Evil Conservative's blog

The Drudge Report headline yesterday in red and all caps “SHOCK VIDEO: DEM CONGRESSMAN BRAGS: 'FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO MOST ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY'...”

If you’re inclined to get your week off on the wrong foot, you had no choice but to watch – knowing it would infuriate you.

But what Drudge highlighted wasn’t what that clip was about.

Instead, it was the essence of the political debate over domestic policy in this nation for the past century and likely for the next century.

First, the latest characters in this great drama. On one side of the debate was Pete Stark the Democrat Congressman from California – casually dressed to match the appearance of his constituents which betrays his 37 years inside the Beltway.

Then we see an ordinary American woman – unpolished and reading off a prepared statement. Stammering her way through a question she was taught by our inadequate education system to write over and over, but not trained in the oratory to deliver the final product.

She clumsily quotes the 13th Amendment and uses a highly emotive word like “slavery” in lieu of the better analogy of involuntary servitude. She chooses a shocking word because it’s the best way to convey her anger. Anger that gave her the energy to google all of her research and write-out her question.

She has an intuition, a sense that there is something that doesn’t seem quite right about the new Health Care Reform bill that gives all Americans the right to health care.

What she senses intuitively is one side of the debate of maintaining the existing Bill of Rights that was ratified with the original Constitution rather than supplementing it with a Second Bill of Rights.

The Second Bill of Rights are a list of entitlements that all Americans are to be given such as health care, housing, employment compensated by a living wage, and an education. These are positive rights and are often regarded by Democrat politicians (like Rep. Stark) to be on the same level as negative rights since FDR introduced this litany in 1944. 

Aside from your rights as a potentially accused criminal, the original Bill of Rights consists mainly of rights that you as an individual can perform as an action and the government cannot infringe on your right to perform that action yourself. The woman used the Founding Fathers description of “inalienable.” They are also called negative rights because each individual has these rights and it is a violation for another person to prevent these actions from happening. 

The major issue that is being debated right now is not so much philosophical, but the realization – made worse by a bad economy – that in order to implement the Second Bill of Rights for all Americans, then there must be an infringement on the liberty and property of other citizens. Either by requiring those with the necessary skills to provide these services for Americans who could not otherwise have them or by enforcing on the most productive citizens a punitive tax burden needed to adequately fund the former.

In this particular clip, the woman discusses an overlooked aspect of the health care debate which gets to the heart of the real-world consequences of implementing the Second Bill of Rights.

In order to have the right to something like health care, then it must be delivered to us by professionals who will likely not be compensated appropriately for their services. So doctors and nurses will be forced to provide health care services to people they would otherwise not deliver care to.

The same thing would happen if other positive rights are given to us.

For a person to have the right to be employed at a living wage there must be an enforcement of employers to hire people and pay them a minimum amount predetermined by authorities. Likewise engineers and construction workers would have to designate property to build homes and apartment buildings for every American to live in so the land cannot be used for commercial interests. And teachers must educate everyone, even those who fail and drop out. A plight that sounds remarkably similar to doctors having to spend more time treating patients that have used their money to diminish their health with bad food and smoking without paying anything for health care over the past few years.

The framework of these debates pits FDR's promise of a Second Bill of Rights against the original Bill of Rights. Everything in the Second Bill of Rights is based on you getting something from someone else and that infringes on someone else's liberty and property.

This may just be a wild goose chase that could be explained by business owners typically donating to Republicans and Congressional districts that went against Obama are more sparsely populated so they aren't ideal locations for dealerships.

But in the meantime there are some very interesting findings from Doug Ross regarding the specific Chrysler dealers forced to close and their corresponding political donations.

Gateway Pundit also conjectures that specific counties and Congressional districts may have been targeted.

Reboot Congress is working on the list of closed dealers and their contributions.

This will definitely be something to check out over the next few days. It would be really interesting if there was a list of all Chrysler dealers and that list was sorted by 2008 net profit, political contributions, and whether or not they are being closed down. That could be eye-opening or it can squash any sort of conspiratorial thinking that something like this can foster.

Cross-posted at Truth v Machine.

The US Mint will begin to print more and more $2 bills as a result of inflation inside of the next few years. This will put us on the 1, 2, 5 system that the Euro is on. A superficial, yet salient symbol of the further Europeanization of America.

Since there are still 72 hours left in the race, I need to put these out now. I made two attack ads 2 months ago – with the help of a friend – which I sent to just about every PAC, state RNC chair, and 527 I could find. The ideas in the ads were used in the campaign which was the most important thing to me. I just want America to know what they are getting should they choose to elect Obama so we can get an accurate picture of how much they like his ideas versus how much they hate Republicans. We need to know where we are starting from for 2010 and 2012 regardless of who wins. 

If you have perused the political blogosphere over the last few months, you’ll have noticed a meme that began garnering a little steam with no evidence behind it: if McCain wins, he will only serve for one term. I contend that this notion is only slightly less than ridiculous with almost no basis in reality. It seemed that this idea was perpetuated by fervent Romney supporters and/or conservatives discontented with McCain as the Republican nominee. These folks seemed to delude themselves in this idea, hoping to not have to deal with 4 years of President Obama (or even President Hillary… this idea goes back awhile) and in 2012 get Romney or a "true conservative" in the White House.  

In McCain's individual case, his campaign was a joke last summer – he was flying coach to speak to audiences that could be counted on two hands. After a tumultuous campaign in 2000 and again this year, he finally has the opportunity to attain the position he has sought for 8 years – to then only hold the position for 4? For any man with the ego to even run for the Presidency, does it make sense for him to want to occupy the post for only a few years?  

But all of this talk about how long McCain can stay President is only relevant if he wins it in the first place. So what if McCain makes an historic Pledge to only serve one term? Will that give him the best chance to achieve victory this year? 

"Strategery" of the Pledge 

The most immediate ramification for all McCain supporters and potential voters is it neutralizes a lot of the apprehension over McCain's age. McCain will not be the oldest President we have ever had – merely the oldest ever on the first day of the job. And most Americans have pretty fond memories of the one man who was older than McCain. People can vote with confidence that they are not paving the way for an 80 year-old in the White House. 

There are two constituencies that will be placated by McCain's Pledge – and they are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. The first are the Romney supporters and discontented Republicans who can now see their candidate running in only 4 short years which might transfer the enthusiasm for the future into excitement and turnout for McCain this year. The second group is motivated by the exact same thing. They are the Hillary supporters and socially conservative Democrats who can now see their candidate running in only 4 short years. An unprecedented amount of cross-party voting could boost turnout for McCain as they look enthusiastically to the future to break the glass ceiling.

McCain's VP pick would become even more important than it already is. If the VP choice doesn't have it already, he or she will garner immediate national name recognition for use in 4 years instead of 8. If the majority of the GOP is satisfied with his pick, then there is a pretty clear nominee for the party in 2012. At the same time, taking the Pledge will mitigate the concerns of a more maverick VP choice such as Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge since it is unlikely either will run in 4 years. 

Consequences of the Pledge 

First, McCain can never go back on it. If he does, he will lose that election big-time. The only reason he'd renege anyway would be a major war or crisis. Still, he wouldn't want to be stuck in that position. Four years is an eternity in politics – "Read my lips…" 

Second, have you noticed the nauseatingly ad nauseam election coverage the past 18 months? The obsession in the media covering a horse race could greatly affect McCain's ability to govern, effectively lame duck-ing him for 4 years. The media focused on an election years away could create the perception that nothing is getting done in Washington the same way it has the last 2 years. This could plunge approval ratings lower than they currently are and increase the frustration of the electorate for both the President and Congress. The compromise legislation and judicial nominations under President McCain will not receive the proper coverage because everyone is wondering what Romney is doing or what Hillary thinks or if Rudy runs for Governor of New York if that would help him beat out Sarah Palin whose looks are holding up higher than Tim Kaine's eyebrows.

Remember all of the articles written about Hillary vs. Rudy? We know now this was almost a complete waste of time. Those very smart authors and columnists would have been better served commenting on the politicians currently in power. The press was given its freedom as another check to those in power; instead they were too occupied in endless speculation and hypotheticals about an election a long time away. Serious debates that should have been covered over the last 18 months on things like energy, Iraq, immigration, and gun rights have fallen by the wayside for the political equivalent of the speculation that occurs in sports talk radio and football fantasy leagues.

Third, despite my comment of the heir apparent for 2012 as McCain's VP choice this year, there is the more likely scenario of another Republican free-for-all in the primaries. Looking back and especially in light of the Democrat infighting, the Republican primaries went pretty smoothly… this time. There is a possibility of the Republicans having an Obama/Hillary-style fight to the finish in 2012 that could cause not only deep ideological divisions, but possibly racial and gender divisions if Jindal and Palin are in the mix. The press will be salivating over every out-of-context statement that could darken the bright, rising stars of our party in the black hole of the mainstream media. Not only could they perpetuate the stereotype of Republicans as racist and sexist, but they could destroy political careers in the process.

Fourth, a divisive Republican primary may be irrelevant except to grease the wheels of what may be inevitable in 2012: President Hillary Clinton. The woman will have the biggest "I told you so" in modern politics to catapult her to the nomination. Maybe the netroots and blacks will harbor enough resentment to deny her the nomination again, but I wouldn't bet on it. In fact, the netroots will be shunned after an Obama loss and the DLC will be the most powerful it's been in a decade. Even if the nominee is not Hillary, there's still an over 50% chance of a Democratic President in 2012 after the Republicans held the Executive for 12 years. 

If John McCain can pull off the completely unlikely victory he is now within striking distance of, then the best chance the Republicans have to win in 2012 is to offer America the devil they already know. Incumbent President John McCain – for four more years.    

From the AP:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080801/D929PVL00.html

The two things that worry me the most are Obama getting yet another pass - he continually obfuscates on issue after issue that is vital for the direction of the nation.  Second, Drilling may be the only major issue the GOP has that can appeal to voters in a year we really have no business winning.

But it’s still been a good week. O’s lead has dropped from his bounce a few days ago. Dems are worried about this – worried enough to open fire on conservative blogs. These warm-up commercials are driving a powerful narrative about how superficial the Obama campaign is.

This is when it gets interesting.