Naaah ... I think there is still a bountiful supply of Band of Brothers quotes available .. he, he.
To follow up on Titus's post about the reality of the office dictating, or at least curbing the initial idealism of fundamental "change" that a new president campaigns on ... we have our first example, and president-elect Obama hasn't even been sworn in yet.
As we all know one of the most talked about campaign issues (at least prior to the economic surprise) was Iraq. In fact, that front in our global war against Islamo-fascism was THE hot button issue that President-Elect Obama and his supporters rallied around prior to mid September, when Freddie and Fannie tanked. And their rallying cry was simple: "GET OUT!" Time lines, withdrawals, responsible disengagement, redeployment - all phrases and words used by Obama. Titus aptly noted multiple historical examples of 180 degree shifts when the candidate becomes the president. Well, word is now that Obama has asked Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to stay on for the first year into his presidency. Now think about that ... this is a man (Obama) whom passed up no opportunity to describe our entry into Iraq as a mistake. Screamed for withdrawal, defeated Hillary largely based on her "aye" Iraq vote, opposed the surge categorically, said our presence is the source of violence, etc, etc, and here he is asking the Sec Def of the much demagogued "Dubya"to stay on. It is a RINGING ENDORSEMENT of the surge, and the need to stay until we are victorious and have a stable Iraq. And more importantly an endorsement of one George W. Bush's current policy - after having ran on opposing that very policy for over a year! It is a simply STUNNING 180 degree turn. Reports on this story are anemic at best, but as the subject line suggests, I caught it (the story that is, not the STD).
I would assume that any died in the wool Obama supporter would expect him to clean house up and down the federal food chain given the level of anti-Bush sentiment and flat out hatred eminating from his supporters, and especially in terms of changing our current Iraq policy. Yet here he is confirming not only that he will "maintain" the Bush course on the one issue that united his party prior to economics, but maintain the same team! Add to that he has indicated no intention to replace Cent Com commander General Patraeus. Both Gates and Patraeus are huge advocates of the surge and "finishing the job." I think Obama fanatics should prepare for severe disillusionment.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
A whole string of good posts...
Baddboy is correct. With the election behind us, it is more important now to begin to plan how to ensure that Congress doesn't run wild with a liberal agenda... not Obama.
ALL of us have forgotten what our "Presidential Report Cards" taught us: CICs don't have very much control over an economy the size of the US, and they can't write Laws at will. The Congress is the Law-maker, and as long as the controlling interests there lay with the far-left, I worry. Obama, however, can't do anything that can't be fixed four years later... with a few very real exceptions.
The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before a stable, democratic and self-sufficient government is established would be catastrophic. The appointment of way-liberal judges to the Supreme Court would have a lasting effect on our nation. Abuse of the veto could deter traditional conservative values in America, too.
We can debate the intentions of the man all day long (and their probably wouldn't be much debate), but it isn't easy for ONE MAN to turn the US into a bastion of socialism... no matter how much he tries. If you doubt me, ask FDR... he tried for nine years, with only a marginally contrary Congress.
The REALITY of the Office will force ANYONE to an "America First" sort of position. We have had idealists win the White House in the past... Democrat and Republican... and all have been forced by the reality of the office to follow a "moderate" path during their terms. Let's look at just a few...
Lest anyone forget, Lincoln ran for office on the PROMISE to avoid conflict over the issue of slavery. He RAN on the PROMISE to preserve the Union, and said as much when he spoke these words during the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." He would have worked to make the USA ALL slave, if he thought it was the only way to preserve the Union. Circumstances forced him to change his position, though, after he was elected... and he led the nation through the bloodiest conflict we have ever survived and won. If one has to compromise one's principals, it never hurts to do so in a way that ensures history is on your side.
Thomas Jefferson was convinced that the President DID NOT have the authority to do what HE did when he purchased 36% of the CONTINENT from France at $.03 per acre... but he did it anyway, because he was sure it was the right thing to do.
James Madison fought one of the most unpopular wars EVER in this nation's history... because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. To maintain and assert US sovereignty, the US had to stand up to the abuses being perpetrated by the British on US ships and commerce... but there wasn't a business interest in the nation that thought Madison was doing the right thing... not ONE. It isn't very often that we get to see a sitting US President move in the 180 degree opposite direction from where the US financial moguls are telling him to go... and do it successfully! Jimmy Madison did it, though... even though his principals and pre-election politics told him it was the wrong thing to do.
Obama may have a vision for the future of America, and he may have managed to convince the majority of Americans that this vision is the right one for the country... but delivering on promises and principals is often far harder than anyone thinks prior to being sworn in. I have no doubt that circumstances will dictate a path that will force Obama to ensure an "America First" position in nearly everything he does, foreign policy-wise... and he will find the few GOP legislators still in Congress have a voice that can be heard even now. I won't rest on my hinder, waiting for my welfare and refunds... and I will not stand by and watch basic freedoms wash away either (specifically referring to small-arms bans here... 2nd Amendment infringements). We can keep him on a short leash by making sure the next mid-term goes the other way... or at the very least, LESS of the way it has been going.
ALL of us have forgotten what our "Presidential Report Cards" taught us: CICs don't have very much control over an economy the size of the US, and they can't write Laws at will. The Congress is the Law-maker, and as long as the controlling interests there lay with the far-left, I worry. Obama, however, can't do anything that can't be fixed four years later... with a few very real exceptions.
The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq before a stable, democratic and self-sufficient government is established would be catastrophic. The appointment of way-liberal judges to the Supreme Court would have a lasting effect on our nation. Abuse of the veto could deter traditional conservative values in America, too.
We can debate the intentions of the man all day long (and their probably wouldn't be much debate), but it isn't easy for ONE MAN to turn the US into a bastion of socialism... no matter how much he tries. If you doubt me, ask FDR... he tried for nine years, with only a marginally contrary Congress.
The REALITY of the Office will force ANYONE to an "America First" sort of position. We have had idealists win the White House in the past... Democrat and Republican... and all have been forced by the reality of the office to follow a "moderate" path during their terms. Let's look at just a few...
Lest anyone forget, Lincoln ran for office on the PROMISE to avoid conflict over the issue of slavery. He RAN on the PROMISE to preserve the Union, and said as much when he spoke these words during the Lincoln-Douglas debates: "I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other." He would have worked to make the USA ALL slave, if he thought it was the only way to preserve the Union. Circumstances forced him to change his position, though, after he was elected... and he led the nation through the bloodiest conflict we have ever survived and won. If one has to compromise one's principals, it never hurts to do so in a way that ensures history is on your side.
Thomas Jefferson was convinced that the President DID NOT have the authority to do what HE did when he purchased 36% of the CONTINENT from France at $.03 per acre... but he did it anyway, because he was sure it was the right thing to do.
James Madison fought one of the most unpopular wars EVER in this nation's history... because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. To maintain and assert US sovereignty, the US had to stand up to the abuses being perpetrated by the British on US ships and commerce... but there wasn't a business interest in the nation that thought Madison was doing the right thing... not ONE. It isn't very often that we get to see a sitting US President move in the 180 degree opposite direction from where the US financial moguls are telling him to go... and do it successfully! Jimmy Madison did it, though... even though his principals and pre-election politics told him it was the wrong thing to do.
Obama may have a vision for the future of America, and he may have managed to convince the majority of Americans that this vision is the right one for the country... but delivering on promises and principals is often far harder than anyone thinks prior to being sworn in. I have no doubt that circumstances will dictate a path that will force Obama to ensure an "America First" position in nearly everything he does, foreign policy-wise... and he will find the few GOP legislators still in Congress have a voice that can be heard even now. I won't rest on my hinder, waiting for my welfare and refunds... and I will not stand by and watch basic freedoms wash away either (specifically referring to small-arms bans here... 2nd Amendment infringements). We can keep him on a short leash by making sure the next mid-term goes the other way... or at the very least, LESS of the way it has been going.
Leadership is key!!!!!
The federal government is suffering from the same thing the US Air Force is suffering from. Lack of competent leadership. Without strong leadership we suffer from lack of direction. Regardless of party leadership is required.
You guys talk about previous Presidents and the ones that you talk most fondly about are the ones that took the reigns and led this country in the direction they thought it should go. They didn't let their VP or SecDef take control and run the show, or if they did we damn sure didn't know about it. The people want to know they have a strong person in that office regardless of race, sex or religion. They want decisive not complacent. They want a person that projects strength not weakness.
This is my way of saying that Obama won because he didn't waiver, he didn't apologize and he stood firm. He didn't give the appearance of weakness and by all accounts even when he was down in the polls you wouldn't have known it. People are attracted to that. I saw Obama on television, in the papers and heard about him on the radio alot more that Macain and he always gave off a positive attitude. You can argue he had alot more money to get that time but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevent. If the RNC wanted to get that air time they could have.
I'm not an Obama fan and you guys know that but I'm not a Macain fan either. I had to pick the lesser of two evils as far as I was concerned so Macain got my vote. But from this mans perspective Obama put off the stronger appearance and got seen a whole lot more. He makes no apologies for what he believes or feels and he stands firm, I at least have to appreciate that.
You guys talk about previous Presidents and the ones that you talk most fondly about are the ones that took the reigns and led this country in the direction they thought it should go. They didn't let their VP or SecDef take control and run the show, or if they did we damn sure didn't know about it. The people want to know they have a strong person in that office regardless of race, sex or religion. They want decisive not complacent. They want a person that projects strength not weakness.
This is my way of saying that Obama won because he didn't waiver, he didn't apologize and he stood firm. He didn't give the appearance of weakness and by all accounts even when he was down in the polls you wouldn't have known it. People are attracted to that. I saw Obama on television, in the papers and heard about him on the radio alot more that Macain and he always gave off a positive attitude. You can argue he had alot more money to get that time but as far as I'm concerned that's irrelevent. If the RNC wanted to get that air time they could have.
I'm not an Obama fan and you guys know that but I'm not a Macain fan either. I had to pick the lesser of two evils as far as I was concerned so Macain got my vote. But from this mans perspective Obama put off the stronger appearance and got seen a whole lot more. He makes no apologies for what he believes or feels and he stands firm, I at least have to appreciate that.
It's the mark of a true soldier.
Reading Ryan and Titus' posts concerning the turn the Republican Party has taken made me think a little.
Reagan takes office January 1981. Leonid Breshnev was Premier of the Soviet Union and the face of the Warsaw Pact. (What, he's LESS photogenic than Erik Honnaker? Go figure.) He needs to beat the Warsaw Pact in the one way he KNOWS he can without sterilizing the face of the planet with nuclear bombs: Economically. So his defense spending is two pronged. #1) A lot of Americans are put to work in the defense industry. #2) Our armed forces haven't seen that kind of financial infusion since 1941. Reagan's slashing of federal government domestic programs created controversy but did nothing to balance the money he DID spend in defense. And in less than a decade his policy wins.
So here we are two decades later wondering what's going to happen next. There is no "outspending" Al Quieda. And in terms of sheer economic might we are facing an equal for the first time in a century: China. What policy, short of sterilizing the surface of the planet with nuclear weapons, gets us out of this mess?
Funny thing, free market. You dabble, you dip your toes, you stay in the shallow end of the pool, and hey! Water's fine. But there's no going back. The more China exposes its population to free markets the harder it is to maintain the type of central control China's been famous for for, well, a little over 2000 years. The same goes for Al Quieda. Hard to encourage fanaticism in a disenfranchised youth when that youth isn't disenfranchised.
What type of economic plan wins us this two front war?
Two words: Energy Independence.
If the next president, or the one after him, decides to invoke conservative change like Reagan did, then the kind of money Reagan put into defense needs to go into domestic energy production. In our quasi-free market, how much of an average family's gross income goes towards energy, for home and vehicle? If that were reduced substantially, not through redistribution of wealth, not through socialist policies, but through government energy programs, what does that do to our economic engine as compared to the Chinese? Or any OPEC nation?
I've sung this song a lot and I know it gets old to you guys, but think about it in the light of a failed "Dem light" election. A federal program of coal to gasoline refineries. A federal works project for solar and wind for private homes. A federal move to revitalize mass transportation on an interstate level. All in the name of a national security policy that states we are safest when we are strong.
And let me tell you, it's getting harder to yank B.O.B. quotes without repeating.
Reagan takes office January 1981. Leonid Breshnev was Premier of the Soviet Union and the face of the Warsaw Pact. (What, he's LESS photogenic than Erik Honnaker? Go figure.) He needs to beat the Warsaw Pact in the one way he KNOWS he can without sterilizing the face of the planet with nuclear bombs: Economically. So his defense spending is two pronged. #1) A lot of Americans are put to work in the defense industry. #2) Our armed forces haven't seen that kind of financial infusion since 1941. Reagan's slashing of federal government domestic programs created controversy but did nothing to balance the money he DID spend in defense. And in less than a decade his policy wins.
So here we are two decades later wondering what's going to happen next. There is no "outspending" Al Quieda. And in terms of sheer economic might we are facing an equal for the first time in a century: China. What policy, short of sterilizing the surface of the planet with nuclear weapons, gets us out of this mess?
Funny thing, free market. You dabble, you dip your toes, you stay in the shallow end of the pool, and hey! Water's fine. But there's no going back. The more China exposes its population to free markets the harder it is to maintain the type of central control China's been famous for for, well, a little over 2000 years. The same goes for Al Quieda. Hard to encourage fanaticism in a disenfranchised youth when that youth isn't disenfranchised.
What type of economic plan wins us this two front war?
Two words: Energy Independence.
If the next president, or the one after him, decides to invoke conservative change like Reagan did, then the kind of money Reagan put into defense needs to go into domestic energy production. In our quasi-free market, how much of an average family's gross income goes towards energy, for home and vehicle? If that were reduced substantially, not through redistribution of wealth, not through socialist policies, but through government energy programs, what does that do to our economic engine as compared to the Chinese? Or any OPEC nation?
I've sung this song a lot and I know it gets old to you guys, but think about it in the light of a failed "Dem light" election. A federal program of coal to gasoline refineries. A federal works project for solar and wind for private homes. A federal move to revitalize mass transportation on an interstate level. All in the name of a national security policy that states we are safest when we are strong.
And let me tell you, it's getting harder to yank B.O.B. quotes without repeating.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Republican for a reason?
This is rather timely given Titus just explained to us all the resons why he remains a registered Democrat.
This is a new site put up by the RNC entitled REPUBLICAN FOR A REASON, with a letter of introduction by the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan:
Welcome to our newest grassroots Web site, Republican For A Reason.
As we regroup as a Party after the presidential election, we must reflect on what we have done well and what we can improve upon as we move forward.
The Republican Party has always been the Party of hope and the Party of ideas. I strongly believe we will continue in this tradition as we work to the future.
I thank everyone who volunteered their time, resources, and energy to elect John McCain, Sarah Palin and Republican candidates up and down the ticket. While we must acknowledge 2008 was a challenging year, we were able to hold critical House and Senate seats, raise more resources than ever before, and make gains in critical areas that would not have been met without your tireless efforts.
Moving forward and right here, you have the opportunity to reflect on the reasons why you are a proud Republican. Please tell us what you would like to see the Party focus on and address in the coming weeks and months. To learn more about the principles of the Republican Party, read our Party rules and Party platform ratified during the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minnesota.
I look forward to your input and your ideas.
Best wishes,
Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee
Now my initial response is: you need a web site to help steer you towards what you stand for? What the f#%^&!!^)**^% !!!
This forum allows the user to post text or video. I posted a text. Now, after perusing through the other posts I noticed that the "clear commentary" lapse time is about an hour, so my comments won't appear just yet. And just in case their filter parameters do not allow the advertising of another site or link, I also posted without the reference to the driveway bund at the end. Here is my response, which I might add captures the mood of the vast majority of posts (of which there was 307 as of 4pm Eastern time, for 11/12/08):
Are you kidding? Mr. Duncan, Republican members of the House and Senate, you all, each and every one of you know exactly what we, the rank and file members of the GOP, think -THERE ARE NO MORE CONSERVATIVES leading our Party! It occurs to me that of the "big 3" issues within our political lexicon as a nation -national security, social policy (abortion etc), and fiscal policy - the GOP ranks a score of 2 out of 3 (AND THEN JUST BARELY). And while that may be sufficient to win a prize at carnival games, it hardly allows for the electoral success of a national Party. For the love of all that is holy and good - EMBRACE FISCAL CONSERVATISM. I invoke the name of Reagan to cast out this nonsense of bailouts, government bloating, and central planning that my Party has embraced. To say that Republicans spend like drunken sailors is an insult to inebriated salty dogs the world over! Getting back to our roots may be a cliche, but it's also the answer. Re-embracing Reagan conservatism is our only hope as a Party, and more importantly, our only hope as a country. And if you like, just such a course (along with other bristling, "cut through the clutter" political commentary) is delved into further on my site: http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/
This is a new site put up by the RNC entitled REPUBLICAN FOR A REASON, with a letter of introduction by the current RNC chairman, Mike Duncan:
Welcome to our newest grassroots Web site, Republican For A Reason.
As we regroup as a Party after the presidential election, we must reflect on what we have done well and what we can improve upon as we move forward.
The Republican Party has always been the Party of hope and the Party of ideas. I strongly believe we will continue in this tradition as we work to the future.
I thank everyone who volunteered their time, resources, and energy to elect John McCain, Sarah Palin and Republican candidates up and down the ticket. While we must acknowledge 2008 was a challenging year, we were able to hold critical House and Senate seats, raise more resources than ever before, and make gains in critical areas that would not have been met without your tireless efforts.
Moving forward and right here, you have the opportunity to reflect on the reasons why you are a proud Republican. Please tell us what you would like to see the Party focus on and address in the coming weeks and months. To learn more about the principles of the Republican Party, read our Party rules and Party platform ratified during the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minnesota.
I look forward to your input and your ideas.
Best wishes,
Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee
Now my initial response is: you need a web site to help steer you towards what you stand for? What the f#%^&!!^)**^% !!!
This forum allows the user to post text or video. I posted a text. Now, after perusing through the other posts I noticed that the "clear commentary" lapse time is about an hour, so my comments won't appear just yet. And just in case their filter parameters do not allow the advertising of another site or link, I also posted without the reference to the driveway bund at the end. Here is my response, which I might add captures the mood of the vast majority of posts (of which there was 307 as of 4pm Eastern time, for 11/12/08):
Are you kidding? Mr. Duncan, Republican members of the House and Senate, you all, each and every one of you know exactly what we, the rank and file members of the GOP, think -THERE ARE NO MORE CONSERVATIVES leading our Party! It occurs to me that of the "big 3" issues within our political lexicon as a nation -national security, social policy (abortion etc), and fiscal policy - the GOP ranks a score of 2 out of 3 (AND THEN JUST BARELY). And while that may be sufficient to win a prize at carnival games, it hardly allows for the electoral success of a national Party. For the love of all that is holy and good - EMBRACE FISCAL CONSERVATISM. I invoke the name of Reagan to cast out this nonsense of bailouts, government bloating, and central planning that my Party has embraced. To say that Republicans spend like drunken sailors is an insult to inebriated salty dogs the world over! Getting back to our roots may be a cliche, but it's also the answer. Re-embracing Reagan conservatism is our only hope as a Party, and more importantly, our only hope as a country. And if you like, just such a course (along with other bristling, "cut through the clutter" political commentary) is delved into further on my site: http://drivewaybund.blogspot.com/
What dribble...
No one could read what I wrote and NOT see the facetious aspect of it (except Ryan, of course!), but I'll respond anyway...
Ryan was correct in that I really appreciate the position that Democrats like Miller, Taylor and Lieberman have taken since 2000... that the Democratic Party IS the "People's Party" and I am a proud member of the larger group known as the PEOPLE. I support national defense, national security, a moderate-to-low tax system, "free-market" health care, fiscal responsibility in government, and a greater emphasis on "State's Rights". Time was, these were "foundations" of the Democratic platform... now they make me sound like an ultra-right-winger.
I am NOT ready to abandone my Party to the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Obama... I WANT to be able to have a hand in shaping it's make-up via the primary elections and county causcuses here in PA. I will continue to do so.
My point in my post wasn't that such "blame-throwing" was happening at all... but taht it hadn't been seriously addressed by the GOP leadership until Mac went on the Leno show! Where was the Congressional GOP leadership? Where was Mac? Where were the GOP Governors of the lower 48 States? I didn't hear Savage or Mike Church defending Palin on the conservative talk-shows... where were they? Even Hannity and Limbaugh only lightly touched on the topic... no real heat to pressure brought to bear on those that made the accusations.
I'm not saying Palin is the "Great White Hope" of the GOP (there's a touchy choice of words, huh?) in 2012... but to suggest she ISN'T going to be a factor in 2012 is simply stupid... so WHY allow the Palin bashing to go on as long as it has? ESPECIALLY from the inside?
The GOP hasn't simply lost touch with the conservative "message" of Reagan/Bush... they have begun to measurably split into camps, and a divided Party NEVER wins.
They have (at best) three years to get their colelctive "shit" together... and the first two weeks haven't shown me much promise in that regard. If Ryan sees it, he must be looking somewhere I am not.
Ryan was correct in that I really appreciate the position that Democrats like Miller, Taylor and Lieberman have taken since 2000... that the Democratic Party IS the "People's Party" and I am a proud member of the larger group known as the PEOPLE. I support national defense, national security, a moderate-to-low tax system, "free-market" health care, fiscal responsibility in government, and a greater emphasis on "State's Rights". Time was, these were "foundations" of the Democratic platform... now they make me sound like an ultra-right-winger.
I am NOT ready to abandone my Party to the likes of Pelosi and Reid and Obama... I WANT to be able to have a hand in shaping it's make-up via the primary elections and county causcuses here in PA. I will continue to do so.
My point in my post wasn't that such "blame-throwing" was happening at all... but taht it hadn't been seriously addressed by the GOP leadership until Mac went on the Leno show! Where was the Congressional GOP leadership? Where was Mac? Where were the GOP Governors of the lower 48 States? I didn't hear Savage or Mike Church defending Palin on the conservative talk-shows... where were they? Even Hannity and Limbaugh only lightly touched on the topic... no real heat to pressure brought to bear on those that made the accusations.
I'm not saying Palin is the "Great White Hope" of the GOP (there's a touchy choice of words, huh?) in 2012... but to suggest she ISN'T going to be a factor in 2012 is simply stupid... so WHY allow the Palin bashing to go on as long as it has? ESPECIALLY from the inside?
The GOP hasn't simply lost touch with the conservative "message" of Reagan/Bush... they have begun to measurably split into camps, and a divided Party NEVER wins.
They have (at best) three years to get their colelctive "shit" together... and the first two weeks haven't shown me much promise in that regard. If Ryan sees it, he must be looking somewhere I am not.
Three meltdowns ...
1.) The GOP's.
All due respect Titus, your last post was utter unequivocal horse sh*t. Pungent equine fecal matter, draped here like so many sausages in a pork factory. "Every time I am confronted with the opportunity to change my Party affiliation", something like this happens? What the hell are you talking about? What was the reason the day before you heard of this Palin bashing business? The day before that? And the day before that? First off, this unfortunate, low class Palin criticism by elements of the McCain campaign staff are hardly representative of the Party as a whole. Second, after a stunning loss, no matter the Party, it is a grand American tradition that the losing Party form a circular firing squad and shake out the new direction and leadership they will take. Now it doesn't always work, but it nearly always happens after such monumental defeats. And to further insult your own intelligence, not to mention the other 3 of us, you state that there is "no difference between the two parties", because of limited post election behavior of some SR. staff members in the Mac camp? The very notion is laughable. Look, I'm the first in line to scream about our losses stemming from being "socialist lite", fiscally. But both in terms of national security and social issues (most prominently abortion) there is a HUGE chasm between the two parties, and YOU KNOW IT! To state without qualification something like this is the type of commentary I would expect from hapless, occasional political observers. And to state it in such a way, so generalizing as to condemn the entire GOP to the point of your denying them your membership is to duplicate the VERY BEHAVIOR of the McCain staffers that you intended to critique.
Shame on you. As I understood it you have remained in the Democrat Party low these many years - despite being on the polar opposite of almost every proposal and position since 2000 - for the same reason Zeoll Miller has publicly stated he remained a Democrat. He feels the Party more properly belongs to HIM, a Truman/JFK Democrat, and he will be damned if the extreme leftists that now run the Party will run him out, rather he will stay and attempt to run them out. And I get that. It's similar to the reason I voted for Gene Taylor, I want at least some responsible grown-up's in that Party for years precisely like the ones we now face. And while I'm at it, Zeoll's position makes sense because until his retirement he had a very prominent and public voice. Why YOU remain in the Party I have no logical answer to. Not that you agree with the GOP 100% (I'm not even there, who is?), but lets face facts - the GOP represents YOU a higher percentage of the time then the Democrat party, especially regarding the "big three" tiers: national security, social issues, and fiscal policy. At least the GOP ranks a 2 out of 3 on most days. And guess what buddy? This isn't a fad. This hard left turn of the Dems is not temporary, not passing. It is here to stay for probably the remainder of our lives. So as a rank and file there is absolutely ZERO reason for you to remain a member. At the very least you owe it to yourself to reregister as an Independent, or simply unaffiliated; for you may be able to post flimsy reasons as to why you can not join the GOP, and even kid yourself into believing them, but there is NO REASON to stay in the Democrat Party. So I'm calling you on the carpet - resign your affiliation. Let not tradition, nor length of years, nor the unavoidable ayre of your Mother prevent you from doing what you know is right. What the Democrat Party deserves. You need not join the GOP, but neither should you remain in the Democrat Party. They value neither life nor liberty. If the Republican Party is beneath your coveted membership, then HOW ON EARTH can the Democrat Party not be as well?
To stay even one day longer is to carry on with a charade, a fake marriage, an unholy alliance ... such a thing should be unpalatable to one whom values his intellectual honesty as much as you.
As to the GOP's fortunes ... there is but one option for success - conservatism. Embrace two of recent history's most successful Republicans - Reagan and Gingrich, and in that order. Then success will return, for such an ideology as espoused by these two men will serve as a breath of fresh air and common sense when contrasted with what we are about to see emerge from the White House and congress over the next 4 years.
****
2.) The financial bailout.
The long and short of it: it's turning into exactly the disaster we all predicted it to be. I even laid out a measurable and specific alternative to the bailout, but then again I'm smarter then most of the people working on Capitol Hill.
Surprise, surprise the banks and lending houses whom were allotted our money are sitting on it until such a time as it becomes less risk adverse to lend it. Now Representative Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts (a senior Dem leader and a man at the heart of protecting Freddie and Fannie during the years leading to their eruption) said today that because the banks are sitting on those federal dollars, the next $350 billion should be used to buy up bad mortgages DIRECTLY BY THE FEDS and write them down (meaning write them off as a loss immediately after purchase), making them as he described, "our houses." Meaning the government's. This was Mac's plan, as stated in that last debate, so I'm sure he won't get much of an argument from Senate Republicans (again, on fiscal policy the difference is rapidly evaporating ... although Obama may up the ante a level ... or ten).
Add to that the big three auto makers are asking for their own bailout. American Express asked to be recategorized as a holding bank so that they can get a piece of the $700 billion (and the feds said "sure"), and Mayor's such as the Democrat in Philadelphia are now lobbying for $50 billion to be cut out of that $700 for city's whom find themselves cash poor.
Lovely. It appears that socialism is contagious. And "Dr. Obama" insists we embrace an even more virulent strain in order to demonstrate our compassion as a nation. Nothing like a big bear hug from Typhoid Mary ...
****
3.) The gay and lesbian community.
This one is particularly interesting. As you may or may not know California had yet another "controversial" ballot initiative on November 5th. "Question 8" would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus cutting activists judges off at the knees, given they can not rule a part of their own constitution, unconstitutional. They can do that with any passed or proposed law, but if it is an amendment to the constitution itself, THAT must be repealed by the state legislature, and can not be struck down by the courts. At any rate an odd (in political terms) alliance was formed to pass this ballot question. The primary driver behind it was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or Mormons (as I am). The "question" passed 52 to 48%, and in no small part to a particular ethnicity whom joined with Mormons. Outside of Latter Day Saints, the largest minority voting for the measure was African Americans. In particular evangelical blacks whom regularly attend "black" churches. They voted for it in the same margins they supported Obama, roughly 70%.
Now, the gay community as gone ape you know what, and has protested outside of Mormon Tabernacles. But rather then fill the streets outside of black churches with countless lisp laden chants, as they did to Mormons, they have attacked their traditional Democrat party coalition allies, black Americans, via the Internet. The usual suspects of left wing sites has gays viciously going after the black community in California, even employing the most extreme of taboo words: the dreaded "N" word (taboo that is unless you are a rapper, comedian, or black yourself).
Between 2000 and 2006 the GOP became so big, so dominant, so powerful that it self destructed. The tent got so big it became overcrowded and once the elbows began flying it didn't end until 7 days ago (assuming that was the bottom). We will now see the Democrat Party begin that same process. Hopefully, in the mean while, instead of popping pop corn and watching we will gather our conservative ideology into a single, cohesive message, and be ready to deliver it when the opportunity arises ... and it will. Obama will see to that. Our immediate task now is to clear the field of moderate Republican bodies, and resupply our forces via a conservative ideology.
And by the way, THAT is why they're going after Palin in my opinion. The moderate (via the McCain-iacs) vs conservative (Palin supporters) battle is now raging within the GOP, and on more fronts then just that one ... will Titus stand up and be counted within the one Party that still has a chance of standing for traditional American values? Or at the very least will he abandon the Party that has clearly abandoned him and his belief system? We will stay tuned and see ...
All due respect Titus, your last post was utter unequivocal horse sh*t. Pungent equine fecal matter, draped here like so many sausages in a pork factory. "Every time I am confronted with the opportunity to change my Party affiliation", something like this happens? What the hell are you talking about? What was the reason the day before you heard of this Palin bashing business? The day before that? And the day before that? First off, this unfortunate, low class Palin criticism by elements of the McCain campaign staff are hardly representative of the Party as a whole. Second, after a stunning loss, no matter the Party, it is a grand American tradition that the losing Party form a circular firing squad and shake out the new direction and leadership they will take. Now it doesn't always work, but it nearly always happens after such monumental defeats. And to further insult your own intelligence, not to mention the other 3 of us, you state that there is "no difference between the two parties", because of limited post election behavior of some SR. staff members in the Mac camp? The very notion is laughable. Look, I'm the first in line to scream about our losses stemming from being "socialist lite", fiscally. But both in terms of national security and social issues (most prominently abortion) there is a HUGE chasm between the two parties, and YOU KNOW IT! To state without qualification something like this is the type of commentary I would expect from hapless, occasional political observers. And to state it in such a way, so generalizing as to condemn the entire GOP to the point of your denying them your membership is to duplicate the VERY BEHAVIOR of the McCain staffers that you intended to critique.
Shame on you. As I understood it you have remained in the Democrat Party low these many years - despite being on the polar opposite of almost every proposal and position since 2000 - for the same reason Zeoll Miller has publicly stated he remained a Democrat. He feels the Party more properly belongs to HIM, a Truman/JFK Democrat, and he will be damned if the extreme leftists that now run the Party will run him out, rather he will stay and attempt to run them out. And I get that. It's similar to the reason I voted for Gene Taylor, I want at least some responsible grown-up's in that Party for years precisely like the ones we now face. And while I'm at it, Zeoll's position makes sense because until his retirement he had a very prominent and public voice. Why YOU remain in the Party I have no logical answer to. Not that you agree with the GOP 100% (I'm not even there, who is?), but lets face facts - the GOP represents YOU a higher percentage of the time then the Democrat party, especially regarding the "big three" tiers: national security, social issues, and fiscal policy. At least the GOP ranks a 2 out of 3 on most days. And guess what buddy? This isn't a fad. This hard left turn of the Dems is not temporary, not passing. It is here to stay for probably the remainder of our lives. So as a rank and file there is absolutely ZERO reason for you to remain a member. At the very least you owe it to yourself to reregister as an Independent, or simply unaffiliated; for you may be able to post flimsy reasons as to why you can not join the GOP, and even kid yourself into believing them, but there is NO REASON to stay in the Democrat Party. So I'm calling you on the carpet - resign your affiliation. Let not tradition, nor length of years, nor the unavoidable ayre of your Mother prevent you from doing what you know is right. What the Democrat Party deserves. You need not join the GOP, but neither should you remain in the Democrat Party. They value neither life nor liberty. If the Republican Party is beneath your coveted membership, then HOW ON EARTH can the Democrat Party not be as well?
To stay even one day longer is to carry on with a charade, a fake marriage, an unholy alliance ... such a thing should be unpalatable to one whom values his intellectual honesty as much as you.
As to the GOP's fortunes ... there is but one option for success - conservatism. Embrace two of recent history's most successful Republicans - Reagan and Gingrich, and in that order. Then success will return, for such an ideology as espoused by these two men will serve as a breath of fresh air and common sense when contrasted with what we are about to see emerge from the White House and congress over the next 4 years.
****
2.) The financial bailout.
The long and short of it: it's turning into exactly the disaster we all predicted it to be. I even laid out a measurable and specific alternative to the bailout, but then again I'm smarter then most of the people working on Capitol Hill.
Surprise, surprise the banks and lending houses whom were allotted our money are sitting on it until such a time as it becomes less risk adverse to lend it. Now Representative Barney Frank (D) Massachusetts (a senior Dem leader and a man at the heart of protecting Freddie and Fannie during the years leading to their eruption) said today that because the banks are sitting on those federal dollars, the next $350 billion should be used to buy up bad mortgages DIRECTLY BY THE FEDS and write them down (meaning write them off as a loss immediately after purchase), making them as he described, "our houses." Meaning the government's. This was Mac's plan, as stated in that last debate, so I'm sure he won't get much of an argument from Senate Republicans (again, on fiscal policy the difference is rapidly evaporating ... although Obama may up the ante a level ... or ten).
Add to that the big three auto makers are asking for their own bailout. American Express asked to be recategorized as a holding bank so that they can get a piece of the $700 billion (and the feds said "sure"), and Mayor's such as the Democrat in Philadelphia are now lobbying for $50 billion to be cut out of that $700 for city's whom find themselves cash poor.
Lovely. It appears that socialism is contagious. And "Dr. Obama" insists we embrace an even more virulent strain in order to demonstrate our compassion as a nation. Nothing like a big bear hug from Typhoid Mary ...
****
3.) The gay and lesbian community.
This one is particularly interesting. As you may or may not know California had yet another "controversial" ballot initiative on November 5th. "Question 8" would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, thus cutting activists judges off at the knees, given they can not rule a part of their own constitution, unconstitutional. They can do that with any passed or proposed law, but if it is an amendment to the constitution itself, THAT must be repealed by the state legislature, and can not be struck down by the courts. At any rate an odd (in political terms) alliance was formed to pass this ballot question. The primary driver behind it was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or Mormons (as I am). The "question" passed 52 to 48%, and in no small part to a particular ethnicity whom joined with Mormons. Outside of Latter Day Saints, the largest minority voting for the measure was African Americans. In particular evangelical blacks whom regularly attend "black" churches. They voted for it in the same margins they supported Obama, roughly 70%.
Now, the gay community as gone ape you know what, and has protested outside of Mormon Tabernacles. But rather then fill the streets outside of black churches with countless lisp laden chants, as they did to Mormons, they have attacked their traditional Democrat party coalition allies, black Americans, via the Internet. The usual suspects of left wing sites has gays viciously going after the black community in California, even employing the most extreme of taboo words: the dreaded "N" word (taboo that is unless you are a rapper, comedian, or black yourself).
Between 2000 and 2006 the GOP became so big, so dominant, so powerful that it self destructed. The tent got so big it became overcrowded and once the elbows began flying it didn't end until 7 days ago (assuming that was the bottom). We will now see the Democrat Party begin that same process. Hopefully, in the mean while, instead of popping pop corn and watching we will gather our conservative ideology into a single, cohesive message, and be ready to deliver it when the opportunity arises ... and it will. Obama will see to that. Our immediate task now is to clear the field of moderate Republican bodies, and resupply our forces via a conservative ideology.
And by the way, THAT is why they're going after Palin in my opinion. The moderate (via the McCain-iacs) vs conservative (Palin supporters) battle is now raging within the GOP, and on more fronts then just that one ... will Titus stand up and be counted within the one Party that still has a chance of standing for traditional American values? Or at the very least will he abandon the Party that has clearly abandoned him and his belief system? We will stay tuned and see ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
