I am reviving this blog after a long hiatus, I suspect I will only publish once or twice a week, who knows?
I am inspired to get back into some political ramblings due to some recent hypocrisy that I just can't hold my nose over anymore. Last week while our Embassies and Consulates were burning in the Middle East some not so subtle evidence of media bias toward the President became abundantly clear. Shocking I know, it's not like the media is not already in the tank for the guy right? Well, yes, but this type of hypocrisy from last week is far more insidious and damaging to the core of American political ideals.
If you recall Mitt Romney made some statements in the middle of the mess on Wednesday and he took the administration to task for apologizing for some video, through the embassy in Cairo, that enraged Muslims all over the Middle East. I won't even touch how absurd it is for our government to be apologizing for something it had no control over and shouldn't really care about anyway, but I will go into the response from media types and the administration. Mitt Romney was cooked for having the audacity to say something about the crisis while the President was still dealing with the crisis. Mitt was called out for being malicious, a malcontent, for not showing leadership qualities and the list goes on and on and on. Hey! Last time I checked Mitt Romney was running for President, isn't it normal that people would look to him for some response while the excrement was hitting the oscillator? I think it is, but not according to the upstanding member of the Fourth Estate, they harpooned him like a seal for days over his incredibly brazen attempt to upstage the President during a time of crisis. One even went so far as to suggest that since the Ambassador's body was still missing Mitt could be responsible for something bad happening to him! This blatant and aggressive assassination is one of the reasons that good people won't seek political office these days. In my mind Mitt Romney did nothing wrong. I look to a leader to say something when the world is burning. I want a man that stands up and calls out what he sees without thinking about political ramifications and considerations of votes in the Electoral College. Mitt's stock went up in my book that day, and I have been no grand fan of his.
Here is the hypocrisy of it all. The President did not know where his Ambassador was for eight hours. EIGHT HOURS! Did he activate the fast response team from Rota, Spain? Nope. Did he reach out to any other military assets in the region that he had at his disposal? Nope. He did what he always does, he apologized and then talked to people. These are not the actions of a leader. These are the actions of a hypocritical coward. When Obama perceived that he got upstaged, and I don't think he was upstaged I just think he got politically outclassed, he had his minions go on the attack. While he diddled and dawdled around his Fourth Estate went out and eviscerated his opponent for being the only speaking the truth. Did the media mention any of the reasons Obama was slow to respond? Sure didn't. What they did do is attack, attack and attack repeatedly the one person that had any courage at all. Romney stood up and said that we shouldn't be apologizing to these people and the President had him neutered for it. In the most fitting of references due to the Chicago connection, Obama turned into Al Capone. His election staff, sitting in their swanky Chicago digs didn't want to get their hands dirty so they dispatched their own Frank Nitti, the media. Capone used to sit in his swanky digs and do the same thing. The only difference was that old Al wouldn't hide from a fight, we can't say the same about his Chicago contemporary that occupies the White House. The worst part is that the media does the bidding without blinking. No one ever says wait a minute the President should be doing something, or hold on let's take a look at what is going on over at Pennsylvania Avenue, nope they just keep right on trucking.
While Rome burns the media takes out the opponent of the Emperor and the Emperor flies to Vegas to meet with deep pocketed donors. Are we sure Mitt Romney is the one that lacks leadership qualities? Since the President was gallivanting around Vegas I'm sure he will appreciate me saying that when I consider which person was more Presidential last week, my money was on Mitt Romney.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A Homeland Security Director that Disavows Terrorism?
Recently I have been struck by the fact that the new Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has not mentioned terrorism in any public addresses, announcements or news releases. How can this be?
There are two possibilities. One is that there is some sort of concerted effort on behalf of the Obama Administration to not acknowledge terrorism at all. The second is that Napolitano actually believes that there is no threat.
In looking at the first possibility it is clearly plausible. The Obama Administration has already put out the word to stop referencing the "War on Terror", instead they will be calling it something else. Somewhat akin to calling a Moose a Duck, but whatever makes them feel better. My concern, as someone in the anti-terror business, is that the government and the people will lose focus on what is most impotant. Hezbollah has made repeated threats against the homeland recently, and the recent arrests in the UK should indicate the Al Quaida is still active. Losing focus now is dangerous and foolhardy and I hope the administration is not engaged in that dangerous naivete.
In looking at the second possibility, it is less plausible to me. How could anyone believe that there is no threat. However, as we have seen in the first months of this administation, there seems to be lack of direction at times.
There are two possibilities. One is that there is some sort of concerted effort on behalf of the Obama Administration to not acknowledge terrorism at all. The second is that Napolitano actually believes that there is no threat.
In looking at the first possibility it is clearly plausible. The Obama Administration has already put out the word to stop referencing the "War on Terror", instead they will be calling it something else. Somewhat akin to calling a Moose a Duck, but whatever makes them feel better. My concern, as someone in the anti-terror business, is that the government and the people will lose focus on what is most impotant. Hezbollah has made repeated threats against the homeland recently, and the recent arrests in the UK should indicate the Al Quaida is still active. Losing focus now is dangerous and foolhardy and I hope the administration is not engaged in that dangerous naivete.
In looking at the second possibility, it is less plausible to me. How could anyone believe that there is no threat. However, as we have seen in the first months of this administation, there seems to be lack of direction at times.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Party of No
Recently I have been receiving scads of e-mail from the conservative organizations I belong to about Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC several days ago. I am appalled that this pontificating windbag has become the de facto leader of our movement and I have thus engaged in some e-mail back and forth with the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. Here are the texts of those e-mail engagements. The first, was in response to an e-mail I got from the aforementioned group, lauding Rush and all that he stands for.
As a long standing conservative I take umbrage with the message that Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican Party is sending to America. If we allow Rush to be the continued de facto leader of our movement then we are in for a long, cold winter of discontent.
We have become the party of no. No leadership, no ideas, no forward thinking message and no idea of how to correct the issues that we face as a party and a nation. Barack Obama is obviously a liberal that spoke to the middle of the country to be elected then turned his back on the middle as he began his forward march left. We as conservatives and Republicans need to speak to the middle again, just as Ronald Reagan did so effectively in the 80's. The one thing Barack Obama did was bring new voters into the fold, if we don't begin to talk to these new voters that have now been left out in the cold, they will continue to vote for starry eyed dreamers with messages of hope and change or, worse, not vote at all anymore.
For your organization to put the likes of Rush Limbaugh front and center not only lacks real thought about conservatism and what the Republican Party should be about, it is also irresponsible because it continues to trumpet him as the de facto leader of our movement. Find me a real leader, find me a person with real courage and conviction, find me a person with ideas, find me a person that can talk to the middle about our ideals and bring them into the fold. None of those descriptors characterizes Rush Limbaugh.
I then received the following response from the Chairman herself.
Thanks for your e-mail. I respect your opinion about Rush Limbaugh, although I do not share your view of him. Most of our responses were favorable toward Rush. Below is a sample of the messages we received in support of Rush. It's good to know that we have your support in our effort to save our country from being turned into a failed socialist nations. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about Rush.
Warm regards,
Frances Rice
Chairman
National Black Republican Association
______________
"Many people think Rush Limbaugh is an extremist. Why? Because that's the perception they have gleaned from the liberal media. I used to feel that way myself. Until I checked him out. Now I realize that Rush, Ann Coulter and other so-called "extremists" are just FULLY-COMMITTED conservatives. They don't compromise or pull any punches. God bless them.
Our country needs some real patriots. Men and women with backbone, to stand up against the Obama socialist machine. The liberal loons are tearing our country apart and throwing us into massive debt. Pelosi and Reed are acting like children who just got the keys to the candy store, spending our money right and left. The must be STOPPED.
We desperately need to shrink the federal government. Dismantle entire departments, beginning with the Dept. of Education, which is just a propaganda machine for the liberal left. If we can get some gutsy men and women of integrity in office we could cut the size of government in half...and save a ton of money. And if we implement the fair tax we can give people some relief while paying down our national debt.
None of these things can be comprehended by the nuts on Capitol Hill. Yet.
Go get 'em, Rush."
To which I then replied with the following.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Indeed we will have to agree to disagree on this. The current message of the conservative movement is not one I can stand behind as it is short sighted and not in the best tradition of the party re-built by Ronald Reagan. Until people like Rush, Coulter and O'Reilly understand that pandering to the lowest common denominator of conservative thought (ie; conservative good, liberal bad) and understand that many in the country don't want to hear negativity and rancor anymore, then we will continue on the path that we are on. I am looking for forward thinking conservative strategists that understand that the middle has been abandoned by both parties. Ronald Reagan knew this and built a coalition of people, moderate and conservative, and led our party to the heights. Eight years of George W. Bush conservative dogmatic enterprise has led us to Rush Limbaugh as our de facto leader, and I can't abide by it. The long and the short of it is, I believe that the movement is in trouble, a ship without a rudder if you will. I will always be a conservative, but I can honestly say I may not always consider myself a Republican in the future. If the party doesn't grab hold of itself and make some honest assessments they will lose people like me all over this country.
Again thanks for your time.
Today's correspondance, first from the Organization
Please keep in mind that our country is a two-party system. We will have either Democrats in control of the White House and Congress or Republicans. No party is perfect. With Republicans we will get 70-80% of what we want, but with the Democrats we will get very little of what we want. We conservatives have a chance of influencing Republicans, but little chance of influencing Democrats. Conservatives and moderates who turn their backs on the Republican Party empower the Democrats.
In my view, it is counter-productive to try to make the Republican Party into a perfect party. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Regarding Rush Limbaugh, he is a private citizen and a talk show host who is exercising his freedom of speech. It is interesting that people who want the Republican Party to be a "big tent" party want to keep out people such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly because of differences in opinions. Also, negativity and rancor are part of our political process and is not likely to end. Wishing such discourse would go away will not make it go away.
FYI, below is an article by a liberal Democrat who just happens to provide a clear-eyed view of Rush Limbaugh. It so happens that she agrees with you about the Republican Party being somewhat adrift at this moment in time. In my view, though, we need to work to help make our party more effective, not abandon it. Just my two cents.
_________________________________________________
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/
Heads should rollPresident Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush!
By Camille Paglia
Mar. 11, 2009
Free Barack!
Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.
If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity.
I will of course continue to post any further contacts. This has of course done nothing to allay my frustrations about the direction of the conservative movement, but I am having some fun engaging in the discourse.
As a long standing conservative I take umbrage with the message that Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican Party is sending to America. If we allow Rush to be the continued de facto leader of our movement then we are in for a long, cold winter of discontent.
We have become the party of no. No leadership, no ideas, no forward thinking message and no idea of how to correct the issues that we face as a party and a nation. Barack Obama is obviously a liberal that spoke to the middle of the country to be elected then turned his back on the middle as he began his forward march left. We as conservatives and Republicans need to speak to the middle again, just as Ronald Reagan did so effectively in the 80's. The one thing Barack Obama did was bring new voters into the fold, if we don't begin to talk to these new voters that have now been left out in the cold, they will continue to vote for starry eyed dreamers with messages of hope and change or, worse, not vote at all anymore.
For your organization to put the likes of Rush Limbaugh front and center not only lacks real thought about conservatism and what the Republican Party should be about, it is also irresponsible because it continues to trumpet him as the de facto leader of our movement. Find me a real leader, find me a person with real courage and conviction, find me a person with ideas, find me a person that can talk to the middle about our ideals and bring them into the fold. None of those descriptors characterizes Rush Limbaugh.
I then received the following response from the Chairman herself.
Thanks for your e-mail. I respect your opinion about Rush Limbaugh, although I do not share your view of him. Most of our responses were favorable toward Rush. Below is a sample of the messages we received in support of Rush. It's good to know that we have your support in our effort to save our country from being turned into a failed socialist nations. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about Rush.
Warm regards,
Frances Rice
Chairman
National Black Republican Association
______________
"Many people think Rush Limbaugh is an extremist. Why? Because that's the perception they have gleaned from the liberal media. I used to feel that way myself. Until I checked him out. Now I realize that Rush, Ann Coulter and other so-called "extremists" are just FULLY-COMMITTED conservatives. They don't compromise or pull any punches. God bless them.
Our country needs some real patriots. Men and women with backbone, to stand up against the Obama socialist machine. The liberal loons are tearing our country apart and throwing us into massive debt. Pelosi and Reed are acting like children who just got the keys to the candy store, spending our money right and left. The must be STOPPED.
We desperately need to shrink the federal government. Dismantle entire departments, beginning with the Dept. of Education, which is just a propaganda machine for the liberal left. If we can get some gutsy men and women of integrity in office we could cut the size of government in half...and save a ton of money. And if we implement the fair tax we can give people some relief while paying down our national debt.
None of these things can be comprehended by the nuts on Capitol Hill. Yet.
Go get 'em, Rush."
To which I then replied with the following.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Indeed we will have to agree to disagree on this. The current message of the conservative movement is not one I can stand behind as it is short sighted and not in the best tradition of the party re-built by Ronald Reagan. Until people like Rush, Coulter and O'Reilly understand that pandering to the lowest common denominator of conservative thought (ie; conservative good, liberal bad) and understand that many in the country don't want to hear negativity and rancor anymore, then we will continue on the path that we are on. I am looking for forward thinking conservative strategists that understand that the middle has been abandoned by both parties. Ronald Reagan knew this and built a coalition of people, moderate and conservative, and led our party to the heights. Eight years of George W. Bush conservative dogmatic enterprise has led us to Rush Limbaugh as our de facto leader, and I can't abide by it. The long and the short of it is, I believe that the movement is in trouble, a ship without a rudder if you will. I will always be a conservative, but I can honestly say I may not always consider myself a Republican in the future. If the party doesn't grab hold of itself and make some honest assessments they will lose people like me all over this country.
Again thanks for your time.
Today's correspondance, first from the Organization
Please keep in mind that our country is a two-party system. We will have either Democrats in control of the White House and Congress or Republicans. No party is perfect. With Republicans we will get 70-80% of what we want, but with the Democrats we will get very little of what we want. We conservatives have a chance of influencing Republicans, but little chance of influencing Democrats. Conservatives and moderates who turn their backs on the Republican Party empower the Democrats.
In my view, it is counter-productive to try to make the Republican Party into a perfect party. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Regarding Rush Limbaugh, he is a private citizen and a talk show host who is exercising his freedom of speech. It is interesting that people who want the Republican Party to be a "big tent" party want to keep out people such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly because of differences in opinions. Also, negativity and rancor are part of our political process and is not likely to end. Wishing such discourse would go away will not make it go away.
FYI, below is an article by a liberal Democrat who just happens to provide a clear-eyed view of Rush Limbaugh. It so happens that she agrees with you about the Republican Party being somewhat adrift at this moment in time. In my view, though, we need to work to help make our party more effective, not abandon it. Just my two cents.
_________________________________________________
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/
Heads should rollPresident Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush!
By Camille Paglia
Mar. 11, 2009
Free Barack!
Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.
If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity.
To which I responded...
I could not agree more about trying to make the party work, that is why I am taking the time to voice my opinions about this party and its issues. I certainly understand the two party system, better than most I would argue, after working in various capacities on about 25 campaigns in my lifetime. I have served at various levels inside the Republican Party in Illinois (not overly proud of that one, since most of them are now in prison) and in Florida. Over the past several years however, my voice has been lost in the shuffle as Republicans have struggled to redefine themselves moving further and further right all the while.
I do want to have the party be a "big tent" and I do not believe that there is anything wrong with that. I do not believe that Rush, Coulter or O'Reilly should be silenced, as you stated they are indeed private citizens. However, the party has given them the microphone and allowed them to paint our movement with their brush. This is what I believe needs to end. I have not abandoned the party, the party has abandoned people like me, conservatives with analytical prowess and an understanding that elections in this country are won in the middle, not on the left or right. I believe that conservative values are best for this country and I believe that the values are cogent and relevant in this time. However, allowing entertainers to be the only ones in the movement to have a bullhorn is foolhardy and an incoherent strategy on our part. Until we start talking to the middle again, and develop a strategy that helps the middle see that our values are relevant we will continue to lose to Democrats that talk middle, but move left.
As for rancor and discord, sure it is part of the process, but now some of it is internal, Rush just made disparaging remarks about Newt Gingrich. Whatever happened to the Reagan Commanments, speak not ill of fellow Republicans? Again, my point is we are allowing Rush Limbaugh to paint our message with his brush. Private citizen sure, but we have elevated him to somewhat more, almost a spokesperson emeritus for the entire party.
I will always continue on the crusade for conservatism, good solid small government conservatism, not whatever has been passed off as conservatism in the last 8 years. However, the party has abandoned me recently, and it's not just me, I have like minded friends and colleagues whom feel the same.
Again I thank you for the response. At least you and I can have a free discussion without rancor and I am grateful for that.
To which came the following reply....
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you and thank you for your thoughtful comments. No leader in the Republican Party handed Rush, Coulter or O'Reilly a microphone. They, as private citizens, took advantage of opportunities offered by our American system of free enterprise, wrote their books or built their radio or TV programs and became successful due to hard work and being good at what they do. They are not stopping you, me or any of our Republican Party leaders from crafting our own messages and communicating those messages to the public. The NBRA is an independent group of all-volunteer grassroots activists that started with only five founding members here in Florida in 2005. As a result of our activities, we now have over 30,000 supporters in our database, our newsletters reach millions of people around the world, and we had over 5 million hits on our website in 2008 alone. Those who cast aspersions on Republicans who are on the right are not, themselves, adhering to Ronald Reagan's principle that you mentioned.
What is it about people on the right that bothers you so much? Is it their belief that marriage should be a union between one man and one woman? Is it their respect for the sanctity of life and opposition to abortion on demand? Is it the fact that they, along with over 70% of Americans, believe in God and attend church regularly? I do not understand why people have such animosity for people who are Christians, just as were our founding fathers.
To which I again responded as follows:
You and I have actually met on a few occassions, and I applaud the building of your organization to the level that it has been built. I am a recipient of many thoughtful and provocative e-mails from your organization, and I will continue to receive them gladly.
I believe that by not sticking to the message of what good conservatism is the Republican Party did in essence hand the microphone to Rush, Coulter et al. It was not a conscious choice, but one of little resistance. They have all been around for years, but have never spoken with as much authority for the conservative movement as they do now. This to me suggests a lack of leadership inside the movement, thus my feelings that the movement and the party are ships adrift.
I don't have problems with people on the right, I am one of them. I also do not believe that I have cast apsersions, or engaged in name calling. I am a Christian and believe in the things of which you speak. My problem is two fold. One, the conservative movement often fights liberal intolerance with more intolerance. It is becomes not a battle of ideas, but instead a trading of jibes and salvos of insults. Fun for the pundits and party regulars on both sides, but not fun for the people in the middle that believe in various things. Two, the social set of issues is not high on my radar screen for governmental action. I believe, as did the Founders, that religion is sacred but should also be separate from the halls of government. I also believe that governmental intervention in certain social areas, from either the right or the left is unacceptable. The protection of marriage, religion etc... is not the business of the government, nor is the dissoultion of those institutions (as the left would have us believe). Simply stated, I believe that if conservatism is the party of small solid government then we are hypocritical to advocate government intervention into people's choices about how they lead their lives. While many people lead their lives in ways that I would not, that does not grant me any authority or wisdom to say that they should not. In the same respect the government does not have that authority, or wisdom (as evidenced by elected officials on both sides of the aisle) to make those decisions either.
I have always been a fiscal conservative, and extremely conservative on Foreign Affairs and Security (I will still yell at the top of my lungs that Iraq was the right decision). I have often been characterized as a social libertarian, call it what you will. I still believe that the Republican Party and the conservative movement can be my home, I just want to see more thoughtful dialogue from the people we let speak for us.
Again I appreciate the exchange of thoughts with you.
I will of course continue to post any further contacts. This has of course done nothing to allay my frustrations about the direction of the conservative movement, but I am having some fun engaging in the discourse.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Vote all Incumbants Out!
I am beginning a new movement for 2010 and beyond. Vote against every incumbent at every level in the government. If we really want to affect change in this country we have to take action now. Career politicians have had their chance and they have failed, it is time to make the move and vote them all out of office. Of course I have reasons for all of this.
The Founders never meant for "politician" to become a career. The initial idea was that people would serve for a term or two and return to their careers and homes, at that time service was the privilege and power was to be feared. The tables have turned, power is now the goal. Service means nothing to any of them anymore, if it did they would listen instead of trying to buy off voters with pork and earmarks. The original men who served this country did so reluctantly and with great respect to the new institutions that they were forming. John Adams was famously quoted on several occasions as being against service because he thought himself not up to the task mentally or financially. At that time the pay for the position was paltry, as it still is today for the most part, but the influence was nil. There were no special interest groups to perpetuate the career politician, eventually they had to return home to maintain financial solvency. This set of circumstances led to unwilling and selfless leaders. Unwilling to lead out of ego, unwilling to gain great power and selfless in that the country was always put first.
In voting out all incumbents we could also solve the Lobbyist problem and impose term limits on our own, without the dogfight of a Constitutional Amendment. In getting rid of all incumbents we get rid of all lobbyists. When the incumbents are gone lobbyists will have no long term relationships or influence, should that influence begin to reassert itself it will not matter because every two years in the House and six in the Senate we, as voters, will clean them all out again anyway. I would love to see lobbyists deal with that proposition, they would actually have to argue their stands based on the merits of the issues, talk about some real debate.
Obviously this is a pie in the sky notion, but it is one I am all for. Republicans have left me in the cold, and the Democrats have never come out of the cold. I believe that the country is ripe for this kind of movement, now all we need is a spearhead. My mantra will be find me a guy who does not want to be in the House or Senate, and I will show you the guy we, as voters, should want in there....
The Founders never meant for "politician" to become a career. The initial idea was that people would serve for a term or two and return to their careers and homes, at that time service was the privilege and power was to be feared. The tables have turned, power is now the goal. Service means nothing to any of them anymore, if it did they would listen instead of trying to buy off voters with pork and earmarks. The original men who served this country did so reluctantly and with great respect to the new institutions that they were forming. John Adams was famously quoted on several occasions as being against service because he thought himself not up to the task mentally or financially. At that time the pay for the position was paltry, as it still is today for the most part, but the influence was nil. There were no special interest groups to perpetuate the career politician, eventually they had to return home to maintain financial solvency. This set of circumstances led to unwilling and selfless leaders. Unwilling to lead out of ego, unwilling to gain great power and selfless in that the country was always put first.
In voting out all incumbents we could also solve the Lobbyist problem and impose term limits on our own, without the dogfight of a Constitutional Amendment. In getting rid of all incumbents we get rid of all lobbyists. When the incumbents are gone lobbyists will have no long term relationships or influence, should that influence begin to reassert itself it will not matter because every two years in the House and six in the Senate we, as voters, will clean them all out again anyway. I would love to see lobbyists deal with that proposition, they would actually have to argue their stands based on the merits of the issues, talk about some real debate.
Obviously this is a pie in the sky notion, but it is one I am all for. Republicans have left me in the cold, and the Democrats have never come out of the cold. I believe that the country is ripe for this kind of movement, now all we need is a spearhead. My mantra will be find me a guy who does not want to be in the House or Senate, and I will show you the guy we, as voters, should want in there....
Sunday, March 1, 2009
I did not leave my party, my party has left me
Lately I have been very angry about the way in which the Republicans are going about their business in Washington D.C. They have become the party of no. No ideas, no leadership, no ability to counter liberal ideals, no political courage, no political identity, the list could go on and on.
I have heard many times in the last several months about the reasons that the Republicans lost the election; Obama was a positive and vibrant figure that could not be beat, the party lost it's way fiscally, the party lost it's way socially, the party was not conservative enough etc... The one that seems to be taking hold is that the party was not conservative enough on issues of social consequence and that it needs to shift further right in order to win in upcoming elections. To this argument I respond by saying, ARE YOU CRAZY!!! There are two reasons I believe that this is absurd.
First, new voters came into the fold in 08 in alarming numbers. Obama introduced many new people into the electorate and they came out for him in large numbers because he spoke to the middle well enough to get them to vote for him on social concerns (I am discarding Foreign Policy here because polls show that of the voters that thought Foreign Policy was most important they split for McCain). These new voters are not liberal or conservative, I believe that they are centrists with a left lean on social issues. I have discussed this past election with many new voters and I was alarmed by the eclectic nature of their views. Many value the environment, but also National Security. Many believed that social issues were more important in this election cycle, but indicated that had they voted in 04 they would have voted more on Security and Foreign Policy issues. Many indicated that they felt like Obama talked more intelligently about their core concerns this time around, but that they felt like he was not well versed enough should Foreign Issues become a flashpoint in the near future. While this is not scientific, I use it to argue the larger point that the Republican Party did not lose because they were not right enough. It is abundantly clear to me that the Republicans lost because they forgot how to talk to the middle about social/economic issues. A move to the right will not work. A strategy to talk to the middle will work. I do not advocate sacrificing conservative ideals to do this. I advocate remembering that Ronald Reagan did this with unbelievable success without sacrifice of conservative ideals. The party needs to find to find that resonating message to the middle and begin talking to new voters, and they need to do it now.
Second, the Obama Presidency will clearly be one of governing from the left. After all the rhetoric about the middle, he has given many indicators in the first month that the middle is not somewhere he will dwell. Obama has stepped up the partisanship and moved the party to the left. I believe that this will leave a void in the middle and allow for the Republicans to pick up not only middle voters, but also many new voters who have no real political affiliation with either side.
The message needs to quickly change. The Republicans need to stop whining about not having a seat at the table and just sit down. They need to start talking about alternatives to the Obama plan and pushing them in the media whenever they can. Of course the alternatives will not pass, but they must begin positioning themselves for 2010 and beyond. The continuous whining and lack of leadership will only guarantee eight years of far left governance, something I do not want to see and something the country can't afford.
The party also needs to drop the flimsy, transparent political ploys. The united stand against the stimulus bill was refreshing, but it was too late. Where were these same Republicans during the first bail out on the Bush watch? They were nowhere. In rallying against the Obama stimulus, without providing a cogent alternative, they looked like they were playing a political game. Similar to being for something before being against it, ring any bells?
In short I am a conservative, and I am proud of it, but we can't win again until we talk to voters with a broad spectrum of views. I am advocating talking to the middle with plans that make sense and providing a conversation about alternatives, instead of a shouting match about not having a seat at the adult table.
I have heard many times in the last several months about the reasons that the Republicans lost the election; Obama was a positive and vibrant figure that could not be beat, the party lost it's way fiscally, the party lost it's way socially, the party was not conservative enough etc... The one that seems to be taking hold is that the party was not conservative enough on issues of social consequence and that it needs to shift further right in order to win in upcoming elections. To this argument I respond by saying, ARE YOU CRAZY!!! There are two reasons I believe that this is absurd.
First, new voters came into the fold in 08 in alarming numbers. Obama introduced many new people into the electorate and they came out for him in large numbers because he spoke to the middle well enough to get them to vote for him on social concerns (I am discarding Foreign Policy here because polls show that of the voters that thought Foreign Policy was most important they split for McCain). These new voters are not liberal or conservative, I believe that they are centrists with a left lean on social issues. I have discussed this past election with many new voters and I was alarmed by the eclectic nature of their views. Many value the environment, but also National Security. Many believed that social issues were more important in this election cycle, but indicated that had they voted in 04 they would have voted more on Security and Foreign Policy issues. Many indicated that they felt like Obama talked more intelligently about their core concerns this time around, but that they felt like he was not well versed enough should Foreign Issues become a flashpoint in the near future. While this is not scientific, I use it to argue the larger point that the Republican Party did not lose because they were not right enough. It is abundantly clear to me that the Republicans lost because they forgot how to talk to the middle about social/economic issues. A move to the right will not work. A strategy to talk to the middle will work. I do not advocate sacrificing conservative ideals to do this. I advocate remembering that Ronald Reagan did this with unbelievable success without sacrifice of conservative ideals. The party needs to find to find that resonating message to the middle and begin talking to new voters, and they need to do it now.
Second, the Obama Presidency will clearly be one of governing from the left. After all the rhetoric about the middle, he has given many indicators in the first month that the middle is not somewhere he will dwell. Obama has stepped up the partisanship and moved the party to the left. I believe that this will leave a void in the middle and allow for the Republicans to pick up not only middle voters, but also many new voters who have no real political affiliation with either side.
The message needs to quickly change. The Republicans need to stop whining about not having a seat at the table and just sit down. They need to start talking about alternatives to the Obama plan and pushing them in the media whenever they can. Of course the alternatives will not pass, but they must begin positioning themselves for 2010 and beyond. The continuous whining and lack of leadership will only guarantee eight years of far left governance, something I do not want to see and something the country can't afford.
The party also needs to drop the flimsy, transparent political ploys. The united stand against the stimulus bill was refreshing, but it was too late. Where were these same Republicans during the first bail out on the Bush watch? They were nowhere. In rallying against the Obama stimulus, without providing a cogent alternative, they looked like they were playing a political game. Similar to being for something before being against it, ring any bells?
In short I am a conservative, and I am proud of it, but we can't win again until we talk to voters with a broad spectrum of views. I am advocating talking to the middle with plans that make sense and providing a conversation about alternatives, instead of a shouting match about not having a seat at the adult table.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
This is Change? Seems alot like more of the same...
Just a few days from inauguration I am forced to take a hard look at the beginnings of this administration and make some conclusions about what the future will look like.
I have said several times in the last several weeks that this "change" does not seem like much change to me. The Cabinet is rife with appointees that have served in Democratic administrations before. Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Bill Richardson (now gone, but still was a name from the past), Rahm Emmanuel and Eric Holder all will be or would have been filling top spots in the Administration. This change is tantamount to giving someone a dollar for four quarters, at the end of the day it is still a dollar. These Cabinet appointments are indicative of the old Washington order, after the rhetoric of the campaign I was hoping for more, I think the voters were hoping for more. It is disappointing that originality went out the window somewhere, or that the talent pool just has a shallow end (which after the last election cycle may indeed be the case judging bu some of the buffoons that ran for office across this country) and I find it difficult to swallow this pill that I have swallowed before. The worst about this is that these people weren't even the most talented of the cast offs from the Clinton Administration, they were just the ones that were available. I have high hopes for Hillary at State, after watching her confirmation hearings she at least seems to get it. The only question remains, will she be allowed to pursue the agenda that she espouses in an Obama Administration?
The rhetorical output of the Administration sounds like a familiar tune as well. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend and oh yeah spend. I have said before and will say again, spending will not get us out of the predicament we are in. Ingenuity and an appeal to what makes this country great will be the only thing that helps us out of the mess we are in. This country is in danger of "undeveloping" if oil hegemons continue to grow at the alarming rate that they are growing currently. Unless there is a move to develop new energy sources and crack reliance on foreign oil the entire future of Western economic civilization is at stake.
I have said several times in the last several weeks that this "change" does not seem like much change to me. The Cabinet is rife with appointees that have served in Democratic administrations before. Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Bill Richardson (now gone, but still was a name from the past), Rahm Emmanuel and Eric Holder all will be or would have been filling top spots in the Administration. This change is tantamount to giving someone a dollar for four quarters, at the end of the day it is still a dollar. These Cabinet appointments are indicative of the old Washington order, after the rhetoric of the campaign I was hoping for more, I think the voters were hoping for more. It is disappointing that originality went out the window somewhere, or that the talent pool just has a shallow end (which after the last election cycle may indeed be the case judging bu some of the buffoons that ran for office across this country) and I find it difficult to swallow this pill that I have swallowed before. The worst about this is that these people weren't even the most talented of the cast offs from the Clinton Administration, they were just the ones that were available. I have high hopes for Hillary at State, after watching her confirmation hearings she at least seems to get it. The only question remains, will she be allowed to pursue the agenda that she espouses in an Obama Administration?
The rhetorical output of the Administration sounds like a familiar tune as well. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend and oh yeah spend. I have said before and will say again, spending will not get us out of the predicament we are in. Ingenuity and an appeal to what makes this country great will be the only thing that helps us out of the mess we are in. This country is in danger of "undeveloping" if oil hegemons continue to grow at the alarming rate that they are growing currently. Unless there is a move to develop new energy sources and crack reliance on foreign oil the entire future of Western economic civilization is at stake.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Hamas Proves that Terrorists aren't all that Smart
So Hamas decides that it is a good idea to attack Isreal during the high holidays and Isreal decides to fight back. Is anyone shocked by this turn of events? I am certainly not.
The political network inside Hamas was obviously looking for some kind of victorious boost and thought that maybe Isreal was asleep at the switch. They obviously underestimated the readiness of Isreal to respond immediately despite the holiday, and the eagerness and zest with which Isreal would reply. This is not the first time large terror groups have overestimated their own ability and underestimated the response of the party opposite and it will certainly not be the last time.
The international community that is now begging for a cease fire needs to shut their yaps. The eradication of Hamas should continue as far as I am concerned. These are not respectable individuals and have slaughtered thousands of innocents in their self proclaimed war against Isreal. The soverignty of Isreal continues to be threatened by the group and Isreal should wipe them off the face of the planet. I can only hope that the rest of Isreal's enemies are watching and realizing that they are next if they try anything.
The political network inside Hamas was obviously looking for some kind of victorious boost and thought that maybe Isreal was asleep at the switch. They obviously underestimated the readiness of Isreal to respond immediately despite the holiday, and the eagerness and zest with which Isreal would reply. This is not the first time large terror groups have overestimated their own ability and underestimated the response of the party opposite and it will certainly not be the last time.
The international community that is now begging for a cease fire needs to shut their yaps. The eradication of Hamas should continue as far as I am concerned. These are not respectable individuals and have slaughtered thousands of innocents in their self proclaimed war against Isreal. The soverignty of Isreal continues to be threatened by the group and Isreal should wipe them off the face of the planet. I can only hope that the rest of Isreal's enemies are watching and realizing that they are next if they try anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)