This is why I'm not a Republican...

Every time I am confronted with the opportunity to change my political affiliation from Democrat to Republican... the GOP does something to show me that the actual difference between the two parties is next-to-nothing.

How does a party like the GOP ALLOW members of it's PAID staff to make statements like the ones made about Palin to the PRESS??? Do they WANT the world to see the GOP as absolutely no different than the Democrats in their ability to remain focused and unified on ONE agenda? Are they TRYING to look like a bunch of sore losers crying after their defeat? Have they determined that the best way to show the public that they ARE a progressive party with solid answers is by blaming the loss on the ONE facet of the campaign that actually WORKED?

Where is this showing that the GOP has learned from the 2000 election by NOT falling into the trap of the "blame game"? YOU LOST... and it is no ONE PERSON'S fault... certainly not Gov. Palin's.

{sigh}

Drum Roll please

Well now that you have read the letter I will give you my reply to her. I wanted you guys to read hers and let it soak in before I posted my response, without names of course.


I have read this note several times and I'm offended by its content.
You stated "History has been re-written", how is that possible? History is only written. History is what it is and it is only written once. If someone attempts to rewrite history it is usually because they have their own agenda and people knowing the true history will only get in the way. One example of this was less than a year ago when Iran held a conference to disprove the holocaust. This is the same country that my new Commander in Chief would like to have cross table negotiations with. This is the same country that would like to see the United States and Israel wiped off of the map. This is the same country that would invite the likes of known racist David Duke (ex-grand wizard of the KKK)to participate in revisionist history conferences.

You also stated "IF you will pledge your allegiance to him and his agenda." I only Pledge my allegiance to This Great Country, It's people and It's flag. I would never pledge my allegiance to one man or one man's agenda. This is a Republic not a dictatorship and as a member of the Armed Services and a citizen of this Great Republic pledging my allegiance to one man would be doing you and all citizens of this country a disservice and would also go against everything this Country stands for.

The election of Barack Obama To President of the United States is historic and proves that this great country and its citizens still have a voice. This will be recorded in history as fact and should never be re-written to state otherwise. Regardless of my personal beliefs or opinions in January I will have a new Commander in Chief and we will both have a new president. I hope God watches over us through this transition and imparts his wisdom on our new President.


I could have gone on and on but didn't see the point. As far as her reference to the "creator", well let's say it is a generic term she uses because she is a non-denominational, dabble in everyones religions type of people and she may have tried to be non-offensive. I don't know I thought it was pretty good for a fast response.

You were right ...

I DID appreciate that irony. Two sentences in I was guessing Marx or Stalin.

And I was curious as to when Badboy's "pen pal" wrote, "with the help of our creator", was she referring to THE God of Abraham, or Obama?

Reading this reminds me of how fantastically hilarious those in the media are, who now claim he may govern from the "middle."

And just one last bit about this business of "pledging allegiance" (and I agree that statement was offensive badboy, it must be especially offensive to you as a member of the armed forces - pledging allegiance is for our flag & the freedom for which it stands, not our politicians). I was watching TV and Chris Matthews of MSNBC said that "it's my job to make sure this presdient succeeds, because America needs a successful presidency." Joe Scarborough (class of 94' former GOP congressman turned commentator) immediately asked, "Is that your job as a journaist, as a commentator, to help him succeed?" Response: "Yes, absolutely." Matthews is host and founder of one of the electronic media's modern institutions of political dissent - HARDBALL - and here he is ... pledging his allegiance.

Can you imagine if a FOX commentator said such a thing about Bush? Not even hyper partisans like a Limbaugh or Hannitty speak in those terms. And speaking of them there are 3 people that sit on the FCC governing board. One is controlled by the PoTUS (he appoints him), the other two are put in by congress. The "Fairness Doctrine" that Regan requested be repealed will certainly be on the agenda for reinstatemnt. This will effectively crush talk radio on the public air waves because were it to be reimplemented it would require each individual station manager to allow 3 hours of rebuttal arguments after each conservatives program, each day, less he be hit with crippling fines. Sure they'd simply go to sattelite, but is that the standard we want set? You can get your news free via the public airwaves as long as I, Lord Obama, agree with it?

Natan Sharansky, a "refusnik" Russo-Jewish political prisoner, and the first released by Mikael Gorbachev, once remarked, "The hallmark of a free society is being able to enter the town square and declare just how much you hate your own government, without the fear of reciprocity."

"Change" may indeed be coming. I suppose soon I'll no longer need to purchase charcoal for my out door grill - I'll simply pull out the list of government banned books and start a "German fire", if you get my drift.

And I think the opposite...

Great post, Baddboy! I hope the Missus isn't too chapped, because you have started a REAL shit-storm with this baby!

We've all heard his speeches, so I won't paste them here again. I did want to paste this little bit though... tell me what you think:

"He who does not deliberately close his eyes cannot fail to see that the new “critical” trend in society is nothing more nor less than a new variety of opportunism. And if we judge people, not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the highsounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate, it will be clear that “freedom of criticism” means’ freedom for an opportunist trend in Democratic politics, freedom to convert social democracy into a Democratic Party of reform, freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into our political agenda.

FREEDOM is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old."

Anyone care to guess as to who it was that said those words? They were written in 1902... just more than a century ago... by a man that was described as the bringer of Peace, Unity and Hope to a troubled land. A man that bridged an age of social injustice and an age of conscious compassion. A man that would bring society out of the darkness and repression of free market capitalism and show us all that we can be EQUAL in a society with no poor, no hungry, no sick, no destitute, no unemployed, no ignorant, no religion...

Read the words again, and tell me that they couldn't have been taken from one of his election speeches VERBATIM! I dare you! Then tell me who said those words...

It was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. You can read the whole work HERE (if you have the stomach for it).

I'm not calling Obama a Commie... and I'm not suggesting that he believes in all that Lenin believed. I AM suggesting that the trend in the DNC is to emulate the ideas and agendas of the men and women that fronted these ideas a century ago to the poor, the sick, and the ignorant of the world as a GOVERNMENT PROVIDED SOLUTION.

There is no room for God, but the places God once occupied in our politics are now filled with the iconic pictures of Obama embracing children, of Obama promising Peace on Earth, of Obama promising prosperity and health to ALL who believe and support his cause. Dems can be "spiritual"... but not "religious". Obama has won the election, and no longer has to pretend he is a practicing member of the United Church of Christ (regardless of who is pastor). Those that are still supporting his cause with the same vigor as they did prior to his win are STILL using nearly religious terms to describe him... because "spiritualists" still react to terms like "salvation" and "awakening" and "common good", even if they are NOT terms describing God or faith.

More on this later...

They think he is some sort of Messiah

Well my wife got an e-mail from her mother today that just blew me away. I was shocked and somewhat offended by some of the things she had to say or the way she said them, so I apologized to my wife in advance and sent her a reply. I haven't heard back from her yet but I am posting the letter without name so your jaw can hit the floor too.

Subject: History has been re-written - a new reality awaits us


Dear Friends,

Tonight, history has been re-written and the opportunities to make the
Changes we all know need to be made await us. With the election of
Barrack Obama as our next president, we have broken the ties of
"Business as usual" and can look forward to the real changes that must
Be made to restore greatness to America and her peoples. Many of you
Are fearful of the upcoming changes that are on the horizon, but as
time progresses you will find they are exactly right to bring about
peace and prosperity, not only to
our country, but to the world at large. We are on the brink of ascension now and who better to lead us than a person who is equally white and black, black and white. A man whose vision for the country is peace, equality for all, education for all, affordable health care for all, and so much more. We now need to pull together to help these things manifest. There is no more "Me" vs "You" - there is only "US"! Open your hearts to the changes, but do NOT point fingers nor place blame. We are all guilty of allowing our world to deteriorate as it has. We have become singular, thinking only of self, instead of thinking of the greater good of the whole. This man, whom the
majority of voters, and especially the younger ones, have placed their
faith in, can, and will, help to bring to fruition of restoring the greatness of this country -- IF you will pledge your allegience to him and his agenda. We are all ONE! Look to the future and see what miracles, with the help of our Creator, can be accomplished in the name of Love and cooperation.

Love and Blessings to All,
XXXXXXXX
ONLY LOVE PREVAILS

I had to add this ...

Mark Steyn, a brilliant conservative commentator and writer, quipped in National Review today:

'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,' is a phrase that defined a generation of Democrats in 1960. In 2008 it reads: ask not what your country can do for you ... demand it.

So true.

Being "them lite."

I had an interesting conversation on the phone with Jambo last night. But, as it dovetails with what Titus just wrote, let me address his post first. He opened with: The "conservative" movement in America took a fairly big blow last night."

Utter nonsense. Primarily because "conservatism" wasn't on the ballot last night. In fact, by all traditional political definitions there was a "moderate Democrat" running last night, and his name is John McCain. Conservatism "took a big blow" between 2000 and 2008 when Republicans decided to abandon it.

I agree that in terms of highlighting their own brand name and fixing blame to the opposing Party the Republican PR for the last several years got out hustled, out played and generally out done. However, this is not the over arching reason that the GOP began suffering defeat starting in 2006. THAT reason is because they slowly but surely abandoned conservatism between 2000 thru right this second, and at the precise time they had the ability and power to implement it (2000-2006) unlike any opportunity since the post Civil War era.

Truman once quipped, "If you give the people a choice between a Republican and a Democrat that acts like a Republican, they'll pick the Republican every time." Just swap the titles around and you have my theory on precisely what ended in last nights overwhelming victory for the Democrat Party.

The size of government, spending, balanced budgets, unapologetic about "life" and cultural issues, ear marks, line item veto, term limits - all issues that brought either Reagan or Gingrich huge electoral successes, all abandoned by the GOP over the last 8 years. Every one. And yes, they ended partial-birth abortion, but President Bush was timid at best when it came to fighting for his judicial nominees up and down the federal circuit. Each of these issues turned off the base and had typically engaged voters scratching their heads as to what Republicans stood for. And that led to the complete inability (or desire) to behave "conservatively" on NEW hot button issues such as the southern border; school vouchers; education in general (Bush just threw more and more money at it); private stock market accounts as a sane solution to an insolvent social security debacle; constitutional protection of marriage (and someone tell me why that mayor in San Fransisco didn't have his federal dollars yanked the minute he broke the law and started handing out gay marriage licences?); the bail out. Hell, even free speech took a huge hit with McCain-Feingold, an abhorrent piece of legislation (and it did a bang up job of getting money out of campaigns ... right Mac?). And outside of fiscal conservatism the other most damning issue abandoned by Republicans was energy independence! They have simply conceded this farce of man-made global warming and hand cuffed themselves on an issue that is GROSSLY skewed in their favor - people love the idea of us using our own resources, period.

While I would consider President Bush, McCain and the Republicans in congress all "hawks", thus solid in terms of being national security "conservatives", this election cycle was about economics, and that's the front upon which they most blatantly abandoned their principles and the formula for past electoral victories. Even the Bush tax cuts have a sunset clause - you tell me how that's possible given the GOP controlled congress for 6 out of 8 years?

Think about this - McCain, Bush and the GOP members of congress, when faced with the September economic crisis, engaged in an argument with the Democrat Party on "how much" government was the solution. HOW MUCH! Not whether in principle government should step in, just "how much?" Throw in prescription drugs, McCain's comments on nationalizing $300 billion in bad mortgages and a laundry list of fiscally liberal policies embraced by the GOP and you get last night - the culmination of the GOP's conceding big versus limited government has driven them into congressional obscurity. SO HERE IS THE POINT: if as a Republican you have conceded the template that government is the nation's economic cure, then why would voters choose the guy offering just a little less of that cure? I mean holy hell! Once the template is established that we need a larger role for government, more federal spending, and a further intrusion into the lives of individual Americans to "make things all better", why not opt for the guy offering the most? I mean that's the answer, right? Then why pick a guy offering only "some" of that answer?

And THAT is the 800 lb gorilla in the room that the GOP must address as it begins its soul searching today: the abandonment of Reagan/Gingrich conservatism.

I still believe this is a center-right country. But the GOP became a center-left Party whose opposition was severely left, and guess what - if you run a Democrat against a Republican that sounds like a Democrat, people will choose a Democrat every time.

****

I want to add another point about what the GOP must do to regain its footing. Re embracing what I call Reagan/Gingrich conservatism is paramount. First and foremost they must do that. Also though, they must find an articulate, energetic spokesperson for those ideas. In my opinion Tip Oneal's sharp observation that, "all politics are local", is true no more. All politics are national now. In today's media age, with 24/7 access to news and information, the larger ticket items and subjects of the day is what will get more air, Internet and radio time. Contested congressional seats will live and die by the coat tails (or lack thereof) on how their national leadership addresses those big ticket items, especially during a presidential year. In short they must put together a coherent, conservative national message ... but as I said, that aspect of their offense is only relevant if they first re embrace conservative ideology.

****

Lastly I would like to congratulate our new president. I'll hear none of this "he's not my president", nonsense from any of my fellow Americans. He is, period. I wish him well because I wish America well. He is undoubtedly the most talented politician in America, and perhaps the world at this moment, and he earned his success.

I am more then a little worried though that his definition of what a "successful America" looks like, will take two or three generations of Americans to undo.