Posts
Meet our newest Republican, compliments of Michael Steele: . . . We can thank Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele for Daniels’s rightward turn. She was a registered Dem until the infamous Voyeur nightclub incident, she said. You just have to laugh. 
After learning of the RNC's fundraising at a lesbian bondage club, porn star Stormy Daniels was so impressed that she decided to switch parties from Democrat to Republican. Daniels, decidedly not from the social conservative wing of the Republican Party, is nonetheless a fiscal conservative with some very libertarian beliefs. This from Politico:
“While this decision has not been an easy one, recent events regarding Republican National Committee fundraising at Voyeur, an L.A.-based lesbian bondage-themed nightclub, finally tipped the scales,” she said in a statement. “For me, this spirit can be summed up in the RNC’s investment of donor funds at Voyeur. As someone who has worked extensively in both the club and film side of the adult entertainment industry, I know from experience that a mere $1,900 outlay at a club with the reputation of Voyeur is a clear indication of a frugal investment with a keen eye toward maximum return.”
She added: “As is the case with so many of my fellow Louisianans, I have been a registered Democrat throughout my life. But now I cannot help but recognize that over time my libertarian values regarding both money and sex and the legal use of one for the other [are] now best espoused by the Republican Party.”
(H/T Another Black Conservative)
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Thursday, April 8, 2010
A Truly Big Tent Republican Party
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Congress: Stop Us Before We Steal Again
A bit of catch up blogging. Talk about your admission against interest - not that it was anything we didn't know already.
In one sense, this is a bipartisan message. Certainly our cast of Republicans in Congress spent our money like drunken sailors when they controlled the purse strings, and its why their base let them hang in 2006. But they aren't even in the same league as Democrats, who make any analogy to drunken sailors grossly inaccurate in as much as it does not begin to capture their capacity for profligacy.
It is also a full and complete explanation of how Obama and the left could pass Obamacare in the face of a massive fiscal crisis and a national debt that threatens the stability of our nation. They simply choose to ignore it and keep rooting at the trough.
This also means that there is a fundamental and systemic failure in our body politic that, if not fixed, bodes an ill wind indeed for the future of our country.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Obama Offer And What Should Be The Republican Response
Congressional Republicans are about to make a mistake. Earlier last week, Obama announced that he would like to meet with Congressional Republicans about health care in a televised event. This is a trap for Republicans. It's Obama in place of Lucy, waiting for the Republican Charlie Brown to try and kick the football. Here is how it is being spun by the Washington Post.
President Obama brought Republicans to the negotiating table on Tuesday, hoping to stem a steady deterioration in relations between the two parties that has brought business in Washington to a standstill, left the Democratic agenda in tatters and angered voters who are eager to have lawmakers address their concerns.
The two-hour session was part of a renewed drive by the White House to create legislation by consensus, regardless of party label. Obama tried the approach after he took office, but it did not take hold. . . .
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the public is frustrated by the bickering and recriminations. According to the survey, 57 percent of Americans consider the loss of the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority a "good thing," but few think Republicans should wield their new power to block bills frequently. Nearly six in 10 say that Republicans are not doing enough to forge compromise with Obama on important issues, while nearly half view the president as doing too little to overcome differences with the GOP.
On the issue of health-care reform, public attitudes about the stalled Democratic legislation remain virtually deadlocked. But nearly two-thirds of voters, or 63 percent, want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue. . . .
One, what has brought Washington to a standstill has not been the Republicans who, until two weeks ago, couldn't effect any piece of legislation the left wanted to steamroll through Congress. Democrats brought Washington to a standstill. Two, if this poll WaPo talks about wasn't a push poll I'll eat my hat. It is at the very least an outlier. Every poll I have seen to date puts health care reform a couple of rungs below the top of what voters care about, and the health care monstrasity that has been crafted by the left is what gave Scott Brown his victory in blue Mass. This article could have been authored by Robert Gibbs. And lastly, the claims to bipartisanship efforts by Obama are just surreal.
The 2700 page Healthcare monstrosity is dead - and there is not a single thing inside that bill, not a even a single period or comma, that should be resuscitated. It was a bill that Republicans were all but completely shut out of - by Obama, Reid and Pelosi - from the start. Indeed, through much of 2009, Obama closed the doors of the White House to the Republicans on the health care issue. And lest we forget, there was his infamous response to Republican calls for bipartisanship in regards to the Stimiulus bill last January - "I won." That's right, and he owns it all now.
That is precisely why Obama now wants to make a dog and pony show of "bipartisanship" in the run up to the 2010 elections? Spare me. He wants to pass his radical agenda without change. Barring that, he wants to portray himself and his far, far left agenda as middle of the road, while Republicans are made out to be the "obstructionists" - and in that effort, he will be given the full support by the MSM, as the opening salvo by WaPo makes clear.
CBS's Mark Knoll deals with the reality of "bipartisanship." He assesses that Obama's calls for bipartisanship are nothing more or less than a call for Republicans to surrender:
Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.
"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.
It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.
In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.
He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."
It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress. . . .
What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.
Mr. Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.
And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he "won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience."
When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his. . . .
(H/T Hot Air)
This offer from Obama of a televised meeting with Republicans on health care holds no upsides for Republicans. What Republicans should do is recount how they have been shut out of the crafting of the bill. They should explain that there is no way to simply tweak this health care monstrosity in a way to make it anything but a drain on, if not a destroyer of, our economy, They should point out that the far left health care plan has been rejected by the American people. Then they should announce a stand on principle - that unless Obama is willing to throw out the health care bill and start over on a true bi-partisan bill, there is nothing to talk about on that issue. That should be coupled with an offer to meet in a televised meeting on jobs, unsustainable deficits, profligate spending, spending and tax cuts, and a national couterterrorism effort dangerously reduced to tatters - the immediate priorities of the American people (well, except for the last one, which is my own). Let Obama choke on that one.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Shock & Awe At The NYT
Given that Massachusetts is the strongest bastion of the left in America, the revolt of the voters in Massachusetts is the equivalent of an army revolting against its officers in time of war. And the officers, who refused to see the writing on the wall, are now in shock and awe at the slings and arrows aimed their way. In a piece at once realistic, horrified, and still hanging on to the tiniest thread of hope, the NYT gives front page news to reflections on the far left nightmare that is the Senate race in bluest of blue Massachusetts:
There may be no better place to measure the shifting fortunes of President Obama and the Democratic Party than in the race being fought here this weekend for the Senate seat that had been held by Edward M. Kennedy.
When Mr. Obama was inaugurated one year ago this week, he and his party had big majorities in the Senate and House, enjoyed the backing of much of the country and were confidently preparing to enact an ambitious legislative agenda. Republicans seemed directionless and the conservative movement exhausted.
This weekend, Democrats are struggling to hang on to a seat held by Mr. Kennedy for 46 years in one of the most enthusiastically Democratic states in the country. Conservatives are enjoying a grass-roots resurgence, and Republicans are talking about taking back the House in November.
As Mr. Obama prepares to come here on Sunday to campaign for the party’s beleaguered Senate candidate, Martha Coakley, Democrats across the country are starting to wonder aloud if they misjudged the electorate over the last year, with profound ramifications for the midterm elections this year and, potentially, for Mr. Obama’s presidency.
Win or lose in Massachusetts, that a contest between a conservative Republican and a liberal Democrat could appear so close is evidence of what even Democrats say is animosity directed at the administration and Congress. It has been fanned by Republicans who have portrayed Democrats as overreaching and out of touch with ordinary Americans.
Hmmm, wonder why the evil Republicans should be getting any traction out of that. Indeed, it was not the Republicans who did the fanning, it was the grass roots Tea Parties.
Regardless, the far left, for the very first time in America actually being in a position to govern, are suddenly finding reality - and what a cruel mistress it is. Apparently Obama's sinking poll numbers and the polls showing vast discontent with the the health care plan did weren't enough to convince the far left that they might indeed have a problem. This election though is the equivalent of tossing a lit stick of reality TNT into their knickers.
“It comes from the fact that Obama as president has had to deal with all these major crises he inherited: the banks, fiscal stimulus,” said Senator Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democrat who holds the Massachusetts seat on an interim basis pending the special election. “But for many people it was like, ‘Jeez, how much government are we getting here?’ That might have given them pause.”
If Kirk actually believes what he says, he is still deep in denial. It was not that the Obama had to deal with a lot of inherited issues, its how he dealt with them. Evan Bay gets it,
Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, said the atmosphere was a serious threat to Democrats. “I do think there’s a chance that Congressional elites mistook their mandate,” Mr. Bayh said. “I don’t think the American people last year voted for higher taxes, higher deficits and a more intrusive government. But there’s a perception that that is what they are getting.” . . .
Support for the health care overhaul could grow if it is enacted into law and Americans decide that it has left them better off, as Mr. Obama says will happen. The economy could take a turn for the better by this summer, validating Mr. Obama’s policies in time to influence the midterm elections. . . .
Don't you expect to hear Disney music rise up at this point and the words "they all lived happily ever after" suddenly appear in the sky. This really is denial. Jobs aren't going to suddenly recover given Obama's war on the economy. And as to health care, the author seems to forget that people are going to begin getting taxed for it from the get go, with three years before it kicks in. That is not quite a recipe for a sudden mass epiphany. To the contrary, its the recipe for people with torches and ropes marching on Washington and looking for Democratic lawmakers.
. . . But most ominously for Democrats contemplating the midterm elections, the battle here suggests an emerging dangerous dynamic: that Mr. Obama has energized Republican activists who think he has overstepped with health care and the economic stimulus, while demoralizing Democrats who think he has not lived up to his promise.
Actually quite a good article. Do read the whole thing. The fact that this graces the front page of the NYT suggests the degree to which the shock and awe of reality has hit the far left.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
NY Senate Goes Republican
One can only imagine the byzantine politics behind this one, but who am I to look a gift donkey in the mouth. The NY Post reports that two Democrats in the NY State Senate, "Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx -- are poised to announce that they have decided to caucus with the GOP out of anger at Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith." The story is not precisely clear as to the cause(s) of the angst, but it appears that the same-sex marriage bill now in the Senate is part of the problem. No matter, its good news regardless. It means that control of the NY State Senate will now pass to the Repulicans.
(H/T Ex-Dissident)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Specter Turns Dem - Dems Now Have Fillibuster Proof Majority
Arlen Specter, facing a stiff challenge in the Penn. Republican primaries yet again, this time from Pat Toomey, has now switched parties. By doing so, and by explicitly declaring his allegiance to Democratic Party ideals, Specter has shown his stripes as a purely political animal with no sense of loyalty nor any values that he holds to above the retention of political power. In a March 17 interview with the Hill, Specter noted that he was being courted by the left to switch parties but that he refused on grounds of conscience. This from the interview of Specter with the Hill in March:
"Democrats are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no."
"I'm not going to discuss private talks I had with other people who may or may not be considered influential. But since those three people are in the public domain, I think it is appropriative to respond to those questions."
"I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That's the basis of politics in America. I'm afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That's a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers."
So much for values and conscience. In his words today:
Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.
Merely as an aside, let me add that the Republican Party has not moved right since Reagan, it has simply self destructed with those elected on the right losing all fiscal discipline and being corrupted by the process. It was Specter as one of three Republicans who passed Obama's massive spending bill - once he was promised funding for his own pet project. And indeed, while the Republicans have remained fixed, it is the Democratic Party that has shifted to far to the left, Specter's new claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
The importance of Specter's act to the nation is as he described in the March interview. Now Obama now has complete control of the reins of power and, once Franken is seated, nothing, not even a filibuster, can be used to slow down the socialist agenda.
The Republican Party has been very good to Arlen Specter since his first political victory in 1980. Specter was always welcomed in the the Republican Party, though some of his positions, such as on abortion, ran against traditional conservatism. That said promises were made to him, including the promise of chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Those promises were kept. Yet now, with the Republican Party at its nadir, fighting to remake itself and to stem the steamroller to socialism that is the Obama administration, Specter jumps ship. He does so not to become an independent on grounds of conscience, as Joe Lieberman did over the Iraq War, but to wholly join Obama and crew out of political expediency.
In Dante's Divine Comedy, one of the most well known works to come out of the 14th century, Dante observes that the ninth circle of hell, its pit, is reserved for traitors. Let us hope that they have a space resereved for Arlen Specter (D-Penn).
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Politics Of Urban Poverty
Detroit, once a thriving metropolis, has now earned the dubious distinction of being the city in America with the highest poverty rate. The other nine cities that are vying for that distinction all have something in common with Detroit. They have all been run by Democratic Party politicians for at least the last the last 25 years. Doug Ross has the whole story. Does anyone detect a pattern here?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Brutal - An Intellectually Honest Democrat Discusses Sarah Palin
Former Senator from Alaska - and intellectually honest Democrat - Mike Gravel just absolutely skewers some left wing journalists who throw out every anti-Palin Democratic talking point with the speed of skeets for the Senator to shoot down. Among his statements, Troopergate will come out in favor of Gov. Palin and that Palin has more pertinent experience than Obama.
Enjoy -
This would make a great McCain ad.
(H/T Hot Air)
Monday, September 8, 2008
Standing At The Crossroads - Identity Politics, Multiculturalism & The Melting Pot (Updated & Bumped)
Note: An abbreviated portion of this post appears at MLK Day 2012: The Civil Rights Movement, The Left & The Legacy Of MLK
Liberal African American NYT columnist Bob Herbert recently had this to say in extolling the virtues of the left:
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Mr. Herbert pretty much sums up what has been the far left / liberal / progressive line for decades. But then how to explain all the vicious, ad hominem and unhinged Palin-bashing coming from the left? To take it one further, how to reconcile that Palin-bashing with the left's acceptance of people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a part of their stable? It seems quite the conundrum unless one knows a bit of history and can identify the massive deceits. Here are some facts, some of which you might not be aware:
- The Republican Party - the party of Abraham Lincoln - was borne in 1854 out of opposition to slavery.
- The party of Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan was, as Jeffrey Lord points out in an article at the WSJ, the Democratic Party. And Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) is the only living member of the Senate who was once a member of the KKK.
- The 13th (abolishing slavery), 14th (due process for all citizens) and 15th (voting rights cannot be restriced on the basis of race) Amendments to the Constitution were enacted by Republicans over Democratic opposition.
- The NAACP was founded in 1909 by three white Republicans who opposed the racist practices of the Democratic Party and the lynching of blacks by Democrats.
- In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.
- It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.
- Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He "proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s." Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the "Little Rock Nine" incident, "Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school."
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK - but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.
- Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, "I Had A Dream," was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.
- "Bull" Connor was not a Republican.
- and finally, as an aside, Mr. Herbert does not name a single Republican - and I can find none from 1854 to the present - that has ever been drummed out of the Republican party for their opposition to civil rights. That charge is libelous. Could this be projection on his part? I ask since purges to insure ideological purity have occurred recently on the left.
Nothing that I say here is to suggest that racism and sexism could not be found in the Republican party or among conservatives at any point in American history. But if you take any period in history and draw a line at the midpoint of racist and sexist attitudes, you would find far more Republicans than Democrats on the lesser side of that line. And you would find a much greater willingness on the part of Republicans, relative to the time, to effectuate equality. That was as true in 1865 as in 1965 - and in 2008.
Sometime about 1968, the far left movement emerged as a major wing of the Democratic Party. This far left wing hijacked the civil rights movement and made it, ostensibly, the raison d'etre of their wing. Gradually, the far left has grown until it is now the dominant force in Democratic politics. JFK, Truman and FDR would recognize precious little of today's Democratic Party.
The far left fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil Rights movement when they claimed it as their own. They imprinted the movement with identity politics, grossly distorting the movement's goal of a level playing field for all Americans and creating in its stead a Marxist world of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama's twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anamoly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.
The far left did not merely hijack the civil rights movement, they also wrote over a century of American history, turning it on its head. That is why Bob Herbert, quoted above, is able to wax so eloquently while spouting the most horrendous of deceits. The far left managed to paint the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the prime repositories of racism and sexism. The far left has long held themselves out as the true party of equality. They have done so falsely as, by its very nature, identity politics cements inequality. Beyond that truism, the far left has for decades played the race and gender cards to counter any criticism of their policies, to forestall any reasoned debate and to demonize those who stand opposed to them. They continue to do so through this very day.
For example, Obama has attempted repeatedly to play the race card so as to delegitimize criticism of his policies. And today we have the Governor of New York calling the McCain camp racist for belittling the executive experience one could expect to be gleaned from the position of "community organizer." Apparently, according to Gov. David Patterson, "repeated use of the words 'community organizer' is Republican code for 'black'." What Gov. Patterson is doing is the well worn trick of taking any criticism of something pertaining to one of the victim class and recasting it as an illegitimate attack on the victim class itself. These tactics, which the left has used with incredible effectiveness in the past, have done incalculable harm to our nation over the decades.
We are either a melting pot wherein "all men are created equal" - the ideal of our Founders for which we have long strived and are ever closer to succeeding - or we are to become a multicultural nation of pigeon-holed special interests. We are to become a nation where groups are encouraged to remain apart, defining themselves by their victim class before defining themselves as Americans. Multiculturalism is unworkable - we can see it destroying Europe and Britain - but that has not stopped the far left in America from their embrace of the concept. Nor has it slowed their efforts to weave multiculturalism irrevocably into the fabric of our society.
The far left has long pushed forward minorities and women to prove that they are the party of inclusiveness. On the right, the process has been slower. You had the percolation of minorities and women to major positions through the natural process of time and selection of the fittest. Only the most jaded would ever argue that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did not earn their positions solely on merit. And love her or hate her, Kristi Todd Whitman was both well qualified and a very good governor.
I have long been waiting for a self-made and accomplished woman or minority to rise to the very top in Republican politics. It is something that would intrinsically expose the incredibly damaging canard that the far left has pushed for near half a century. I had hoped Colin Powell would be that man a decade ago. As to Condi Rice, had things worked out differently for the Bush administration and had she not selected the Sec. of State slot (a killer for anyone with Pres. aspirations) I thought that perhaps she would have a good shot at running in 2008. I've been waiting for Thomas Sowell to run for any elected office for decades - and yes, I would consider him for beatification. These are people for whom neither their skin color nor their gender makes them a victim. These are people for whom what unites us in common as Americans is more important than what divides us into sub-groups. And these are people who earned their success by virtue of their excellence rather than the distortions of identity politics.
It is inevitable that one of the two concepts I earlier described - a melting pot of equals or a multicultural morass of victim groups - will gain ascendance in America. I have long felt that we are at a crossroads in our nation for precisely this reason, and that the ramifications of how we decide this issue will be existential.
On this blog, I congratulated Obama for achieving the status of the first African American nominee for President. I meant that sincerely, though I have also said before that he is the product of identity politics. He is the polar opposite of the post racial candidate he held himself out to be initially. It seems likely that the policies he would institute in America would represent the victory of multiculturalism - and indeed, Obama has explicitly stated his view of multiculturalism as the future of America. It would alter our nation fundamentally to create not simply a house divided, but a house with countless divides.
Will Sarah Palin represent the opposite choice? I think she does. As Victor Davis Hanson said of her:
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.
What we have seen in shrill reaction from the far left to Ms. Palin shines a giant spotlight on the far left's agenda. Their goal is not equality for women or any other minority, else the rise of Sarah Palin would be welcomed on its merits, irrespective of other political disagreements. There would be no need or attempt to delegitimize her. The frothing and vitriolic reaction of the far left shows their goal to actually be the maintenance of a permanent victim class that can be used by the far left to further their fundamantal goal of remaking society into a socialist utopia. Sarah Palin, by her very being, exposes the canard and is thus an existential danger to the far left.
All of that - the deception, the rewriting of history, the true agenda - is why Mr. Herbert can wax eloquent about the great civil rights victories of the modern left even as his compatriots set out to wholly destroy Sarah Palin. And all of that makes Sarah Palin's ascendance meaningful indeed. The rise of Obama and Hillary on the left have pushed us to the center of a crossroads on all of this, with the only option being of a turn in one direction or another. McCain's utterly brilliant selection of Gov. Palin as his running mate clarifies the issues completely and makes the choices stark. Because of that, my personal belief is that this election will have ramifications long beyond the next four years. A victory for Obama will go a long way to fundamentally reworking our society in the far left mold. A victory for McCain/Palin will mark a major step backwards from that abyss. It will be a truly major blow against the far left and their agenda for this country. There is much at stake indeed this November.
Photo at the top taken from Gateway Pundit.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Doubling Down On Defeat & A Pattern Of Avoidance
Doug Ross has a superb retrospective on how our Dems have embraced defeat at all costs. After detailing their perfidy, he characterizes their actions:
They were wrong. They were unbelievably partisan, putting their interests before those of the United States and the safety of its military.
No party has been more wrong, more often, on serious issues of national import than the Democratic party since 1864.
Read the entire post.
Plus there is not only an embrace of defeat, but a refusal to defend it - at least from our would-be Messiah-in-Chief. Gateway Pundit notes that Obama met with Maliki but DID NOT raise the issue of his sixteen month timetable during the meeting - apparently wanting to avoid any fall out that might require Obama to publicly discuss "refining" his plans. To put this in context, Obama also deliberately avoided raising his sixteen month timetable when he had the opportunity to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker in April. He went AWOL from a town hall meeting before military families where the issue of Iraq and his embrace of defeat was almost sure to be raised - rather pointedly. And he is staying as far away as possible from any debates with McCain that are not both truncated and moderated by MSM synocophants. There is a pattern here.
What does one take from all of this. My take is that Obama is one cowardly SOB without the courage of his convictions to be able to defend his positions in any sort of pointed debate.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Our Marxist Left
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure. Read the entire article. H/T Hot Air.
Will Karl Marx, a man whose ideas should have been interred with his bones, yet win out in the West? The more I watch the left win the communications war and drive this nation ever more to the left, the more I fear so. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, almost one third of the people polled favored nationalizing the oil industry.
___________________________________________________________
This is incredibly depressing news. Only a complete fool with no economic sense and no understanding of history could possibly believe that our nation would be better off nationalizing the oil industry in America. Yet, the left's relentless propaganda machine, with its incredible anti-business rhetoric, is clearly making inroads. This today from Rasmussen:
The survey found that a plurality of Democrats (37%) believe the oil industry should be nationalized. Just 32% of voters in Barack Obama’s party disagree with that approach. Republicans oppose nationalizing the oil industry by a 66% to 16% margin. Unaffiliated voters are opposed by a 47% to 33% margin.
Nationalization is the process by which the government assumes complete control of a private industry and its assets. It has been a common practice in totalitarian dictatorships, but as recently as 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government nationalized the private airport security industry and moved it under the Transportation Security Administration.
. . . Just 52% of American voters believe that an oil company should be allowed to keep profits from any alternative energy source it discovers [emphasis added]. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the company should not be allowed to keep such profits while 19% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided on the question. Republicans by a 4-to-1 margin, and unaffiliated voters by a 2-to-1 margin, say that the companies should be allowed to profit from discoveries that reduce the price of gas and other energy sources.
Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters say that passage of a windfall profits tax on oil companies would lead to higher gas prices. Thirty percent (30%) believe prices would remain about the same and 15% believe a windfall profits tax would lead to lower gas prices. Most liberal say that gas prices would be unchanged or drop.
Seventy-six percent (76%) say that development of new energy sources would do more than higher fuel efficiency standards to bring gas prices down--and keep them down. Just 14% believe higher fuel efficiency standards would be more effective. . .
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Two Competing Visions On Energy
I do not know how long the Democrats can keep selling their snake oil on gas prices -blaming it all on Republicans and Big Oil while they appease the radical environmental lobby, preventing the exploitation of our own oil and coal resources while blocking new refiniries and nuclear plants. This is thrown into stark relief today by Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo) via Powerline:
Explanation: Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60.
As I wrote in Republicans Ponder the Abyss, one of the four keys to Republican survival and resurgence is effectively communicating. Hats off to Rep. Blunt who is doing precisely that. I wonder if he would loan that chart to McCain?
Update: Soccer Dad has an exceptional post on these issues.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
McCain & Obama Sweep The Potomac
McCain and Obama sweep the primaries in Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia. Huckaboom failed to fire. Clinton got clobbered worse than the C.S.A. at Antietam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Republicans:
McCain convincingly defeated Huckabee in all three primaries held today: Virginia (50% to 41%); Maryland (56% to 30%); and Washington D.C. (68% to 17%). McCain now has 812 delegates of the 1,191 needed to lock up the Republican nomination. He will likely reach the magic number in March, and possibly as early as March 4. The base seems to be uniting behind McCain.
The Democrats:
Obama crushed Clition by margins of up to 50% in the three primaries held today: Virginia (64% to 35%); Maryland (62% to 35%); and Washington D.C. (75% to 24%). It takes 2,025 delegates to wrap up the Democratic nomination. Obama now has a slight lead in consideration of both elected delegates and committed superdelegates with a total of 1,208 to Hillary Clintons 1,185.
Thoughts:
1. I don't think Hillary can overcome Obamimania. He is now eating into her demographics. Her only hope is the Rudy strategy - to hope that she can withstand the bleeding until the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. And we saw how well the Rudy strategy worked for Rudy.
2. Obamamania is a toxic combination of an inspirational speaker, identity politics and liberal guilt. His positions do not matter to those responding to his rhetoric, nor do his lack of any experience or complete lack of any accomplishments. In that sense, Obama is the penultimate affirmative action candidate.
3. On paper, McCain should walk all over Obama in the general election. But between the insane MDS and the Obamamania cult of personality, McCain could very easilly lose this election without a very effective strategy to put Obama on the defensive and show that the emporer has no clothes. And critical to this, McCain needs money, money, money. The one thing the far left does well is raise money for their favored candidates. And Soros will be spending a lot of cash this election cycle. If Republicans don't step up with not only their vote and support, but with their cash, McCain will not win the general election.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Of John McCain, Kos Coulter and the Goldwater Myth
A vociferous element of the Republican Party, epitomized by Ann Coulter, would destroy the Republican Party rather than see McCain become president. It seems more of a tantrum displaying the irrationality I had thought was only associated with the far left. It is, I believe, incredibly foolish.
McCain was not my first choice for the Republican nomination. No matter. He will be the Republican nominee. I will support him wholeheartedly.
To say that I am appalled by the reaction on the conservative side with the reaction to John McCain being the likely nominee would be understatement. As a threshold matter, much of what I am hearing is a distortion of McCain’s record.
On the single most important issue we face, national security, no one questions McCain’s credentials. McCain was correct in his calls for an increase in troop strength far before 2007. He also supported Iraq and the surge when it appeared that it would end his Presidential bid. That is principle, folks. Most politicians do not have it. If McCain is in the White House, we stand a chance to win the war against terror. Most politicians, Republican’s included, would have folded up in Iraq in 2006 in order to win the Presidency.
On the economy, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts not because he was against tax cuts, but because he wanted concomitant spending cuts. That is called fiscal responsibility. That is also far more Reganesque than anything we ever got from Bush. Bush has spent like a drunken Democrat, along with the rest of the Republicans in Congress. If he had imposed some fiscal discipline, Republicans may well not have lost the Congress in 2006. Moreover, McCain promises to end earmarks.
On trade, McCain is the single strongest advocate of all the candidates for free trade.
On subsidies, McCain went to Iowa and said it was time to end farm and ethanol subsidies. That’s honesty. That is integrity. That is precisely correct.
On immigration, McCain’s proposal was . . . Reganesque. Don’t claim McCain is not a conservative for proposing this plan. It may be inappropriate for a host of reasons, but so is the frothing of the mouth because McCain proposed it and then claiming him a traitor. Christ, get a grip.
McCain Feingold – McCain made a mistake on this one. He has, as I recall, admitted as much. Get over it.
McCain Lieberman – Someone need to get beat McCain over the head with a two by four on this one.
The gang of fourteen – Get over this one. McCain can reach across the aisle. We got most of what conservatives wanted out of it and we did not create a scenario that could later come back to haunt Republicans in a big way.
Supreme Court Judges - The primary manner through which the socialist left has pursued their agenda over the past several decades is through the courts. In just the past two years, liberal justices have competely gutted the Fifth Amendment right limiting the government's ability to take private property. A few years before that, the liberal justices began looking to the modern laws of other countries to decide how to interpret the Constitution. Both are an incredible travesty. With that in mind, do you want more Scalias or more Ginsbergs. In the end, this may be as important as the issue of national security in whether to support McCain.
What I am hearing now – this utter refusal to support McCain, is a temper tantrum worthy of the far left. Indeed, some, such as Ann “Kos” Coulter, threaten to campaign against McCain. Is she taking a page from Kos and Ned Lamont. That was a real victory, wasn't it. Likewise, the plan to sabotage McCain’s run for the Presidency in order to remake the Republican party into some sort of purist Conservative heaven is dangerous fantasy indeed. The belief that we are reliving the Goldwater years is a myth. Nixon followed Goldwater – and took us out of Vietnam in the name of “surrender with honor” or something like that. He imposed price controls. He was as far from a conservative as you can get.
The belief that if we keep out McCain now and let either Hillary or Obama have at it for four years, that we can then run a “true” conservative as a savior, much as what happened with Carter and Regan, misses a very important point. One, there is no Regan on the horizon. Two, we are still paying for Jimmy Carter's presidency, and the price will likely outlive us. Carter allowed Islamic fundamentalism to take hold by allowing Iran to fall to Khomenei. An Obama or Clinton could well undo the gains we have made against this scourge and, indeed, a precipitous withdraw from Iraq could make it far worse. McCain will not make that mistake. But if a Democratic President does, we will greatly compound the problems our nation must face.
The last thing we need is another middle class entitlement program. The history is that such programs are difficult in the extreme to get rid of once in place. How about trying to unseat Hillary after Hillarycare is in place.
I apologize for the rambling on this one. This is all stream of consciousness under a time crunch at the moment. But regardless, the point is that this outpouring of hatred towards McCain is largely unwarranted and problematic in the extreme. The Republican movement is more than just people who want all illegal immigrants boxed up and sent home yesterday. To the extent some of us would establish a litmus test, we may find the pure conservative Republican party at the end of that road to be very small indeed - and wholly irrelevant.
Update: Other bloggers or articles drawing similar conclusions include:
Daniel Henninger in the WSJ
Powerline
Hugh Hewitt
Dr. Sanity
Victor David Hanson.
Soccer Dad - Campaign Consultant Kang Speaks
The Glittering Eye - The Anti-McCain Republicans
Big Lizards - Why Should We Care Whether Hillary or McCain Wins?
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
McCain & Clinton Take New Hampshire
For anyone to prognosticate how this campaign is going to play out, their crystal ball is far clearer than mine. McCain's N.H. victory is no surprise, but it just further muddles the Republican picture. I would be happy with a McCain nomination, but I know a few of my conservative brothers and sisters will be reaching for the antacids over that one. Actually, I think any of the Republican nominees would be acceptable with the exception of Mike Huckabee, and I base that on his weakness in foreign policy and what his cynical trick on the eve of Iowa said about his character.
On the Democratic side, we've had the last four days of Obamamania and polls predicting a Hillary N.H. loss by ten points or more. That is just one more abject lesson in why reliance on polls is perilous at best - whether its placing bets on an election or, even worse, choosing how to govern. Beyond that, hopefully we will be spared more Obamalatio in the MSM for a few days, as well as more gender baiting from Gloria Steinem.
Hillary is clearly not inevitable, but her primary challenger, Obama, has nothing of substance to offer beyond a good smile and Kennedyesque rhetoric. That said, if one closes their eyes and listens to all his happy talk, it all sounds quite soothing, actually. As to Hillary, I can't close my eyes and listen to her. Both audibly and substantively, every utterance of hers grates down my spine like fingernails on a chalkboard.
I think the biggest change that will come out of New Hampshire is how Hillary chooses to campaign. She clearly cannot afford to sit on the fence and await coronation as she did in the run-up to Iowa. But we will see.
In any event, two down, forty-eight to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
