Preach on brother man ...

So when my cell chirped at o'ass dark early this morning, and I saw that Titus had posted, AND that he quipped in his text, "you're not going to like it", I thought - damn, there goes my morning! However, I was pleasantly surprised.

First, on why Obama is wrong in declaring health care a "right." Look, I agree with you, and you agree with me - and that's the point. I used the constitution to point out that the "pursuit" of health care, on an equal level was guaranteed, not the services themselves (in the fashion Obama declared, I understand fully the Hippocratic oath guarantees in terms of emergency services). You used the constitution to say that the "equal opportunity" to health care was guaranteed. And those arguments are by all accounts the same, yet you described my position as "constructionist" to a fault. I fail to see how that is so. Precisely because I KNEW you would reference the constitution to shoot down Obama's assertion, I sat back and waited for your answer so as to point out the similarities in our arguments. Reread each of our arguments if you wish, you will find that I am right . You may now withdraw your accusation that my response to Obama was somehow "too" constructionist ... and without penalty good sir.

****
Now, to your other two posts. Jambo and I had an extended conversation the other night in which you were not privy to. Otherwise you would have not declared that I "would not like" your posts. I DO! My jaw hit the Mother F***ing floor when I heard McCain declare to the world, once and for all, that he is NO conservative. Nationalize $300 billion in bad mortgages! Are you serious! And my point to Jambo on the phone that night, as my voice got ever more elevated is that THERE IS NO CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP IN WASHINGTON. And at PRECISELY the time when it is needed. Here is Mac's problem - he is now in a debate, argument, discussion with the opposing Party on "how much"socialism is needed, rather then the very premise of government intervention on an unprecedented level itself. And Mac ol' buddy, even a "moderate" Republican is NOT GOING TO WIN A DEBATE ON "HOW MUCH" GOODIES TO DISPENSE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT with an Obama, a Pelosi, or a Reid. If you're going to accept the template that this is the proper role for government, then for the uninformed voter why would he NOT choose the guy that promises the most goodies? Seriously. If I'm the occasional consumer of news, and I know things are problematic right now, and the two guys running agree on what is by all accounts socialistic solutions, nationalize this, that and the other, then why is only a "little" of the solution preferable? It's like putting a sunset clause on tax cuts. If they are good now, then how could they not be in good in 2011? That's Mac's problem, he is by all accounts NOT a conservative, and that is what is needed now.

I used to pity Titus for being "a man without a Party." That now describes myself. Much like the situation with Gene Taylor - either lacking the ability or the will to wrest control of his Party from the hard left - my GOP cohorts in Congress lack either the will or the ability to put forth a coherent argument and face to wrest control of my Party back from the "socialist lite" factions that now dominate it in McCain and Bush. It's a sad day in American politics when conservatives have, by their silence, conceded the "big vs small government" argument, thus failing to step forward and lead with alternative proposals.

Will a REAL conservative PLEASE STAND UP!!! Jindal ... are you listening?