These days I’m sitting around imagining how we night avert a cruel descent of our culture into both a moral and social cesspool, and quickly considering whether such reflection might not be utterly futile. For many years, George Will has written of a “coarsening” of the culture. Today, we might justly wonder if such language would amount to a enormous understatement.
Characteristic of the elation of many people at the election of Barack Obama was the recurring camera shot of an aging Jesse Jackson in tears. Now, Jesse Jackson has been derided as a “race pimp” and a “shakedown artist,” certainly not without cause. But, irrespective of his deepest motivations, Jackson was not alone among elder blacks who were overcome at the events in the light of their long experience with racial tension in America. Many years ago, I asked a conservative black friend how frequently he actually experience racial discrimination in our society. He responded that the last time he was reproached as a “nigger” was that very day in a parking lot. I think such things come from a tint minority in America, today. But, such a minority can and surely will shout abuse out car windows. Anyway, a black man of Jesse Jackson’s age and many like him doubtless genuinely feel the reprieve from a lifetime in which they saw and experienced the disfavor that was once widely accorded blacks in America. So have their children who have heard the stories and though maybe have experienced something different, have never seen it realized in such high hanging fruit as the US presidency. Similarly, American youth prized the opportunity to overthrow the most high-profile closed door of the history they have heard and read of. The plain fact is that the election could not have been won without a strong backing from white Americans generally who wanted to realize the ultimate absolution for prejudice they may have practiced or carried the blame for in public forums. I’m just a middle-aged, middle-class white guy, but I think I get it, and I understand and appreciate it.
Understand, I loathe the fixation on “race” that has pervaded social discussion for the entirety of my now 51-year-old lifetime. Strictly speaking, that distinction is a delusion. There is only one human race. Color does not imply another kind in humans any more than in animals. For the little that it’s worth, the black and white couples that I have known have produced children that were not only whole and healthy but extraordinarily beautiful.
Many will claim that “progressive” (now there’s a linguistic misappropriation) social and political action has induced racial conciliation. Now, many events indicate that propagaing an ethos via popular culture does move the disposition of the masses. There’s the aforementioned enthusiam for “green” technology as well as the enthrall with Barack Obama for whom the organs of popular culture purred. Mike Huckabee spoke of the popularly induced sentiment against smoking and for seat belts and motorcycle helmets.
But, I don’t need textbooks and magazines and television networks to inform me that racism is wrong. Traditional vehicles of decency and wisdom have done that for many millenia. Ironically, the much derided traditions of Judaism and Christianity were quite explicit about that from their foundations, irrespective of how individual adherents may have defied the instruction. I am a Christian. Christianity even today flourishes all around the world and I have watched the decency and fraternity of Christians from every culture and ethnicity. The first catalogued Christian outreach and conversion, noted in the book of Acts, was of an Ethiopian man. The earliest books of the heritage of Judaism (which Christians obviously recognize) instructed repeatedly to treat “the alien” with grace and decency. In that regard, we of those traditional faiths can say to the secular moralists, “Welcome to basic human civility.” By the way, I have long since voted for a black presidential candidate: a conservative one, of course.
If it genuinely works for them, a feeling of absolution is a fine thing, and I’m glad people may feel bertter. But in this case, such feeling was paid for at a potentially terrible high price. Unless conservatives can do something extraordinary, it is reasonable to assume that that price will be WAY TOO HIGH. Notwishstanding his ringing rhetoric (almost a requiste to leading a people to a dramatic move…or mice into a river, or lemmings off a cliff), in the content of his relatively unguarded words, Barack Obama is an exceptionally liberal man. A liberal friend, after asscertaining that I wasn’t only a cold, selfish, leg-biting, hair-pulling conservative, wondered whether I just had an evidently socially-induced need to be identified as a “conservative.” I care little about labels and am not known for a fear of disagreeing with anyone, my Christian and conservative fellows included. And this particular liberal is an exceptionally gracious individual, whom I like as well as some of my conservative friends and more than many of them. He’s also a very literate (a professional writer, in fact) person to whom one needn’t mind one’s diction.
But, call it what you like, to me conservatism is not about disposition or anyone’s dogma. It is about some very fundamental beliefs about objective obligations and human nature and its inclinations in interaction. It isn’t about what I like. It’s about what I believe are the facts of reality and what works. My conservatism isn’t about self-interest or identity. It’s about conviction rooted deeply in my perspective that could seemingly only be overthrown by an infection of chemical insanity.
Chief among those obligations and primary in America’s founding documents, is the right to life. And, as I always clarify, this is not just for the protection of those whose right might be violated. It’s about the civil integrity of the society that reveres that right. God takes care of the victims of abortion. In the big picture, these victims whose deaths like our own is inevitable in any case, are only spared te turmoil of passing through this earthly vale of tears. On the other hand, the society which practices, countenances and assimilates the practice of abortion…of the selfish putting of perceived personal amusement and convenience over the dignity of human life, including ONE’S OWN OFFSPRING! …is in a very bad way: civilly sick and declining. Only those of us who have read the musings of some morally impaired but logically consistent academics who have proposed a grace period to decide whether to keep a born baby alive can imagine a historic posture on abortion more extreme than is Barack Obama’s. Obama has expressed his eagerness to sign a federal Freedom of Choice Act. He has opposed a partial-birth abortion ban of the sort passed nationally and in every state where it was posed. As an Illinois state senator, Obama even opposed, multiple times mind you, a bill to require life sustaining medical attention for infants born alive after a failed abortion. In that solidly Democratic body, he was the only senator to do so and spoke out in his opposition. I’m not even fully in accord with all boilerplate Republican approaches to it. But on this morally and civicly crusial matter, a politician could really not get more extreme. But, that is far from all.
It is a great irony to me that many voters idenitified Obama as more able to deal with America’s economic difficulties. After the election, a large majority expressed confidence that Obama can help our economic situation. That makes no sense and is only one indication that our communications and education establishment have tremendously narrowed the American public’s thinking and historical awareness. That ignorance is particularly accute among our youngest and most media-dominated voters. The week before the election, Peggy Noonan said on “This Week” of these 18, 19, 20-year-olds that, “Not only have they never met a payroll, some of them have never been on a payrol. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.” Lovely or not, anyone who doesn’t understand that taxing and spending does not boost the economy, particulrly in economically difficult times, lives an abstraction from reality. Actually, I’m sure that Obama and most Democrars do understand this. But, they don’t care. Not only will these prescriptions not help, they are usually disingenuous. I think they don’t care because they want to keep power, and you keep power by keeping people down and throwing them crumbs. Obama will not improve the economy with the ideas he voiced in the campaign. John Kennedy was a Democrat who stimulated the economy. And, he did it with policies exactly the opposite of what Obama has proposed.
The tale is that Republicans favor the very wealthy. In fact, I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard “tax cut(s) for the rich,” referring to an across-the-board tax cut. If there is a 5% tax cut, who gets the bigger dollar cut, one who makes $30,000 or one who make $1,000,000. The first pays $1500 less. The second pays $50,000 less. That’s called tax cuts for the rich. But, Republicans rarely talk about the fact that the one who gets the $50,000 tax cut either spends it and makes work for vendors and their employees, invests it and makes work for people, or saves it and provides liquidity for lenders. Those things provide jobs for the former level of worker. When you tax the higher earner, you deprive the lower earner of work. That’s how an economy works. If government takes the money, the work is not provided and government passes a part (after it has taken a part) to those without the work.
That leaves out the fact that expanding government usually sides with large businesses, subsidizing them and maintaining their market advantage. This is what is known in command economies as “industrial policy.” That is economic policy for the entrenched wealthy and entrenched government. The victims are the rest of the peons who might otherwise aspire to achieve a level of prosperity, but in this systemwill not even have o, tax, ccasion to think about it. Recently, government has massively invested in formerly private large industries. I quickly predicted that automobile companies would follow. And so they are now lining up and in office Obama intends to oblige. Everyone wonders how Obama might implement these things, given the current economic conditions. But they can be the excuse for these actions, especially in light of the recent unprecedented federal intrusion into markets under a Republican administration and the decade of outrageous spending that it played a major part in.
One can hope that judicious people might soon gain office and to some great extemt extract government from the domain of commerce. But, I can’t imagine how we might repeal the damage that an Obama-appointed judiciary may well inflict on society for the remainder of my lifetime.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Keyes on color/re Obama
A friend passed me the response of Alan Keyes, to whom he had made an inquiry about the response of black Americans to Barack Obama’s election. I supported Keyes twice as a Republican. I remember in Keyes’ campaign in 1996 a few reports had broken out about Keyes’ handling of campaign personnel. Now in terms of trustworthy testimony and documentation, such reports were no more reliable than the detestable smears seen recently about Sarah Palin, now identified as falsehoods. Those Palin reports were accounted to “anonymous” sources within the McCain campaign, though it has been speculated that another potential 2012 Republican candidate might have motivation to drop such slander in the Palin pool. I can tell you that Mike Huckabee would not stoop to such a thing.
Anyway, at the time I said that you can be perceived as inflexible when you almost always think you are the smartest person in the conversation. In Keyes’ case, people might respond negatively because he almost always actually is the smartest person in the conversation. I sorely regret that Keyes was repeatedly spurned by a feckless Republican Party even while he maintained his fidelity to the party (actually its founding ideals) after I had abandoned the party in exasperation, finally in his 2004 campaign for the US Senate from Illinois against Barak Obama, where the Illinois Republican Party establishment that had invited Keyes abandoned him for the tall grass after media labeled him extreme. This year, The Republican Party nominated a demonstrable Republican apostate in John McCain, who has opposed the majority of the party any number of times, often holding out his “independence” as a virtue. Ironically this year it was Keyes who finally resigned the party while I returned after an 8-year absence. I supported McCain not because of his consistency (I have often called him “philosophically incoherent”), but because he has been historically strong where government has been weak all of my lifetime, even in The Republican Party after it gained complete control 8 years ago: on outrageous spending and government expansion.
I foresaw this failure when Bush was first nominated. I live in Texas, where he was governor. When Bush was elected in 2000 I said “Leviathan gets a night manager.” It surely did. Bush and a Republican Congress grew government at the steepest rate since Lyndon Johnson and The Great Society in the 60’s. Did this make him liked better by Democrats? Of course not: to them he’s evil. Some even called him an ideological extremist; a laughable proposition. Notwithstanding McCain’s infidelities, I also saw him as a decent and noble man. He was also pro-life. I questioned the stoutness and clarity of Bush’s weakly confessed pro-life confession: “I prefer life.” That suspicion was affirmed when, with a Republican Congress, two judges were put on the court that defended a partial-birth abortion ban as not violating a legitimate Roe v. Wade.
After his long experience of Republican abuse, Keyes employed his rhetorical skill to become increasingly shrill, even losing the nomination of The Constitution Party to Chuck Baldwin who is no mental match for Keyes. That’s not a knock against Baldwin as much as an acknowledgment of Keyes’ unique facility. Keyes finally accepted the nomination of the newly organized America’s Independent Party. I haven’t looked, but he surely finished 6th or worse with a vote in the tens or low 1000 thousands. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Michael Medved throws Keyes in with the rest of the third-party clowns, mocking his fervent style of speech. It’s very sad. Keyes fervency is genuine. So is the perplexity with which the general public meets it. In retrospect, I think even his high-flying rhetoric shot over the heads of the great majority of the public. But if The Republican Party had seized on the opportunity of a brilliant and articulate black man, Keyes probably would have maintained his feet and the first black president might have been a Republican 8 or 12 years ago., in which case, this past week’s potential disaster for the unborn, the economy and defense of America and its values might have been averted. Keyes wouldn’t have needed 96% of the black vote. 15 or 200% would probably have been adequate and just as decisive. Would Jesse Jackson have cried, then?
Keyes’ response is below.
Barak Obama is black like me only in the sense that we both have dark skin- I.e., a purely physical characteristic. To expect me to identify with him on that basis would require that I validate the concept of race ( i.e., grouping people based on physical characteristics). I have written and said over the years that I reject this concept, and that the only way to overcome racism is to reject the concept of race.
Because human beings are not stones, but persons, our communities are not the result of merely physical characteristics. The very idea of race in this sense is a modern lie tied to the dogma of evolution. I believe that human communities reflect the moral nature of our humanity. They are formed therefore by adherence to common moral principles, as that adherence is developed and reflected in the course of shared historical experience. Understood in this proper sense, Obama and I are not part of the same ethnic group. My heritage includes the experience of slavery, the moral sensibility to injustice and to the importance of respecting the premises of human dignity and freedom. Obama looks back to a heritage that probably includes forbears who were part of the Afro-Islamic groups of Africans who were active in the slave trade. By itself that might be of only superficial importance, but his views on the fundamental moral issues of the day (like the taking of innocent human life) mean that he rejects the premise of God-given moral equality for all men that I hold to be the true soul of the black American identity. The notion that I should take special pride in the election of such a man simply because of his skin color implies that I put the false and humanly contrived category of race above the category of common moral principle that is the true basis for human community. I do not and never will.
The tragic irony is that people whose feelings and reactions are shaped by racial solidarity implicitly validate the concepts that were the basis for racist views and discrimination. They implicitly reject the hope that Martin Luther King expressed that someday people would be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skins. As they do so, they destroy the moral substance that is the true and righteous legacy of the black American heritage in order to revel in the triumph of the very racism that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors. This is a desperately sad self-contradiction. I will be no part of it.
This quiet validation of the premise of racism is far from being a good thing . It betrays the suffering and nobility of all those black Americans who fought for justice not only for themselves, but for all, by appealing to the truth of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. This betrayal tips the scales of history back in the direction of regimes based on inequality, elitism and oppressive abuses of power.
I have by the way made these points many times, starting with the Senate race in Illinois.
Godspeed,
Alan
Anyway, at the time I said that you can be perceived as inflexible when you almost always think you are the smartest person in the conversation. In Keyes’ case, people might respond negatively because he almost always actually is the smartest person in the conversation. I sorely regret that Keyes was repeatedly spurned by a feckless Republican Party even while he maintained his fidelity to the party (actually its founding ideals) after I had abandoned the party in exasperation, finally in his 2004 campaign for the US Senate from Illinois against Barak Obama, where the Illinois Republican Party establishment that had invited Keyes abandoned him for the tall grass after media labeled him extreme. This year, The Republican Party nominated a demonstrable Republican apostate in John McCain, who has opposed the majority of the party any number of times, often holding out his “independence” as a virtue. Ironically this year it was Keyes who finally resigned the party while I returned after an 8-year absence. I supported McCain not because of his consistency (I have often called him “philosophically incoherent”), but because he has been historically strong where government has been weak all of my lifetime, even in The Republican Party after it gained complete control 8 years ago: on outrageous spending and government expansion.
I foresaw this failure when Bush was first nominated. I live in Texas, where he was governor. When Bush was elected in 2000 I said “Leviathan gets a night manager.” It surely did. Bush and a Republican Congress grew government at the steepest rate since Lyndon Johnson and The Great Society in the 60’s. Did this make him liked better by Democrats? Of course not: to them he’s evil. Some even called him an ideological extremist; a laughable proposition. Notwithstanding McCain’s infidelities, I also saw him as a decent and noble man. He was also pro-life. I questioned the stoutness and clarity of Bush’s weakly confessed pro-life confession: “I prefer life.” That suspicion was affirmed when, with a Republican Congress, two judges were put on the court that defended a partial-birth abortion ban as not violating a legitimate Roe v. Wade.
After his long experience of Republican abuse, Keyes employed his rhetorical skill to become increasingly shrill, even losing the nomination of The Constitution Party to Chuck Baldwin who is no mental match for Keyes. That’s not a knock against Baldwin as much as an acknowledgment of Keyes’ unique facility. Keyes finally accepted the nomination of the newly organized America’s Independent Party. I haven’t looked, but he surely finished 6th or worse with a vote in the tens or low 1000 thousands. One of my favorite talk show hosts, Michael Medved throws Keyes in with the rest of the third-party clowns, mocking his fervent style of speech. It’s very sad. Keyes fervency is genuine. So is the perplexity with which the general public meets it. In retrospect, I think even his high-flying rhetoric shot over the heads of the great majority of the public. But if The Republican Party had seized on the opportunity of a brilliant and articulate black man, Keyes probably would have maintained his feet and the first black president might have been a Republican 8 or 12 years ago., in which case, this past week’s potential disaster for the unborn, the economy and defense of America and its values might have been averted. Keyes wouldn’t have needed 96% of the black vote. 15 or 200% would probably have been adequate and just as decisive. Would Jesse Jackson have cried, then?
Keyes’ response is below.
Barak Obama is black like me only in the sense that we both have dark skin- I.e., a purely physical characteristic. To expect me to identify with him on that basis would require that I validate the concept of race ( i.e., grouping people based on physical characteristics). I have written and said over the years that I reject this concept, and that the only way to overcome racism is to reject the concept of race.
Because human beings are not stones, but persons, our communities are not the result of merely physical characteristics. The very idea of race in this sense is a modern lie tied to the dogma of evolution. I believe that human communities reflect the moral nature of our humanity. They are formed therefore by adherence to common moral principles, as that adherence is developed and reflected in the course of shared historical experience. Understood in this proper sense, Obama and I are not part of the same ethnic group. My heritage includes the experience of slavery, the moral sensibility to injustice and to the importance of respecting the premises of human dignity and freedom. Obama looks back to a heritage that probably includes forbears who were part of the Afro-Islamic groups of Africans who were active in the slave trade. By itself that might be of only superficial importance, but his views on the fundamental moral issues of the day (like the taking of innocent human life) mean that he rejects the premise of God-given moral equality for all men that I hold to be the true soul of the black American identity. The notion that I should take special pride in the election of such a man simply because of his skin color implies that I put the false and humanly contrived category of race above the category of common moral principle that is the true basis for human community. I do not and never will.
The tragic irony is that people whose feelings and reactions are shaped by racial solidarity implicitly validate the concepts that were the basis for racist views and discrimination. They implicitly reject the hope that Martin Luther King expressed that someday people would be judged for the content of their character not the color of their skins. As they do so, they destroy the moral substance that is the true and righteous legacy of the black American heritage in order to revel in the triumph of the very racism that was used to justify the enslavement of my ancestors. This is a desperately sad self-contradiction. I will be no part of it.
This quiet validation of the premise of racism is far from being a good thing . It betrays the suffering and nobility of all those black Americans who fought for justice not only for themselves, but for all, by appealing to the truth of the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence. This betrayal tips the scales of history back in the direction of regimes based on inequality, elitism and oppressive abuses of power.
I have by the way made these points many times, starting with the Senate race in Illinois.
Godspeed,
Alan
Sunday, November 2, 2008
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons To Fear a President Barack Obama And A Democrat Congress
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.
7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Posted by Larry Perrault at 3:52 PM 1 comments
Labels: abortion, cap. Obama, defense, economy, education, Foreign, freedom, judge, judiciary, marriage, McCain, Pelosi, Reid, Security, social, speech
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources.
7) Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
8) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
9) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
10) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
John McCain, George Bush and Huge Reasons to Fear a President Barack Obama and a Democrat Congress
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
I’m trying to make this catalog of casualties as succinct as possible. But perhaps more important is the comparison of Bush and McCain. Barack Obama has chained McCain to Bush. But, that’s a political lie of a man who has been a detestable posturer and manipulator. Perhaps the only way that McCain has resembled Bush is in his failure to crystallize the striking difference in the American mind. Peggy Noonan commented on the Obama hope of getting a huge turnout of new young voters: “These 18, 19 and 20 year old voters not only have not met a payroll, many have never been on a payroll. They live a lovely abstraction from reality.”
Hey, let’s be honest: in 2000, the only one of 14 Republican candidates whom I favored less than Bush was McCain. But now, I think the biggest difference may be the assertiveness that earned McCain the “maverick” label. I thought he was ambiguous about conservative principle and noisy about it. Bush on the other hand was ambiguous and quiet about it. Bush was cooperative with advice, but ineffective in making a case. Exhibit A) Bush proposed a plan to save Social Security and Medicare, which everyone knows (and now imminently) is in for crisis. Democrats predictably howled a scare about the venerable third-rail of politics. Bush couldn’t sell the problem, hung his head and went back into his hole. Bush weakly expressed his “preference” for life relative to the abortion issue. He couldn’t sell it (big surprise), hung his head and went back into his hole. A few years ago, Bush was apprised of potential problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and home mortgages. He presented a solution. Democrats denied the problem. Bush couldn’t sell it, hung his head and went back into his hole. These are just notable examples, but the consequence of the mortgage problem that became a crisis is the biggest reason the environment is so difficult for McCain and other Republicans today.
McCain has not been able to crystallize to the country what is the biggest and most consequential difference between him and Bush. Obama and Biden have hammered that there is little difference between them; even explicitly challenging that McCain could name one difference on economic policy. I think McCain should say that he respects Bush’s intentions for the country and his resolve in the Middle East (though he sometimes differed on tactics) but, the biggest difference IS on economic policy and it isn’t a small but a colossal one. Bush’s ineffectiveness in confronting the decades-old drift of government saw him and a Republican Congress to expand government at a rate not seen since Lyndon Johnson and a Democrat Congress, over forty years ago. Simply put, under McCain that wouldn’t have happened, nor probably the recent economic crisis. If he hasn’t sold that primarily, he has taken his eye off of the campaign ball.
But though hey were untethered by principle clarity, I also respect Bush’s intentions (I told you so’s aside), I never voted for Bush in either 2000 or 2004, and the aforementioned weaknesses were no surprise to me, a citizen of Texas where he was governor. But, philosophical difference notwithstanding, I’m voting (already have, actually) for McCain and with gusto and tearful prayer. His lifelong battle against unnecessary spending is a big reason. His character is another. I don’t have time to try to prioritize them, but they are all important. Here are ten reasons that Obama and a Democrat Congress would be a disaster:
1) A large reason is the recent massive insertion of the federal government into private commerce, administered by the Secretary of the Treasury? Bush’s Secretary of Treasury is bad enough. But O’bama’s Secretary of Treasury?” My blood runs cold. Even bigger, the federal government has just bought interest in the nation’s largest banks, not only insuring their accounts but insuring their businesses against failure, thus inviting reckless business practices. But even letting the federal nose in the door of the banking system is like leaving your children with a pedophile baby-sitter. Congress people with the ultimate source of
money under their noses? Democrats? Forget about it. They won’t even need to raise taxes for the money. After all, we are part OWNERS! As George Will said last week, “The assumption of all of this government injection into these industries is that it will be temporary and apolitical. Apolitical? Of course not!
There will be an irresistible urge to engage in industrial policy: for the government to pick winners….”
2) Economic Growth and Dynamism – Those who work for the largest corporations that can curry favor with the government will survive. But over 80% of Americans work for small and medium-sized businesses. Increased taxation and spending will mean unemployment (jobs lost or never materialized), inflation, and rising interest rates. Obama campaigns for poor and middle-class Americans. But ironically, those are exactly the ones who will be denied with the stagnation of smaller businesses and decreased potential for new ones. The very wealthy will be fine. They will be government’s pals. We have subsidized mega-businesses for a long time. The government has bailed out America’s largest insurance company and is a shareholder in its largest banks. On the horizon?: Under Democrats, I expect partial government ownership of auto makers and airlines, for starters. What will they do for smaller businesses? Zip. Many will be fried like ants under the government magnifying glass.
3) Freedom of Speech - The Fairness Doctrine, Political Speech and Union Card Check - Democrats in Congress are itching to regulate talk-radio. It’s the only forum they want to regulate and the only one that liberals don’t dominate. If you think that’s a coincidence, you might as well believe in the tooth fairy. Making talk radio stations equalize their time with liberal broadcasting that listeners won’t support, will just drive stations to change formats, killing talk radio. For
Liberals that would be victory. I would expect liberals to sanction what they would see as “politically incorrect speech, in the worst case even in churches and other religious forums. They are also waiting to remove the secret ballot from union votes, so workers are coerced to vote with union leaders.
4) Education – Greater Intrusion into the conduct and content of schools and Guaranteed Universal (Liberal) College Education. In the big picture, outside mathematics and the hard sciences, college education would be as blinkered as public grade schools, which may be a huge reason why Obama can mesmerize crowds with his extreme, dishonest and irresponsible rhetoric. And soon enough, college education would be similarly inadequate generally. A college graduate will be less literate than a high-school graduate 100 years ago.
5) Naive and Unprincipled Foreign Policy – Joe Biden said Obama would be tested. He will also be exploited by foreign agents. In the best case, that means little or no advancement in the world for the American values of liberty, equality, and human rights. In the worst case, it means physical danger for Americans and others.
6) Health Care – Barack Obama has been pretty vocal about universal health care for at least two years, as Democrats generally have been for many years. If Obama wins, they will have near total control, restrained only by the potential of Republicans to maintain a Senate filibuster. If they can’t, it’s coming. The reflexive response of a lot of people would be that universal health care would be a good thing. But, there are 2 VERY BIG problems. A) It poses another massive cost for an already overburdened country. And however that cost is paid; it will only continue to rise. As P.J. O’Rourke long ago said, “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it becomes “free.” But EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, is the fact that if America follows other industrial nations in socializing medicine, the engine of medical progress will be doused. Today, other countries get the advantage of medical advances birthed in America.
When the incentive of private medical pharmaceutical and technological is removed, medical advances will be substantially slowed. There will be new drug and technological advances that never materialize. Personally with MS, that bodes poorly for new treatments. But, I’m only one guy with one problem.
Obviously, millions would suffer more than they otherwise might. The resources for research and development would be dramatically narrowed to beneficiaries of the National Institute for Health government bureaucracy that will itself absorb substantial resources. Judges, Judges, Judges – In an interview recently published, Obama expressed his dissatisfaction with judicial failure to advance values beyond their constitutional duties. A court system populated with Obama nominees will impose all manner of contrived restrictions on all areas of society. The right to life will be dead for the balance of my lifetime and maybe permanently eviscerated. As I always say, that poses a fading of basic civility and consideration of others in all of American society.
7) ENDA/Gay Marriage – I don’t favor a Constitutional Amendment, but an Obama stacked judiciary will try to leverage the performance and recognition of homosexual marriage onto the entire country via the “full faith and credit” clause of The Constitution and that would be wrong. States should make and live with their own laws. And, homosexual marriage has failed on every ballot it has been tested, even in the most liberal states. In a few states, courts have defied the people’s will. An Obama-appointed Court would do that to the whole country.
8) Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid- A Democratic Congress – These people and their Congressional cohorts would legislatively ride roughshod over American society. If you think Barack Obama would stand in their way, you are deluded. John McCain would.
9) Abolih the Electoral College? - This is a wish that is occasionally voiced by liberals and posed in schools as a matter of voter equality. It would require a Constitutional amendment, so I don’t know if it could be pushed pat enough states to vote away their power. But it, as most other things, is being
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
America Under Obama and a Democratic Congress/Pat Buchanan and Immigration
I like him alright, but I was never a supporter of Pat Buchanan. I particularly differ with his longstanding emphasis on the menace of immigration: with typical reference specifically to Hispanics crossing our southern border. Obviously, immigration needs to be legal and orderly: the first lesson to immigrants shouldn’t be that the law is not a very serious matter. Isn’t it a little ironic that those who most indulge illegal immigration are many of the same who seek all manner of virtue in the words of the law: I find that striking.
But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.
But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.
You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).
During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.
Obama's First 100 Days
But anyway, folks who call themselves “conservative” make a deadly mistake when they line up, supposedly on the side of America, opposed to Central and South Americans. A man like Pat Buchanan seems to be wistful for his youth in the fifties, when American society exalted faith, family, community and a work ethic along with peace and prosperity. As it happens, the community he recalls was mostly white. Leaving out the white part, if you are looking for a part of the world where faith, family, community and a work ethic are most deeply held, it is in Central and South America. Oh, the last several decades has seen great advance in that regard in South Korea and some African nations: even in China and India in fact, though it’s still a small fraction in those billion+ countries.
But those values are centuries deep in Catholic Central and South America When the frightened or baleful stare of conservatives chases these people into the arms of Democrats pandering with a bread crust of government benefits, those conservatives are not just shooting themselves in the foot. They are shooting themselves in the gut. Of course we should legalize and order the immigration process. But, conservatives should meet these immigrants at the border and take them by the hand to English training and job opportunities, and to their homes. When we register Hispanics, we should be registering them as Republicans. Pat Buchanan and others should consider this: You have a problem with liberalism, right? As for liberals of influence who threaten to impose those views on America, they are largely WHITE! Relatively few are black (Republicans have already booted the relatively conservative black population in a BIG way). Less than a handful are Hispanic.
You want to build a wall on the border? Walls of themselves are ugly. This idea is especially odious. If America has a growing infection of malignant ideas, the problem is not out there, the problem is in here. Pat Buchanan once famously asked whether we could better assimilate a million Europeans or a million Hispanics. The implied supposedly obvious answer was A) Hispanics and B) WRONG! It was from Europe that we imported the socialist infection. Maybe the Europeans could plug in faster to business and commerce. But, the malignant infection is now deep in the European bloodstream. I was always amused when John Lennon fled Europe because the taxes were too high, only to land in America extolling leftism and writing a paean to communism (Imagine). Similarly, when I lived in New Hampshire nearly two decades ago, it was all Republican. Now, it has elected a Democrat governor, Republican John Sununu’s Senate seat is widely expected to turn Democrat, and McCain trails Obama in NH . More than simply media and culture, this is largely owing to liberally-inclined people fleeing Taxachusetts for tax-free (no income or sales tax, only property).
During the primaries, Republican Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo actually called for a moratorium on legal immigration! Clean up the immigration process, sure. But frankly, we don’t need fewer Hispanic immigrants. We need as many as we can possibly process! He’s a bright and able writer and seems like a decent guy, but while I disagree with Pat Buchanan on immigration and a few other issues and sometimes on his mode of expression, his description linked below of the consequences of a President Obama and a Democrat Congress, merits serious and sober consideration.
Obama's First 100 Days
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Black Christian Musician Huntley Brown - Why I Can't Vote For Obama
I am working on filling out the top 10 reasons why an Obama presidency would be bad (now that’s a monumental understatement) for America, both individually and collectively. A friend sent me something written by a black Christian musician explaining why he can’t vote for Obama. Obviously, there is some overlap in subject matter. But, not unexpectedly, there are some matters on which I different somewhat from ordinary reflective sentiment. It’s a disposition I have that some might cal a disorder.
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
I was going to finish what I was writing and post this subsequently. Though I’have enumerated the top 10 reasons, each of which are compelling by themselves, I decided to post this, first. As I said, I differ to some extent in a few places. But probably most will be able to sympathize with the straightforward sentiment more than the elaborate detail of my concerns. I’ll finish it and post it tomorrow or Monday.
Mr. Huntley’s article has been affirmed as genuine on snope.com
Why I Can’t Vote For Obama
This is an article I did not write, but I felt I needed to share. Everyone needs to vote! And everyone needs to be informed. And before you vote, ask yourself how you will feel about your choice when you stand before our Creator. We must ACT, and we must act in FAITH! Trust the Lord to use a good man to do his will. Our God turns the hearts of kings, so certainly, he can take care of a nation submitted to him. Vote God's way even if it doesn't seem to make "sense".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is from Huntley Brown, a Christian concert pianist, a man of God and a black man. This is too good not to share!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why I Can't Vote For Obama
First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments, but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him.
Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness.
I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can't dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. I can't vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that's who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won't be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior.
In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, to name a few, wrong, economic concerns will soon not matter.
We need to follow Martin Luther King's words, "Don't judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." I don't know Obama so all I can go off is his voting record.
His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008)
To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.
There is a reason planned parenthood gives him a 100 % rating.
There is a reason the homosexual community supports him.
There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him.
There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court.
There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill.
There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.
There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion.
There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion. The same practice Obama wanted to continue.
Let's take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.
The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby)
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed. God help him.
There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. Think about this: you can't give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane.
There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years. Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright's sermons. I wonder why now? Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 - 20 'Go and make disciples of all nations.' This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you, talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him?
Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a:
1. Commitment to the White Community
2. Commitment to the White Family
3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
Would you support a President who went to a church like that?
Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama's former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can't be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world.
A church can't have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it's a white church or a black church it's still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote.
Obama's former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: 'Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. Cone is the man Obama's mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this?
So what does all this mean for the nation?
In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing - judgment.
Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 'Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.'
Then God says: 1 Samuel 1:18 'When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.' 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. 'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.' 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, 'Listen to them and give them a king.'
Here is what we know for sure.
God is not schizophrenic
He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God.
Maybe I am the one not hearing but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture, so I doubt it.
For all my friends who are voting for Obama, can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four supreme court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy.
I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama's positions. Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends.
Since we know someone's value system has to be placed on the nation,
1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation?
2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation?
Blessings,
Huntley Brown
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why Conservatives MUST Support John McCain
I have been resting from my Blog since Mike Huckabee withdrew from the campaign for the Republican nomination on March 4th, after John McCain secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. I must soon be about changing many of the objects on the Blog, including revising its primary objectives. There are always current events I want to discuss and in fact, some specific writing that I want to focus on.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
But for right now, it is a priority that I establish my resolve to support John McCain for the fall election and state why I believe this objective is critical. My feelings are independent of but unsurprisingly consistent with Mike Huckabee's expressed intention to direct his infinitely greater influence to the same end. With respect to me, some may find my disposition odd, given my history of dissent and criticism of conservative drift in The Republican Party. Perhaps I am a little different, but I certainly think the immediate situation is a LOT different and I will explain why I think so.
It is important first, to briefly explain my own background. I am a lifelong conservative who began reading conservative thinkers and ideals as a teenager in the 1970’s. After developing multiple sclerosis in the 1990’s, I became an activist participant in Republican politics and the convention process. I went to the 1998 Republican Party of Texas convention armed with flyers about my problems with John McCain. Even today, on most of the standard conservative catalog of McCain infidelities, I may generally agree. And in fact, I declined to support or even vote for George W. Bush, whom at the time I saw as only marginally better than McCain. I didn't and don't dislike Bush. I just thought he was not constrained by sound conservative principle.
The profligate spending and federal government usurpation of the past six years have born that concern out. But looking back, perhaps Bush was more politically constrained. What has become clear is that on the things that he strongly believes, John McCain has been an uncommonly resolute United States Senator, including on urgent issues on which we agree. And, he has run his campaign this year in an uncommonly civil and gracious fashion. Let me explain why a few of those points of resolve and agreement rise categorically above any list of disagreements:
First, all of us other than some Ron Paul enthusiasts understand that on the primary duty of the federal government and the president, defending the American people and their interest, John McCain is not only with us but most assertively so and most prepared for the responsibility. America’s physical defense is of course, constitutionally established as a priority for the federal government generally and the chief executive specifically, who is the commander-in-chief of America’s armed forces. And in a world that technology has brought close and in which America is the technological and military supreme power, defending American principles of humanity is a duty the neglect of which is a human dereliction. As we know, today, these concerns are not incidental but pressing priorities.
Secondly, there is another great crisis upon us that some have warned of but many Americans seem to have slept through the approach of. For decades now, we have had warnings of the long-term insolvency in government’s accrued liabilities versus reasonably expected revenues. But, when plans to devise a correction have been raised, political rhetoric has killed the effort. In fact we have only continued to widen the shortfall. Well guess what? We are only barely talking about a future problem, now.
For the next decade the entitlement liabilities will devour the disbursements of the federal budget. Discretionary expenditures will be cut. And the gap won’t be near filled. The yawning debt will be expanded. New taxes, benefit cuts, and accelerated currency printing (i.e., rapid inflation/devaluation of money) will be the only options to try to meet the liability. Unless a dramatic change is made to boost productivity and revenue (a massive tax reform – like The Fair Tax plan) is implemented, all three of these supposedly more modest solutions would probably be tried. But, the net effect would be to make matters worse. John McCain has the resolve to resist these efforts.
Whatever course is taken to infuse the system, America will have to stop the bleeding; that is, the spending. Say what we might about John McCain, there has not been a more resolute actor in Washington against budgetary extravagance. Under the Bush administration, a Republican majority expanded government at a rate not seen for forty years, since Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress. Most dramatically, these Republicans greatly increased the Medicare entitlement that along with Social Security was already long-term insolvent. John McCain was among the few who opposed this action. There probably is not a more stark demonstration of why fiscal conservatives like Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn and former Senator and economist Phil Gramm are enthusiastically supporting McCain.
Thirdly, we are looking at long-term social imprudence prevailed upon the country if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton appoint the next generation of federal jurists, including 2-4 Supreme Court justices. The folly will be broad and deep, but for example, the social calumny of “legal” abortion will be guaranteed until at least the middle of this century. I always emphasize that, as hard as it is to believe, the most tragic victims of this would not be the innocent lives lost over what will have been 60-80 years. God has always dealt with and will continue to handle the deaths of innocents. They are a class that will bypass this vale of tears and be delivered directly to perfect justice.
However, as usual, the true sufferers and victims will be our children that have to live in a society that has assimilated this most fundamental and grave selfish incivility. Why will neighbors and commercial relationships be afforded a respect that is not held up even for our own offspring? Relatively speaking, dog-eat-dog sounds like an innocuous social standard.
For all of last year, until he withdrew on March 4th, I was a Mike Huckabee supporter. I studied Mike Huckabee’s record and campaign for over a year, and found the supposedly “conservative” criticisms of him to be misrepresentation. But, most remarkable about his candidacy was his distinctive positive and engaging approach, which often disarmed and engaged even liberals who disagreed with his policy conclusions, but trusted Huckabee’s honesty and sincerity, which was particularly ironic in that those were precisely the thoughtful qualities that many conservatives were suspicious of. In defending him, I often found myself oddly cast as a “liberal,” just like he was.
But, John McCain conducted a campaign that was likewise civil and genuine. For the sake of the nation and an American model for an elevated disposition, it is critical that conservatives rally around John McCain and engage him by putting their concerns before this genuine and resolute American patriot. Let’s help him with everything we have and ask him to help with our sincere and noble concerns for America.
Friday, February 15, 2008
If McCain Supposedly Has It Locked Up, Why Not Vote For Huckabee? - Wisconsin Tuesday, Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
Supporters got an email message from Governor Huckabee with basically the same information as the web notice, below, and an appeal for contributions: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ .
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Irrespective of how Wisconsin goes on Tuesday, there’s a sure shot at winning Texas, if we get out everyone we know to vote on March 4. That would give the campaign a big push. If the delegate race goes to convention, a late string of wins will be difficult to overlook. I think conservatives should bombard McCain’s campaign and The Republican National Committee, demanding The Right To Life and The Fair Tax be given the consideration that has been earned. I’ll tell them that after this year’s campaign, the party cannot shrug off these constituencies and expect the fervency and work from them that is essential to Republican victory and first pulled them almost 50 years of minority status in 1980. I believe that reviving the sanctity of human life to the public conscience is essential to the long-term maintenance of a civil society. And, The Fait Tax is the most potentially liberating and empowering proposal of my lifetime.
If Huckabee does not gain the top of the ticket, wisdom would make him the running-mate, ensuring the enthusiasm of these constituencies for election cycles to come. I know that the distortions of Romney and Thompson and the reactions of some conservatives who were unnerved by Huckabee’s expressions of empathy for all humans, have left a sentiment among some that he is “not a conservative.” Just yesterday, I heard a radio host bemoaning Huckabee’s “Christian socialism” that supposedly sees government as the vehicle of Christian responsibility, which this person doesn’t see. The problem is that Huckabee has never said any such thing. He has a clearer than ordinary understanding of human nature and how government can corrupt it. And he also has a clear understanding of a conservative essential that many conservatives seem to have forgotten: the distinction between the responsibilities and capacities of state and federal government in The United States.
Mike Huckabee is also smart enough to engage this directly when given the opportunity. The great irony is that is Huckabee does not win the nomination, it will have been with the help of supposed conservatives that he will have not succeeded electorally for the first time in almost 16 years. He beat Democrats repeatedly. It took conservatives to slow him down, though he hasn’t stopped, yet.
February 15, 2008 - 12:59 PM
Sen. McCain's Lead In Texas Small
by Team Huckabee
Two new polls in Texas from ARG and POS show a 6 and 4 point lead for Senator McCain in Texas.
As Gov. Huckabee said in his email yesterday, Texas is the place to fight for the nomination. These leads are small considering the attention the media has been heaping on Senator McCain as the "frontrunner."
Here are a couple of red states we might mention, where Senator McCain had a similar lead:
Georgia won by Gov. Huckabee
Tennessee won by Gov. Huckabee
Alabama won by Gov. Huckabee
Louisiana won by Gov. Huckabee
Kansas won by Gov. Huckabee
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A Vote For Romney Is A Vote For McCain
Thanks to The Thomas Report for posting this: A HUGE LIE: VOTE FOR HUCKABEE, A VOTE FOR MCCAIN??
Contrary to Romney apologists’ reports that “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain,” this blog points to a FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll (below) that suggests quite the opposite.
I pulled these numbers from the actual report. Note that with all three in the race, Republicans polled chose McCain by 48%, with Romney and Huckabee in a statistical tie at 20% and 19%, while if Huckabee is removed from the question, McCain’s polling among Republicans soars to 62% while Romney’s rises only to 29%. McCain rises 14 points while Romney rises only 9. And in fact in Rasmussen polling, Huckabee leads Romney in GA, AL, and MO and is competitive with him in all of the southern states that both need. So plainly, a vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
This in essence suggests that Romney is wasting more money with his latest multi-million dollar buy. He spent millions in Iowa to trash Huckabee and lost to Huckabee. He spent millions in New Hampshire, less than an hour from MA, where he was governor) to trash McCain and lost to McCain. He won in Michigan where he was born and his father was governor, playing the socialist “conservative” by pledging over 15 billion dollars for research to the auto industry: Promise made in Michigan could backfire on Romney . (by the way, that promise was YOUR money, not his) Then, after putting millions into South Carolina and foreseeing failure, he pulled out (finally finishing 4th) to go directly to spending in Florida, where McCain beat him 36% to 31%.
What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and looking for different results? Anyway, Huckabee supporters can actually thank Romney for shoveling out more millions to savage McCain. What a swell guy! Basically, Romney seems to be a good man with a nice family, and has been a successful business man. He obviously can do as he wishes with his millions of dollars. But based on the record, I wouldn’t invest a hundred bucks in such a sorry candidacy. Poor guy! At least, he should get a plaque for the effort! But, Huckabee has gotten a lot more return on a lot fewer dollars. If you agree with Romney that McCain was wrong on McCain-Feingold and stem cell research, vote Mike Huckabee.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
1 February 08
#6. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would
you vote if the candidates were: (RANDOMIZE)
-- Rep --
30-31
Jan 08
John McCain 48%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Ron Paul 5%
(Other) -
(Don’t know) 5%
(Would not vote in GOP primary) 2%
#7. If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the
Republican primary, how would you vote? 30-31 Jan 08
McCain Romney (Don’t know) (Would not vote)
Republicans 62% 29% 6% 3%
Independents 60% 21% 11% 8%
Contrary to Romney apologists’ reports that “A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain,” this blog points to a FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll (below) that suggests quite the opposite.
I pulled these numbers from the actual report. Note that with all three in the race, Republicans polled chose McCain by 48%, with Romney and Huckabee in a statistical tie at 20% and 19%, while if Huckabee is removed from the question, McCain’s polling among Republicans soars to 62% while Romney’s rises only to 29%. McCain rises 14 points while Romney rises only 9. And in fact in Rasmussen polling, Huckabee leads Romney in GA, AL, and MO and is competitive with him in all of the southern states that both need. So plainly, a vote for Romney is a vote for McCain.
This in essence suggests that Romney is wasting more money with his latest multi-million dollar buy. He spent millions in Iowa to trash Huckabee and lost to Huckabee. He spent millions in New Hampshire, less than an hour from MA, where he was governor) to trash McCain and lost to McCain. He won in Michigan where he was born and his father was governor, playing the socialist “conservative” by pledging over 15 billion dollars for research to the auto industry: Promise made in Michigan could backfire on Romney . (by the way, that promise was YOUR money, not his) Then, after putting millions into South Carolina and foreseeing failure, he pulled out (finally finishing 4th) to go directly to spending in Florida, where McCain beat him 36% to 31%.
What’s that they say about doing the same thing over and over and looking for different results? Anyway, Huckabee supporters can actually thank Romney for shoveling out more millions to savage McCain. What a swell guy! Basically, Romney seems to be a good man with a nice family, and has been a successful business man. He obviously can do as he wishes with his millions of dollars. But based on the record, I wouldn’t invest a hundred bucks in such a sorry candidacy. Poor guy! At least, he should get a plaque for the effort! But, Huckabee has gotten a lot more return on a lot fewer dollars. If you agree with Romney that McCain was wrong on McCain-Feingold and stem cell research, vote Mike Huckabee.
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
1 February 08
#6. If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, for whom would
you vote if the candidates were: (RANDOMIZE)
-- Rep --
30-31
Jan 08
John McCain 48%
Mitt Romney 20%
Mike Huckabee 19%
Ron Paul 5%
(Other) -
(Don’t know) 5%
(Would not vote in GOP primary) 2%
#7. If John McCain and Mitt Romney were the only choices in the
Republican primary, how would you vote? 30-31 Jan 08
McCain Romney (Don’t know) (Would not vote)
Republicans 62% 29% 6% 3%
Independents 60% 21% 11% 8%
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The Political Facts As Things Stand
I think it’s useful for you and I and others who care about the integrity of American policies like the respect of life, the respect of privacy, the respect of free people and free markets, etc, to acknowledge the facts of how the public behaves, which is not like you and I. I believe strongly that Huckabee brings and delivers the clearest and most urgent message for the good of American culture.
And, as to great extent illustrated in Iowa, when he has plenty of time to deliver that message to personally deliver that message to the American people, it is well-received by a substantial number of Americans. I also believe as I am sure you do that unforseen things can and do happen, as we have seen in this very unique presidential election cycle.
As long as he’s on the ballot, I wil vote for Huckabee. And in fact in Texas where he led in recent polls, he could win on March 4th if he’s still in the mix, and I expect he will if he is a strong presence. But the fact is that the vast majority of people do not vote on any sort of careful consideration: not in the manner that you and I do, nor in the aggravated visceral way that is so often exhibited on the blogs, across the political spectrum. Consider these things:
Only a couple of months ago, John McCain was considered politically dead. Many of the conservative blog bugs wish he still was. Mitt Romney was objectionable to many people, for reasons ranging from his religion to his posturing and pandering to his simple status among many conservatives as a governor of liberal Massachusetts.
Consider also that, as I have said elsewhere, in his last electoral faceoff only ten days ago, Huckabee drew 30% of the electorate, a majority of Republicans (McCain’s 33% included many Independents, who aren’ voting today and in most coming primaries), and almost surely would have won without Fred Thompson in the race and misleading people about both their records – he knew the conflicting truth).
Nevertheless, media and polls (chicken and egg?) today make Huckabee an also-ran in Florida and McCain and Romney the primary competitors. I think that we are in a much superior position today than we were ten years ago, but in terms of being mostly distracted by other things and politically lead around by the nose by media (even including the media, posts on which also largely reflect he promulgated pop-culture reality, there is still a substantial reality. I always strangely paid an extraordinary amount of attention to the political process. But even my perspective has been greatly exaggerated by a personal situation that has narrowed the focus of my life.
I don’t have to look far to see relative normalcy: my own friends and family are quite typically influenced by the popular culture prism. And, while I wish people paid a little closer attention, the bare fact is that most people, even beyond the bemusements of American life, are hard about what are, certainly in the near-term, much more critical activities without which essential concerns would not be met, including governmental ones. These are concerns like…oh, FOOD, clothing, housing, and every manner of industry.
Given those primary diversions yes, like it or not: most people will make their judgments on the pop-perception of the facts: do I prefer Romney or McCain, or later on, one of these or a Democrat? Are there objectionable things about Romney and McCain? Is Huckabee a better candidate? In both cases, I think, “Yes.” And in practical terms, it’s irrelevant. A sliver of the electorate that pays just a little attention with still very incomplete information, will determine two people from hundreds of millions of Americans, who will comprise Americans’ ultimate “choices.” I think that if that is going to change, it won’t be because of but in spite of Americans’ wisdom or lack thereof.
I think America needs dramatic change in its structure and perspective, and I think Huckabee is the only one who poses it: for example with his insistence on the sanctity of human life and his advocacy of The Fair Tax. But from the others, I don’t think we’ll get that change. In sum, I don’t trust McCain’s judgment and I don’t trust Romney’s character. But, I prefer a judgment defect to a character defect. And if McCain’s judgment is sometimes unfortunate, his sentiments are decidedly conservative in terms of spending and even in general.
I’d support a ticket McCain’s heart and and Huckabee’s judgment enthusiastically. I don’t think Romney will win in November and if he did, he would bring remarkable change: more business-as-usual.
And, as to great extent illustrated in Iowa, when he has plenty of time to deliver that message to personally deliver that message to the American people, it is well-received by a substantial number of Americans. I also believe as I am sure you do that unforseen things can and do happen, as we have seen in this very unique presidential election cycle.
As long as he’s on the ballot, I wil vote for Huckabee. And in fact in Texas where he led in recent polls, he could win on March 4th if he’s still in the mix, and I expect he will if he is a strong presence. But the fact is that the vast majority of people do not vote on any sort of careful consideration: not in the manner that you and I do, nor in the aggravated visceral way that is so often exhibited on the blogs, across the political spectrum. Consider these things:
Only a couple of months ago, John McCain was considered politically dead. Many of the conservative blog bugs wish he still was. Mitt Romney was objectionable to many people, for reasons ranging from his religion to his posturing and pandering to his simple status among many conservatives as a governor of liberal Massachusetts.
Consider also that, as I have said elsewhere, in his last electoral faceoff only ten days ago, Huckabee drew 30% of the electorate, a majority of Republicans (McCain’s 33% included many Independents, who aren’ voting today and in most coming primaries), and almost surely would have won without Fred Thompson in the race and misleading people about both their records – he knew the conflicting truth).
Nevertheless, media and polls (chicken and egg?) today make Huckabee an also-ran in Florida and McCain and Romney the primary competitors. I think that we are in a much superior position today than we were ten years ago, but in terms of being mostly distracted by other things and politically lead around by the nose by media (even including the media, posts on which also largely reflect he promulgated pop-culture reality, there is still a substantial reality. I always strangely paid an extraordinary amount of attention to the political process. But even my perspective has been greatly exaggerated by a personal situation that has narrowed the focus of my life.
I don’t have to look far to see relative normalcy: my own friends and family are quite typically influenced by the popular culture prism. And, while I wish people paid a little closer attention, the bare fact is that most people, even beyond the bemusements of American life, are hard about what are, certainly in the near-term, much more critical activities without which essential concerns would not be met, including governmental ones. These are concerns like…oh, FOOD, clothing, housing, and every manner of industry.
Given those primary diversions yes, like it or not: most people will make their judgments on the pop-perception of the facts: do I prefer Romney or McCain, or later on, one of these or a Democrat? Are there objectionable things about Romney and McCain? Is Huckabee a better candidate? In both cases, I think, “Yes.” And in practical terms, it’s irrelevant. A sliver of the electorate that pays just a little attention with still very incomplete information, will determine two people from hundreds of millions of Americans, who will comprise Americans’ ultimate “choices.” I think that if that is going to change, it won’t be because of but in spite of Americans’ wisdom or lack thereof.
I think America needs dramatic change in its structure and perspective, and I think Huckabee is the only one who poses it: for example with his insistence on the sanctity of human life and his advocacy of The Fair Tax. But from the others, I don’t think we’ll get that change. In sum, I don’t trust McCain’s judgment and I don’t trust Romney’s character. But, I prefer a judgment defect to a character defect. And if McCain’s judgment is sometimes unfortunate, his sentiments are decidedly conservative in terms of spending and even in general.
I’d support a ticket McCain’s heart and and Huckabee’s judgment enthusiastically. I don’t think Romney will win in November and if he did, he would bring remarkable change: more business-as-usual.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Why Florida Should Support Huckabee
For those in Florida concerned about the Republican options:
I just want to remind Florida to view videos at http://mikehuckabee.com , http://hucksarmy.com , and elsewhere on the web. They are easy to ingest and also give you a sense of the man, of whom I think there is more than of his competitors.
The sentimental right's favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president after getting to know him on the campaign trail. This stunned and shocked the Piranha right which can't reconcile Huckabee's support for border order and integrity with his lack of spite for immigrants. Both things are true. But, that's a contradiction in terms for coyote conservatives.
Also, John Steinberger of Florida State University and the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, as I posted below: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee.
Huckabee is also the clearest and most consistent on the right-to-life and the 2nd Amendment. He's questioned the prudence and effectiveness of McCain-Feingold, calling it "campaign finance DEform. And, Huckabee sincerely appeals to populations that have been historically dominated by Democrats. Republican victory is almost guaranteed by modest inroads among minorities and unions, may of which are available if Republicans will just TALK TO THEM.
I just want to remind Florida to view videos at http://mikehuckabee.com , http://hucksarmy.com , and elsewhere on the web. They are easy to ingest and also give you a sense of the man, of whom I think there is more than of his competitors.
The sentimental right's favorite candidate, Duncan Hunter, has endorsed Mike Huckabee for president after getting to know him on the campaign trail. This stunned and shocked the Piranha right which can't reconcile Huckabee's support for border order and integrity with his lack of spite for immigrants. Both things are true. But, that's a contradiction in terms for coyote conservatives.
Also, John Steinberger of Florida State University and the Institute for Conservative Studies, has endorsed Mike Huckabee, as I posted below: Leading Social Conservative in Florida Switches From Thompson to Huckabee.
Huckabee is also the clearest and most consistent on the right-to-life and the 2nd Amendment. He's questioned the prudence and effectiveness of McCain-Feingold, calling it "campaign finance DEform. And, Huckabee sincerely appeals to populations that have been historically dominated by Democrats. Republican victory is almost guaranteed by modest inroads among minorities and unions, may of which are available if Republicans will just TALK TO THEM.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Remember This In Florida And On Feb. 5
Of course, Thursday, Jan. 24th at 9 Eastern, 8 Central is the Florida Republican Debate on MSNBC. Watch Huckabee and believe what he says. There will be just Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Giuliani and maybe Ron Paul intermissions. They all may support one or two of them but, Huckabee is the only one that pays mind to The Constitution, supports the Republican platform on the right to life, and recognizes the threat of Islamofascism.
Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee, today. Hunter’s views are very similar to Huckabee’s , minus the sense of humor and the expressed empathy for Main Street America
A Florida blog posted Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters by Georgia’s Rep. John Linder. I wish everyone in Florida could read this!
Also, go to http://www.hucksarmy.com/ (also linked at left)
Click on the videos tab at Huck’s Army, and view any videos you like, but specifically, look at that 5 Glenn Beck videos of an hour long video, which covered a range of issues and I think revealed the man. Huckabee is not weak on immigration, American sovereignty, or the nature and urgency of the conflict with “Islamofascism.” There are also videos at the campaign web site: http://mikehuckabee.com
What is the source of these ideas?
Well first and most simply, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson were competitors and it’s about votes. They were not principled conservatives and their criticisms were pure pragmatism.
Secondly, Big money managers (I mean big: the kind where single trades affect projects and jobs and corporate fortunes) and traders don’t like The Fair Tax. All luxuries now written off as business expenses, shifting the tax burden downward, will be taxed under The Fair Tax though savings and investments won’t. That’s why they call it “fair”: taxes are based on consumption, not production. If you buy, you pay. If you save or invest, you don’t.
Thirdly, conservatives who are sentimental more than intellectual, are traumatized by merely speech that is sympathetic, or to groups traditionally dominated by Democrats, like minorities, labor unions…etc. Again, human equality (not preference) is really a conservative issue, and conservative policy is really the best for working people (many labor unions are 40% Republicans).
And frankly, most establishment Republicans don’t fancy the idea of evangelicals at the head of the table. For them, “low church” means LOOOOOW church, as in to be looked down on. Actually talking about your beliefs is in poor form.
http://www.hucksarmy.com/
Duncan Hunter endorsed Mike Huckabee, today. Hunter’s views are very similar to Huckabee’s , minus the sense of humor and the expressed empathy for Main Street America
A Florida blog posted Huckabee presents the best choice for Reagan supporters by Georgia’s Rep. John Linder. I wish everyone in Florida could read this!
Also, go to http://www.hucksarmy.com/ (also linked at left)
Click on the videos tab at Huck’s Army, and view any videos you like, but specifically, look at that 5 Glenn Beck videos of an hour long video, which covered a range of issues and I think revealed the man. Huckabee is not weak on immigration, American sovereignty, or the nature and urgency of the conflict with “Islamofascism.” There are also videos at the campaign web site: http://mikehuckabee.com
What is the source of these ideas?
Well first and most simply, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson were competitors and it’s about votes. They were not principled conservatives and their criticisms were pure pragmatism.
Secondly, Big money managers (I mean big: the kind where single trades affect projects and jobs and corporate fortunes) and traders don’t like The Fair Tax. All luxuries now written off as business expenses, shifting the tax burden downward, will be taxed under The Fair Tax though savings and investments won’t. That’s why they call it “fair”: taxes are based on consumption, not production. If you buy, you pay. If you save or invest, you don’t.
Thirdly, conservatives who are sentimental more than intellectual, are traumatized by merely speech that is sympathetic, or to groups traditionally dominated by Democrats, like minorities, labor unions…etc. Again, human equality (not preference) is really a conservative issue, and conservative policy is really the best for working people (many labor unions are 40% Republicans).
And frankly, most establishment Republicans don’t fancy the idea of evangelicals at the head of the table. For them, “low church” means LOOOOOW church, as in to be looked down on. Actually talking about your beliefs is in poor form.
http://www.hucksarmy.com/
Saturday, December 29, 2007
New Huckabee Ads/Romney and Huckabee on Taxes/For Republicans And For America, There's Huckabee Or There's Business-As-Usual
There are two new Huckabee ads running on Iowa television before Thursday’s caucuses Two New Iowa Ads
---------------------------------------------
MA for Huckabee looks closely at the respective records in light of Romney’s Critical Ad About Huckabee Mitt Romney Attacks Mike Huckabee Again, The Truth Behind The Ad . The report is enlightening…if tedious.
The bottom-line is this: both men governed Democrat states with different established infrastructure, government structures, and public expectations. Is Romney due great criticism for his efforts to deal with those needs and expectations, which involved increasing fees? Not really, I think.
The issues are these: Unable to compete with Huckabee on the level of personal passion and appeal, Romney must engage in the Kabuki dance of ostensibly conservative criticism of Huckabee, which really amounts to no more than the same kind of Bush-bashing, posturing one-upsmanship that is going on among Democratic candidates. In terms of the reality of governing, it amounts to little or nothing, with the apparent possible exception that, having gained the Massachusetts governorship, Mitt Romney might have been looking ahead to a presidential dance in actions like raising hundreds of millions in “no tax” fees, shifting costs down to local levels to constrain “state” spending (which I really have no problem with: the nearer the responsibility, the better), and not even looking at the possibility of worthy pardons, for the sake of waving a “tough on crime" banner.
Besides being less visionary, less engaging, and less compassionate, Romney may overbalance these factors with personal interest and ambition. Maybe the question for voters is whether you want to exalt Mitt Romney or lift up America with Mike Huckabee.
Of course, all of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rudy Giuliani (at least he’s honest about it) wear the obligatory “pro-life” confession. Every Republican presidential nominee in the past 28 years has done that. And, politicians have not done a fraction of what technology has in terms of illuminating the reality of what the nation has been about, let alone informing the nation of a soul-sickness that is settling in to the American consciousness. In brief, a society that comes to assume that the sanctity of human life (even its own offspring!) is a question of perceived personal convenience is on a definite slide in terms of the most fundamental social civility. This is not the presumption of a ruling tyrant. It’s the passive indifference of the very people, themselves, and thus far without a leader to even shine a light in a more noble and civilized direction. Who do you trust, with what and WHY?
Unlike previous presidents and all of the other candidates, Mike Huckabee understands that there is something seriously amiss at the heart of American society, and he has the facility to make a case to the country. After over thirty years of a contrived state of “legal” abortion (legislatures make laws, not courts), America has the opportunity to chose a leader with the ability and the disposition to lead on this and other social problems like the complex, crooked, and unfair tax system. In 2008, it’s Mike Huckabee or business as usual.
---------------------------------------------
MA for Huckabee looks closely at the respective records in light of Romney’s Critical Ad About Huckabee Mitt Romney Attacks Mike Huckabee Again, The Truth Behind The Ad . The report is enlightening…if tedious.
The bottom-line is this: both men governed Democrat states with different established infrastructure, government structures, and public expectations. Is Romney due great criticism for his efforts to deal with those needs and expectations, which involved increasing fees? Not really, I think.
The issues are these: Unable to compete with Huckabee on the level of personal passion and appeal, Romney must engage in the Kabuki dance of ostensibly conservative criticism of Huckabee, which really amounts to no more than the same kind of Bush-bashing, posturing one-upsmanship that is going on among Democratic candidates. In terms of the reality of governing, it amounts to little or nothing, with the apparent possible exception that, having gained the Massachusetts governorship, Mitt Romney might have been looking ahead to a presidential dance in actions like raising hundreds of millions in “no tax” fees, shifting costs down to local levels to constrain “state” spending (which I really have no problem with: the nearer the responsibility, the better), and not even looking at the possibility of worthy pardons, for the sake of waving a “tough on crime" banner.
Besides being less visionary, less engaging, and less compassionate, Romney may overbalance these factors with personal interest and ambition. Maybe the question for voters is whether you want to exalt Mitt Romney or lift up America with Mike Huckabee.
Of course, all of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rudy Giuliani (at least he’s honest about it) wear the obligatory “pro-life” confession. Every Republican presidential nominee in the past 28 years has done that. And, politicians have not done a fraction of what technology has in terms of illuminating the reality of what the nation has been about, let alone informing the nation of a soul-sickness that is settling in to the American consciousness. In brief, a society that comes to assume that the sanctity of human life (even its own offspring!) is a question of perceived personal convenience is on a definite slide in terms of the most fundamental social civility. This is not the presumption of a ruling tyrant. It’s the passive indifference of the very people, themselves, and thus far without a leader to even shine a light in a more noble and civilized direction. Who do you trust, with what and WHY?
Unlike previous presidents and all of the other candidates, Mike Huckabee understands that there is something seriously amiss at the heart of American society, and he has the facility to make a case to the country. After over thirty years of a contrived state of “legal” abortion (legislatures make laws, not courts), America has the opportunity to chose a leader with the ability and the disposition to lead on this and other social problems like the complex, crooked, and unfair tax system. In 2008, it’s Mike Huckabee or business as usual.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Giuliani At N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch, 2001
Archives of Rudolph W. Giuliani, 107th Mayor
Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Lunch
The Yale Club, Thursday, April 5th, 2001
As Delivered
Thank you very much for inviting me to say a few words of welcome. This event shows that people of different political parties and different political thinking can unite in support of choice. In doing so, we are upholding a distinguished tradition that began in our city starting with the work of Margaret Sanger and the movement for reproductive freedom that began in the early decades of the 20th century.
As a Republican who supports a woman's right to choose, it is particularly an honor to be here. And I would like to explain, just for one moment, why I believe being in favor of choice is consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. In fact, it might be more consistent with the philosophy of the Republican Party. Because the Republican Party stands for the idea that you have to restore more freedom of choice, more opportunity, more opportunity for people to make their own choices rather than the government dictating those choices. Republicans stand for lower taxation because we believe that people can make better choices with their money than the government will make for them, and that ultimately frees the economy and produces more political freedom. We believe that, yes, government is important, but that the private sector is actually more important in solving our problems.
So it is consistent with that philosophy to believe that in the most personal and difficult choices that a woman has to make with regard to a pregnancy, those choices should be made based on that person's conscience and that person's way of thinking and feeling. The government shouldn't dictate that choice by making it a crime or making it illegal.
I think that's actually a much more consistent position. Many Republicans support that position, but you don't hear that as often. For example, in a recent poll by American Viewpoint, 65 percent of Republicans supported changing the plank in the Republican platform that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion. That's 6.5 out of every 10 Republicans. And over 80 percent of Republicans believe that the decision with regard to an abortion should be made by a woman, her doctor, and her family rather than dictated by the government.
[Applause]
In any case, I just wanted you to know that many of my fellow Republicans stand with you on this issue. So I thank you, I thank NARAL for taking the lead in establishing freedom of choice for all of us, and as the Mayor of New York City, I thank you for being here in New York City.Giuliani, abortion, pro-choice,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)