the GOP to Reagan's similar status back in 1975-76.
Now, I'm the first to agree that McCain is no Reagan. No one needs to tell me that... and I never voted for the man (Reagan, that is). However, that isn't the point I wanted to make.
All these weeping "Reagan-ites" need to understand something. Ronald W. Reagan is dead. He is not going to run for President ever again. Period. End of story.
Furthermore, I'm not sure even HE would satisfy all these "principled conservatives" that are screaming about "getting back to the roots" of conservatism. In two previous posts I have mentioned what I deem to be failures on the part of President Reagan's administration, and those failures are glaring examples of how even REAGAN couldn't stand up to the image he tried to convey in his run for office.
After watching 52 US citizens rot in Iran for 444 days, Reagan spent the next 8 years pandering to the Iranians, covertly and overtly. After watching 241 US Marines and Naval personnel die in Beirut, Reagan removed all US forces from Lebanon in direct opposition to the advice and councel of both his SoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After promising to "beef up" the INS in 1981, he signed into law an amnesty bill that "legalized" more than 3 million illegal aliens. After promising to reduce the size and cost of government in BOTH his inaugural addresses, and in 6 SotU Addresses, he averaged an annual GROWTH rate of nearly 18% (size AND cost). After vowing to remove the Federal Government from the realm of State's rights, he forced the States to adhere to a drinking age of 21 AND failed to repeal (as promised) the 55 mph speed limit imposed by Nixon in 1973.
This is NOT a slam on Reagan. Reagan gave this country the ability to take pride in itself after nearly 16 years of anger and doubt. He managed to put behind all the shadows and doubt of Watergate, the "energy crisis", Vietnam, and the turbulent "60s", and told us it was okay to "dream heroic dreams" again. He FORCED America out of the "self-induced" fog of detente, and opened our eyes to the REALITY of modern communism and its failings. He rebuilt our Armed Forces after more than 20 years of failed defense administrations and a very unsuccessfull war. Most importantly, I do think that the man was a leader with integrity, pride, and honesty in a time when those attributes were in very short supply.
He was a great President... but he wasn't perfect.
Truman was a great President, as was FDR, and Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All were great in their time, and all were just waht the nation needed at that time. But if FDR, or Lincoln, or Kennedy were to come back today and run again... would they be as good? Would their particular brand of politics and their unique viewpoints be AS effective now as they were then?
NO.
So, can we PLEASE stop with the "great wailing and gnashing of teeth" at the thought that we are ONCE AGAIN not going to be able to elect Ronald W. Reagan to the Presidency? Can't we focus on the issues at hand now, and how they might best be addressed by a LIVING candidate? Or are we doomed to live in the shadow of "Ronnie" forever? Will we be forced to start referring to the GOP as the "Reagan Party" rather than the Republican Party?
Lest we forget... Reagan might have done a bang-up job re-making the Republican party after the '76 election, but he wasn't universally loved either. In fact, his approval ratings as President never even beat Clinton's, and were totally blown away by BOTH GHW Bush and GW Bush. They averaged right around 47% for the whole 8 years.
If all these "Reagan Conservatives" want to give Ron this much credit, I want them to NOT ignore the failings of his administrations, either. Just as Ryan was forced (by reason, not actual force) to admit that if Regan gets credit for the "Fall of Communism", then he shares it equally with Maggie Thatcher and John Paul II... I want to hear all the pundits and nostalgia-ridden GOP fans admit that the man WASN'T infallible.
Now, I'm the first to agree that McCain is no Reagan. No one needs to tell me that... and I never voted for the man (Reagan, that is). However, that isn't the point I wanted to make.
All these weeping "Reagan-ites" need to understand something. Ronald W. Reagan is dead. He is not going to run for President ever again. Period. End of story.
Furthermore, I'm not sure even HE would satisfy all these "principled conservatives" that are screaming about "getting back to the roots" of conservatism. In two previous posts I have mentioned what I deem to be failures on the part of President Reagan's administration, and those failures are glaring examples of how even REAGAN couldn't stand up to the image he tried to convey in his run for office.
After watching 52 US citizens rot in Iran for 444 days, Reagan spent the next 8 years pandering to the Iranians, covertly and overtly. After watching 241 US Marines and Naval personnel die in Beirut, Reagan removed all US forces from Lebanon in direct opposition to the advice and councel of both his SoD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After promising to "beef up" the INS in 1981, he signed into law an amnesty bill that "legalized" more than 3 million illegal aliens. After promising to reduce the size and cost of government in BOTH his inaugural addresses, and in 6 SotU Addresses, he averaged an annual GROWTH rate of nearly 18% (size AND cost). After vowing to remove the Federal Government from the realm of State's rights, he forced the States to adhere to a drinking age of 21 AND failed to repeal (as promised) the 55 mph speed limit imposed by Nixon in 1973.
This is NOT a slam on Reagan. Reagan gave this country the ability to take pride in itself after nearly 16 years of anger and doubt. He managed to put behind all the shadows and doubt of Watergate, the "energy crisis", Vietnam, and the turbulent "60s", and told us it was okay to "dream heroic dreams" again. He FORCED America out of the "self-induced" fog of detente, and opened our eyes to the REALITY of modern communism and its failings. He rebuilt our Armed Forces after more than 20 years of failed defense administrations and a very unsuccessfull war. Most importantly, I do think that the man was a leader with integrity, pride, and honesty in a time when those attributes were in very short supply.
He was a great President... but he wasn't perfect.
Truman was a great President, as was FDR, and Kennedy, and Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln. All were great in their time, and all were just waht the nation needed at that time. But if FDR, or Lincoln, or Kennedy were to come back today and run again... would they be as good? Would their particular brand of politics and their unique viewpoints be AS effective now as they were then?
NO.
So, can we PLEASE stop with the "great wailing and gnashing of teeth" at the thought that we are ONCE AGAIN not going to be able to elect Ronald W. Reagan to the Presidency? Can't we focus on the issues at hand now, and how they might best be addressed by a LIVING candidate? Or are we doomed to live in the shadow of "Ronnie" forever? Will we be forced to start referring to the GOP as the "Reagan Party" rather than the Republican Party?
Lest we forget... Reagan might have done a bang-up job re-making the Republican party after the '76 election, but he wasn't universally loved either. In fact, his approval ratings as President never even beat Clinton's, and were totally blown away by BOTH GHW Bush and GW Bush. They averaged right around 47% for the whole 8 years.
If all these "Reagan Conservatives" want to give Ron this much credit, I want them to NOT ignore the failings of his administrations, either. Just as Ryan was forced (by reason, not actual force) to admit that if Regan gets credit for the "Fall of Communism", then he shares it equally with Maggie Thatcher and John Paul II... I want to hear all the pundits and nostalgia-ridden GOP fans admit that the man WASN'T infallible.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
I'm confused...
I’m not being funny or sarcastic here… I really am trying to understand this.
Okay, the Romney supporters are pissed at the Super Tuesday results. McCain has a serious lead, and lots of momentum. He has won key states that many Romney-ites seem to have thought they had in the bag… CA, NY, NJ, and CT among them.
I am the first to admit that McCain has a less than stellar Senate record… both on missed votes (57% during this Congress alone) and in crossing the isle (only an 87% party vote record for his Senate career). However, he clearly WON the states mentioned above… at least for registered Republicans, if not “Reagan conservatives” (whom I assume voted for “Ron” Romney).
My question is this: Do pundits like Levin and Hannity actually think that the Romney supporters WON’T vote GOP in the general, if McCain wins the nomination? What is the alternative? Take the kids to a movie? Paint the house? Of course, the conservatives in CA, NY, NJ, and CT will vote for whomever the GOP nominates, right?
The absolute hatred for John McCain by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Mike Church, et al astonishes me to no end! Levin actually called him a “socialist” on my way into work! Why is this?
The Cato Institute (you can’t get more conservative than THAT!) listed 30 key Senatorial votes since Feb of 2005, and showed how each Senator voted. Out of those 30 votes, McCain only voted AGAINST the party majority 4 times. Four out of thirty ISN’T enough to qualify him for “liberal” of the year, is it?
Let’s look at those four votes…
H.R.810; Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The GOP members voted 36 to 19 against it, with McCain voting in favor… along with Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Bob Bennett. These aren’t “liberal” names, by any means, right?
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment. Here, in an attempt to begin the Amendment process to define marriage as between a man and woman, the GOP voted 47 in favor, 7 against, with McCain against… along with Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, and John Sununu (sp?).
S. 2611 As Amended; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This was a big vote, I’d guess… especially in light of the election issues. 32 GOP Senators voted against it, while 23 voted for it. Among the “ayes” were John McCain, Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell and Norm Coleman.
Conference Report H. R. 6; Energy Policy Act of 2005. Another biggie, giving tax breaks to companies working for energy independence and lower pollution levels. 49 voted yes, 6 voted no… including McCain, Sununu and Kyl.
My point is simply that he wasn’t a “lone dissenter” in the GOP crowd… he had some pretty conservative company as he crossed the isle on these key votes. Yet I don’t hear Coulter or Hannity calling Lott, or Specter, or Sununu out onto the carpet for their votes… only McCain is labeled as a “liberal” and a “socialist” because he made some un-GOP votes.
McCain has been quoted here as having “heard the message” about immigration and secure borders… so he has changed his position. Is that any different than Romney changing his position on gay marriage, or abortion?
Maybe the majority of real conservatives in CA or NY did vote Romney, but that doesn’t mean they will hold back a vote if McCain gets the nomination… so what is the panic? Why is Levin saying that “his” voice won’t be heard for the next 12 years? (I only wish that were true!)
Okay, the Romney supporters are pissed at the Super Tuesday results. McCain has a serious lead, and lots of momentum. He has won key states that many Romney-ites seem to have thought they had in the bag… CA, NY, NJ, and CT among them.
I am the first to admit that McCain has a less than stellar Senate record… both on missed votes (57% during this Congress alone) and in crossing the isle (only an 87% party vote record for his Senate career). However, he clearly WON the states mentioned above… at least for registered Republicans, if not “Reagan conservatives” (whom I assume voted for “Ron” Romney).
My question is this: Do pundits like Levin and Hannity actually think that the Romney supporters WON’T vote GOP in the general, if McCain wins the nomination? What is the alternative? Take the kids to a movie? Paint the house? Of course, the conservatives in CA, NY, NJ, and CT will vote for whomever the GOP nominates, right?
The absolute hatred for John McCain by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Mike Church, et al astonishes me to no end! Levin actually called him a “socialist” on my way into work! Why is this?
The Cato Institute (you can’t get more conservative than THAT!) listed 30 key Senatorial votes since Feb of 2005, and showed how each Senator voted. Out of those 30 votes, McCain only voted AGAINST the party majority 4 times. Four out of thirty ISN’T enough to qualify him for “liberal” of the year, is it?
Let’s look at those four votes…
H.R.810; Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. The GOP members voted 36 to 19 against it, with McCain voting in favor… along with Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott, Lamar Alexander, Arlen Specter, and Bob Bennett. These aren’t “liberal” names, by any means, right?
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. J. Res. 1; Marriage Protection Amendment. Here, in an attempt to begin the Amendment process to define marriage as between a man and woman, the GOP voted 47 in favor, 7 against, with McCain against… along with Arlen Specter, Trent Lott, and John Sununu (sp?).
S. 2611 As Amended; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This was a big vote, I’d guess… especially in light of the election issues. 32 GOP Senators voted against it, while 23 voted for it. Among the “ayes” were John McCain, Thad Cochran, Arlen Specter, Mitch McConnell and Norm Coleman.
Conference Report H. R. 6; Energy Policy Act of 2005. Another biggie, giving tax breaks to companies working for energy independence and lower pollution levels. 49 voted yes, 6 voted no… including McCain, Sununu and Kyl.
My point is simply that he wasn’t a “lone dissenter” in the GOP crowd… he had some pretty conservative company as he crossed the isle on these key votes. Yet I don’t hear Coulter or Hannity calling Lott, or Specter, or Sununu out onto the carpet for their votes… only McCain is labeled as a “liberal” and a “socialist” because he made some un-GOP votes.
McCain has been quoted here as having “heard the message” about immigration and secure borders… so he has changed his position. Is that any different than Romney changing his position on gay marriage, or abortion?
Maybe the majority of real conservatives in CA or NY did vote Romney, but that doesn’t mean they will hold back a vote if McCain gets the nomination… so what is the panic? Why is Levin saying that “his” voice won’t be heard for the next 12 years? (I only wish that were true!)
McCain must have counted on this, unfortunately he was right ...
First, a quick aside on Raegan. The "right" as defined today in Limbaugh type conservatives (I envoke his name whether you like it or not because Stephenopolous, Hume, Williams, they all use his name when referring to whom McCain has a "problem" with within his party, so if you don't like it, take it up with them. Not to mention, if out of the 300,000,000 US citizens plus, 200,000,000 are adults, 100 million actually vote, 50 million are locked into the GOP, and half of those - 25 million - are conservatives, well Limbaughs weekly audience is 22 million, and I think those anchors realize this number break down and that's why they use it) at any rate ... generally speaking the "right" isn't opposed to NAFTA. I don't know where you got this from. I know the Buchanaites are opposed to it, unions are, Perot was, but I distictly remember Rush applauding Gore for decimating Perot on Larry King Live over the issue. The Buchana wing may oppose this but that's a small percentage to say the least, otherwise he'd of won something, somewhere.
On Reagan principles and the size of government: I can't make you understand what you refuse to believe just because you like finding chinks in Ron's armor, or those who would envoke his name. If Tip O'neal & the gang wanted a 35% growth rate in government - OUTSIDE of military expenditures - and Reagan holds it at 20, WITH military expenditures, then he can rightly claim to have curbed the growth & size of government. And to say he spent like a New Deal president is innacurate in the extreme.Reagan's expenditures in government growth were primarily military, not federal "welfare" (literal definition) or public project roles (outside of WWII military expenditures)like FDR (that didn't work then anyway, outside of the psychological effect that at least he, FDR, was seen as doing "something" as opposed to Hoover sitting on his hands).
Once more I will describe what conservatives mean when invoking his name - smaller more efficient government - which we on the right have never lumped the military into - and REDUCING THE RATE OF GROWTH, and redirecting the money that is spent into more efficient modes IS IN FACT "smaller more efficient government."
Now, you can play this game of using his numbers versus FDR's and say "Reagan's no conservative and he spent like a New Deal president" all you want, and in any sane circle you'll have people telling you substance abuse is a real disease, and perhaps you should seek help. Politically speaking "conservatism" is the apt name for a man, whom as president, curbed the government's non military rate of growth while growing the military budget. I could do the same thing regarding the term "liberal" and the ACLU or the Democrat party - they're about as "tolerant" to Christianity as David Duke at a Harlem Reinessaince fair. But I realize what "politically speaking" the term liberal now represents as opposed to using the text book definition and asking athiest ACLU lawyers to stop self-envoking the term 'liberal." But why do that? It's beating your head against a rock hoping to put the genie back in the bottle - the term means something other then what a text book in poli-sci will tell you, and I accept that, and you need to do that concerning "conservatism."
Politically speaking Reagan is the preeminent CONSERVATIVE of our time, still. He lead a conservative movement, governed as a conservative, and was guided by conservative principles, PERIOD. Even you, in a fleeting moment of embracing reality, recognized this when you penned my description as a "Reagn-ite from out West." Do you think I consider myself a New Deal spender? Hardly. If you want to use the poli-sci text book definition, and say "resistant to change", is the only definition for which to judge "conservatism" or throw the military spending into government growth/reduction rates when comparing to New Deal spending in order to describe Reagan as something other then a conservative, rather then come to terms that in the American political landscape Reagan's actions DEFINE the very word "conservative" now, then go ahead and live in that suspended reality, I won't be joining you there.
****
Now, to the subject header ....
I spoke at length on the phone last night with Jambo about the inevitable McCain candidacy, and the likelyhood he would be facing Hillary come the Novemeber decision. Where does that leave rock-rib conservatives like myslef? Jambo pointed out that McCain has always been known as a conservative, he inherited Goldwater's seat for goodness sake, and that it's only 4 or 5 issues where he's been at odds with the right within his own party, and surely that's less then Hillary. And my answer is that since 2001, yes it's only been about 5 issues, but everyone of them has been the VERY hot button issues that has defined all debate outside of the war since 2001 - illegals, judges, free speech (McCain/Fiengold), GITMO. And it drives me nuts that I am rapidly realizing that if the "right" does not support him when he becomes the nominee we are virtually asking for, if not garunteeing, a Madam Clinton presidency.
What to do?
Well, I considered this, McCain may be 10 times more liberal on these issues, or in general, then I am, but he's 100 times more conservative then Hillary. And even with that I found the following appealing - we do not support McCain, allow a Hillary or Barak presidency, they do a horrible job, and presto, come 2012 we (the GOP) will get a solid conservative as a nominee because the country will be thirsty for another Reagan in 2012 assuming Hillary comes off as a Carter like failure (and that's a given in my estimation). It has been floated that this scenario is preferrable to allowing McCain, and his gaggle of moderates, take over, lead, and perhaps redefine the GOP. It's playing politics, and as Jambo pointed out, it's a big risk politically & in terms of national security, i.e. Hill might sign an executiove order closing GITMO (as a holding facility) the first day while McCain will be smarter then that - maybe they end up in Siberia (they'd be begging for a Cuban climate then I can assure you).
But, it's more then that, more serious, and a lot more simple, as I have come to decide. The only question in my mind, during a time of war on many fronts has become this: What do I owe the men dying for me? My little brother is at Fort Hood, and goes back in theater soon. What do I owe him since I am picking his Commander-in-Chief? Does he deserve for me to play party politics because I'm ticked at McCain on campaign-finance reform? Or does he deserve the person that's most likely to supply him with the ammo & orders that will give him the best chance of success?
If it's Hillary/Barak versus McCain, I will pull the lever for John, period.
On Reagan principles and the size of government: I can't make you understand what you refuse to believe just because you like finding chinks in Ron's armor, or those who would envoke his name. If Tip O'neal & the gang wanted a 35% growth rate in government - OUTSIDE of military expenditures - and Reagan holds it at 20, WITH military expenditures, then he can rightly claim to have curbed the growth & size of government. And to say he spent like a New Deal president is innacurate in the extreme.Reagan's expenditures in government growth were primarily military, not federal "welfare" (literal definition) or public project roles (outside of WWII military expenditures)like FDR (that didn't work then anyway, outside of the psychological effect that at least he, FDR, was seen as doing "something" as opposed to Hoover sitting on his hands).
Once more I will describe what conservatives mean when invoking his name - smaller more efficient government - which we on the right have never lumped the military into - and REDUCING THE RATE OF GROWTH, and redirecting the money that is spent into more efficient modes IS IN FACT "smaller more efficient government."
Now, you can play this game of using his numbers versus FDR's and say "Reagan's no conservative and he spent like a New Deal president" all you want, and in any sane circle you'll have people telling you substance abuse is a real disease, and perhaps you should seek help. Politically speaking "conservatism" is the apt name for a man, whom as president, curbed the government's non military rate of growth while growing the military budget. I could do the same thing regarding the term "liberal" and the ACLU or the Democrat party - they're about as "tolerant" to Christianity as David Duke at a Harlem Reinessaince fair. But I realize what "politically speaking" the term liberal now represents as opposed to using the text book definition and asking athiest ACLU lawyers to stop self-envoking the term 'liberal." But why do that? It's beating your head against a rock hoping to put the genie back in the bottle - the term means something other then what a text book in poli-sci will tell you, and I accept that, and you need to do that concerning "conservatism."
Politically speaking Reagan is the preeminent CONSERVATIVE of our time, still. He lead a conservative movement, governed as a conservative, and was guided by conservative principles, PERIOD. Even you, in a fleeting moment of embracing reality, recognized this when you penned my description as a "Reagn-ite from out West." Do you think I consider myself a New Deal spender? Hardly. If you want to use the poli-sci text book definition, and say "resistant to change", is the only definition for which to judge "conservatism" or throw the military spending into government growth/reduction rates when comparing to New Deal spending in order to describe Reagan as something other then a conservative, rather then come to terms that in the American political landscape Reagan's actions DEFINE the very word "conservative" now, then go ahead and live in that suspended reality, I won't be joining you there.
****
Now, to the subject header ....
I spoke at length on the phone last night with Jambo about the inevitable McCain candidacy, and the likelyhood he would be facing Hillary come the Novemeber decision. Where does that leave rock-rib conservatives like myslef? Jambo pointed out that McCain has always been known as a conservative, he inherited Goldwater's seat for goodness sake, and that it's only 4 or 5 issues where he's been at odds with the right within his own party, and surely that's less then Hillary. And my answer is that since 2001, yes it's only been about 5 issues, but everyone of them has been the VERY hot button issues that has defined all debate outside of the war since 2001 - illegals, judges, free speech (McCain/Fiengold), GITMO. And it drives me nuts that I am rapidly realizing that if the "right" does not support him when he becomes the nominee we are virtually asking for, if not garunteeing, a Madam Clinton presidency.
What to do?
Well, I considered this, McCain may be 10 times more liberal on these issues, or in general, then I am, but he's 100 times more conservative then Hillary. And even with that I found the following appealing - we do not support McCain, allow a Hillary or Barak presidency, they do a horrible job, and presto, come 2012 we (the GOP) will get a solid conservative as a nominee because the country will be thirsty for another Reagan in 2012 assuming Hillary comes off as a Carter like failure (and that's a given in my estimation). It has been floated that this scenario is preferrable to allowing McCain, and his gaggle of moderates, take over, lead, and perhaps redefine the GOP. It's playing politics, and as Jambo pointed out, it's a big risk politically & in terms of national security, i.e. Hill might sign an executiove order closing GITMO (as a holding facility) the first day while McCain will be smarter then that - maybe they end up in Siberia (they'd be begging for a Cuban climate then I can assure you).
But, it's more then that, more serious, and a lot more simple, as I have come to decide. The only question in my mind, during a time of war on many fronts has become this: What do I owe the men dying for me? My little brother is at Fort Hood, and goes back in theater soon. What do I owe him since I am picking his Commander-in-Chief? Does he deserve for me to play party politics because I'm ticked at McCain on campaign-finance reform? Or does he deserve the person that's most likely to supply him with the ammo & orders that will give him the best chance of success?
If it's Hillary/Barak versus McCain, I will pull the lever for John, period.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
It was dubbed simply, "THE SPEECH."
In the second position, in black & white, is the speech that put Ronald Reagan on the path to the governership of CA, & eventually the White House. It was one of those perfect moments in history when the aspirations, values and principles of a nation found its perfect orator & representative. If you want to know what "Reagan conservatism" is, it's all there.
Also, there is a link within the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank he was routinely affiliated and which thrives to this day) that has a page dedicated to "What would Reagan do?" It attempts to answer these questions in the vein of what problems we face today throyugh his words and actions.
http://wwrdheritage.org/Resources.aspx
You should particularly like Margaret Thatcher's speech on Reagan, and his address to the British Parliment, a great resource .... I get chills listening to it.
Also, there is a link within the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think tank he was routinely affiliated and which thrives to this day) that has a page dedicated to "What would Reagan do?" It attempts to answer these questions in the vein of what problems we face today throyugh his words and actions.
http://wwrdheritage.org/Resources.aspx
You should particularly like Margaret Thatcher's speech on Reagan, and his address to the British Parliment, a great resource .... I get chills listening to it.
Sometimes you are such a child ....
What we on the "right" espouse as "Reagan conservatism", at least my interpretation, is a set of principles that you would then apply to the problems we face today. Strong defense, smaller govt, low taxes, etc.
Now, this means that in a post 9/11 world, when applying the Raegan principle of a strong defense, I believe would lead him to seal the borders, and not grant amnesty as he did in the 80's. On taxes, that speaks for itself. On the size of govt, he would now, as he did then, slow the growth of govt. It is a truism that it grows each fiscal year no matter who's president, but where and how much can have a huge impact and seperate what is "conservative" from what is "liberal.". He increased the budget, size & scope of the military - does that mean he can't then claim to have shrunk the quote, "government?" Technically, as you have pointed out, yes. However, politically speaking to shrink welfare roles, wasteful spending etc, and to slow the rate of growth as compared to the track it was on is, in political speak, "shrinking the the government.' You must recognize that growing the military, although it is obviously a part of the federal government and its budget, is not the quote unquote "government" that conservatives rail against. It is a special p[ortion not to bre lumped in, politically speaking, with cries to slow and reduce the size of government.
You do this every so often, get into this game of semantics and become a stickler for technical definitions. Fine, but the reality is that "political speak" has a language all its own, and in that world, and quite literally if you consider slowing the rate of growth a cut, as democrats always do, Reagan shrunk the government.
Now, should people occasionsly point all this out so people like you don't get all worked up? Maybe, but I would think with your level of intellect it wouldn't be neccessary.
So, to reiterate, "Raegan conservatism" is a set of principles that when applied would mean different specific actions for different presidents depending on the threats/problems they face in their term.
And as I stated I think the principles of a strong national defense, low taxes, smaller more efficient government, and placing a special value on life would lead even Raegan to do specific things different in a 2008 presidency (technically 2009 Titus, if that makes you happy) then he would in 1986, i.e. "seal" (yes, I know it isn't technically sealed, man that is annoying to have to hold your hand on those pure definitions) the border; nothing less then victory in the Middle East; very consructionist judges; a healthy military budget; and scoff at ideas like prescription drugs on the federal tab (I'm talking to you "dubya.")
Get it now? By the way, I think you need to listen to MORE conservative talk, not less. The left channels are so juvenile as to make Howard Sterm look like Margaret Thatcher. You may not agree always ( a given) but atleast the majority of the time there is a real discussion of ideas.
FR
Now, this means that in a post 9/11 world, when applying the Raegan principle of a strong defense, I believe would lead him to seal the borders, and not grant amnesty as he did in the 80's. On taxes, that speaks for itself. On the size of govt, he would now, as he did then, slow the growth of govt. It is a truism that it grows each fiscal year no matter who's president, but where and how much can have a huge impact and seperate what is "conservative" from what is "liberal.". He increased the budget, size & scope of the military - does that mean he can't then claim to have shrunk the quote, "government?" Technically, as you have pointed out, yes. However, politically speaking to shrink welfare roles, wasteful spending etc, and to slow the rate of growth as compared to the track it was on is, in political speak, "shrinking the the government.' You must recognize that growing the military, although it is obviously a part of the federal government and its budget, is not the quote unquote "government" that conservatives rail against. It is a special p[ortion not to bre lumped in, politically speaking, with cries to slow and reduce the size of government.
You do this every so often, get into this game of semantics and become a stickler for technical definitions. Fine, but the reality is that "political speak" has a language all its own, and in that world, and quite literally if you consider slowing the rate of growth a cut, as democrats always do, Reagan shrunk the government.
Now, should people occasionsly point all this out so people like you don't get all worked up? Maybe, but I would think with your level of intellect it wouldn't be neccessary.
So, to reiterate, "Raegan conservatism" is a set of principles that when applied would mean different specific actions for different presidents depending on the threats/problems they face in their term.
And as I stated I think the principles of a strong national defense, low taxes, smaller more efficient government, and placing a special value on life would lead even Raegan to do specific things different in a 2008 presidency (technically 2009 Titus, if that makes you happy) then he would in 1986, i.e. "seal" (yes, I know it isn't technically sealed, man that is annoying to have to hold your hand on those pure definitions) the border; nothing less then victory in the Middle East; very consructionist judges; a healthy military budget; and scoff at ideas like prescription drugs on the federal tab (I'm talking to you "dubya.")
Get it now? By the way, I think you need to listen to MORE conservative talk, not less. The left channels are so juvenile as to make Howard Sterm look like Margaret Thatcher. You may not agree always ( a given) but atleast the majority of the time there is a real discussion of ideas.
FR
Does anyone else see shades of 1976?
Outside of the fact it was the year I was born .... within the GOP, and to an extent the general election, I do. Romney playing the role of Reagan (the conservative outsider who's 4 years too early at this point), McCain (the establishment candidate - have you seen his list of endorsments?), and the Democrat opponent - a very liberal candidate no matter who wins on their side. If it plays out exactly, McCain loses, then we will get 4 disasterous years from either Hill or Barak (mimicing the disgrace that was Carter), and in 2012 Romney emerges as the leader of a new conservative revolution (as did Ronnie).
Just a thought .....
Just a thought .....
Let's talk "Reagan Republican", okay?
Okay, I’ll take the sarcasm in the last post for exactly what its worth. I simply get SO frigging frustrated when I get the very frequent impression that you don’t listen to (or read) anything I have to say.
I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.
As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.
In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?
For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”
I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.
Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?
November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?
Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.
So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?
That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.
Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…
Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.
I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.
So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?
I, however, DO read what you say. I can’t help but notice that when you discuss topics like terrorism, economics, fiscal spending and immigration, you… and nearly every major conservative pundit on the radio today… keep “harking” back to the Reagan administration with weepy-eyed nostalgia. I want to know why this is.
As we have all seen from the posts concerning our original “Presidential Report Cards”, even I… an admitted Reagan skeptic from as far back as 1980 (Jambo will back me up here!)… gave him the highest grade of all the Presidents we studied. I’m not going to listen to any crap about my “liberal” tendencies tainting my opinion here, as there is NO basis for this fear in reality. I am perfectly able to objectively look at the historical facts concerning Reagan and his time in office. I am questioning that ability in those who so frequently rap themselves up in the mantle of “Reagan-ism”.
In the post “Let’s play a game II” the premise was to find real, measurable faults with the policies and programs of the Reagan Administration. I listed 3 of them (with help from James on the last), but got no response other than flippant humor from Ryan. So, now I will ask, from any conservative Republican that might be reading this blog today, to explain why the label “Reagan” in front of words like “conservative” or “Republican” should mean anything to the very issues we are discussing here in 2008?
For example: Ryan wrote: “…if he wins today it will NOT in fact be an endorsement for the "comprehensive/moderate" reform policy he was formerly affiliated with, just the opposite if you believe what he says - and I wouldn't think anyone would vote for him saying "he doesn't mean that." In fact when he was still trying to defend it is when he was polling under 10%, now he claims to be a Reagan conservative at every opportunity, and BAM, he's the front runner with Romney (an actual conservative) nipping at his heels.”
I take this to mean that the harder, more isolationist position McCain is now endorsing is closer to the Reagan position, correct? Reagan would have “secured the border” from further illegal entry, denied amnesty to illegal immigrants already in the country, forced deportation on those found guilty of entering illegally? Of course, this is assuming (hypothetically speaking, of course) that he were President NOW.
Well, if we are going to make assumptions on what Reagan would do NOW, let’s look at what he did THEN, and compare, okay?
November, 1986. Ronald Reagan signs into Law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (Simpson-Mazzoli Act {Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359}), which, for those that don’t know already, granted AMNESTY to as many as 5,689,000 documented illegal immigrants in the United States. This same IRCA 1986 also mandated the REDUCTION of BP and INS personnel of as much as 11% in the 10 years following its becoming law (this facet of the law was struck down by Bush Sr. in 1991, by the way, and he was criticized by the “conservatives” in the party for doing it!). Critics of this Act have noted that Reagan’s signing of this legislation cemented the “amnesty” precedent into the lawmaker’s mind, and that in the 20 years that followed the amnesty, the number of illegals in this country has risen from nearly 6 million to (possibly) as high as 21 million… a 350% increase. Impressive, aint it?
Another example? Okay, let’s talk free trade. Republican candidates, one and all, call for an end to NAFTA and CAFTA as failed programs… none more vocally than Paul, but Romney and McCain have also called for an end to both agreements, and Huckabee is simply too ignorant to discuss it.
So, if NAFTA/CAFTA is such a bad thing, why did Reagan fight for 8 years as President to get it implemented?
That’s right, all you “Reagan-ites” out there, Big Ron was espousing the wonders of free trade as early as his 1st Inaugural Address in Jan. of 1981. He initiated NAFTA with the US/Canadian Free Trade Agreement in 1985, and looked for the inclusion of Mexico into the agreement eventually.
Let’s talk spending. The GOP candidates want to cut taxes and reduce spending… just like Reagan did. Smaller government is better government… and I believe that. I DO! Reagan didn’t, though…
Reagan cut taxes at a time in America when inflation was higher than it had been since 1947, unemployment was more than 11%, and the entire economy was as stagnant as it had ever been. All well and good, and it DID stimulate the economy over the next four years. However, he did NOT reduce the size of government even one IOTA. The cuts he made to social programs and education didn’t even make a dent in the increased cost of defense over the same time period. On average, the Federal Budget under Reagan called for 18% MORE money ever year he was in office (that’s AVERAGE, mind you… not every year literally). “Trickle-down” economics resulted directly in the market crash of ‘87, and that crash had an awful lot to do with Bush Sr. having to raise taxes and LOSE the ‘92 election. Show me ONE example of Reagan reducing either the SIZE or COST of government, even for ONE YEAR of his administration. Don’t bother, you can’t because he DIDN’T! AND Reagan wasn’t a “war time” President like Bush Jr. and the next guy will be, either.
I will leave my comments on terrorism as they stand in the previous posts… I’m too tired to retype them here.
So, tell me that Reagan wasn’t soft on Iran specifically, terrorism in general, illegal immigration and amnesty, big government deficit spending, NAFTA, et al. Explain to me how Romney, Huckabee, Paul or any other conservative out there can call themselves “Reagan-like” in their positions when the historical facts show me that the exact opposite is true?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
