Liberals

Rights? What Rights?

Glenn Beck is under fire from the left again. Now they are insisting that he is an anti-semite. What prompted this latest accusation? A verbal attack on Israel, perhaps? Maybe he forgot to get a coffee for Rabbi Lapin after his Fox News program last week? Uh… no.

The liberals’ latest desperate attempt at discrediting a conservative celebrity is one of the most ludicrous to date. Glenn’s frequent reports on the history and activities of George Soros has the socialists scraping the smear barrel. While it is true that Soros was born into a Jewish family, by his own admission he is a committed atheist. Furthermore, he has said he has no time for Israel or religion (unless he can make personal use of it, I’d guess!).

There’s that liberal hypocrisy thing again. The very people that are constantly criticizing Israel, to the point where they regard the construction of a thousand homes as a greater crime than the constant rocket attacks by Hamas, are now pretending to be friends of Judaism.

The next time I hear these folks publicly denouncing Ahmadinejad for his opinion that Israel should cease to exist, I might say that they do have some genuine concern. Don’t hold your breath, though.

The liberals are, or should I say were, masters of the use of race to further their aims. That ploy was exposed a long time ago, and only the Homer Simpsons of this world would still fall for these tricks. As Cass Sunstein said, “We know people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there’s a lot that can be done to manipulate them.”

It’s strange that these people, who are always the first to protest at the slightest hint of rights violations against terrorists, illegal immigrants and convicted felons, are strangely silent on the subject of TSA search procedures.


Image from the website flywithdignity.org

The only group that has really spoken out at all is CAIR… no surprise there, really. While every other race and religion undergoes the humiliation of being groped (sorry, there’s no other way to describe it), minors included, the followers of the religion of peace have special dispensation to perform their own ‘pat-downs’. Maybe the DEA will allow people to perform their own ‘drug-busts’ next? Now that is irony. Followers of the cult that has instigated this whole state of affairs are now checked less thoroughly than everyone else.

A lot of supermarkets that once had ‘self-scan’ checkouts disposed of them. Some dishonest customers were packing items that they hadn’t scanned. Think about it.

I have to give credit to Hillary Clinton for her comments in a television interview, when she said that she would not want to undergo the procedures, given the choice. It’s a distancing from the Obama cold comment that they are “necessary”. It probably is necessary, for him to feel that he has one up on the American people. Make the most of your power trip, it won’t last much longer.

(Editor Dee is in for Skip today)

Leftist Reality: A Dream In A Vacuum.

Back in the day I used to people watch and imagine I could pick out the radical left in a crowd. It had as much to do with my imagination as fact. Pinch-faced, grim-lipped people, who look like they are in perpetual pain and think that everyone else needs to pay for that pain. No matter what it is, or how much, it’s never enough.

I’ve had many liberal acquaintances over the years and by and large they are nice people to be with until, as inevitably happens, the conversation turns to politics or social issues. The ‘progressive’ will automatically drop back to certain fixed points from which their faith cannot be shaken. I can name a few but you will undoubtedly come up with your own. George Bush, big oil, Halliburton, Rove, the war. It’s a target rich environment.

The leftist has an inexhaustible supply of grievances, most of which have been passed down as doctrine from the statist leadership. It’s amazing to watch their collective mentality work. What never fails to astound me is how totally wrong they are. Not just about small parts of what they think and believe, but totally conceptually wrong about everything they do.

The statist sees everything through the fog of mystic idealism… it’s a surreal world where intentions rule and any means to an end is the norm. The statist seeks government approval as dog to its master.

Government, our government, this government, is on a campaign of destruction in our country. The wanton destruction of our economy, the railroading through of the health care bill, the failed stimulus. We don’t have very far to look to see failed leftist policy, and we don’t have to look far abroad to see the failures of socialist policies either.

We’re going to change Washington in November. This country is overwhelmingly against socialism and socialist policies and we mean to see them stopped and removed.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Enough with the screaming matches

 I'm relatively new to this website, so feel free to disagree with what I'm saying.  However, particularly in the last week, I have noticed the level of constructive dialogue in the comments threads dropping rapidly as partisan anger increases.  Several posters seem intent on using nothing but ad hominem attacks instead of calmly and intelligently addressing their legitimate policy and philosophical differences.

It is not my role to police this forum, nor would I want to do so: I am just an observer and an infrequent commentator here.  However, I am grateful to have this forum as a place to read constructive ideas about the growth and development of conservative politics, and this forum is tainted when it becomes nothing but a pissing contest between who can repeat their mindless invective the most times.  This applies equally to posters on both sides of the political aisle.  

I have no authority here, and I would not be surprised to see the comments thread on this post filled with angry comments denouncing me for saying this.  That's cool.  All I am suggesting is that we focus on issues rather than personal attacks.  Hell, we're all anonymous on here anyway, and it's not like anyone is running for office, so we should feel free to discuss issues without being burdened by trying to tear down anyone personally.

Left vs. Right: Programs, People and Plural Nouns

It is interesting to note how liberals, when discussing some problem, often speak in terms of programs in order to fix those problems.  Got a housing problem?  Start an affordable housing program.  Got a hunger problem?  Start a nutrition program.  Got an energy problem?  Start a renewable energy program.  These programs are, of course, intended to fix the problems for which they were designed to address.   Consider housing; specifically, the current problem of high foreclosure rates.  Obama has proposed dealing with foreclosures with his housing program.  If an individual wanted to take advantage of this plan, he/she would have to meet the qualifications.  The intention, of course, is that those needing the help would meet the qualifications.  But that isn't always going to be the case.  Some people who ought to be helped won't qualify, for one reason or another; and some people who oughtn't be helped will still qualify anyway.   To use an analogy, government is attempting to cast a wide net to catch fish; no matter how big the net, government won't be able to catch all the fish, and it will end up catching some turtles too.

But if you think about it, "the housing problem" is really composed of a bunch of little problems.  "The housing problem" includes Bob & Judy and their family who, sadly, are being foreclosed on because Bob just lost his job and Judy was just diagnosed with cancer and now has huge medical bills.  That's sad and these people are worthy of help.  But "the housing problem" also includes Vince the house-flipper who got in over his head and now is looking to be bailed out from his bad choices.  "The housing problem" includes Reginald the owner of beachfront resort housing who is rich enough to weather the housing bubble, but, if the government is going to be handing out free money, is more than happy to take a share of it.  "The housing problem" includes Farmer Joe who, during the days of $4/gal gas, put all his eggs in the ethanol boom, and, now, finds himself and his farm overleveraged and doesn't know if he'll be able to keep his farm that's been in his family for generations.  Will Obama's housing program help all these people?  Will Obama's housing program help any of these people?  Maybe 3 out of 4?  We don't really know.

So, naturally, conservatives complain that Obama's program will end up helping people like Vince and Reginald (possibly), and liberals defend Obama's program pointing out that it will help people like Bob & Judy and Farmer Joe (probably).  Conservatives and liberals scream at each other: "You want to bail out the irresponsible!"  "You want to throw poor people into the streets!"  But this shouting match misses the real problem inherent in Obama's housing program, or any housing program for that matter.  To use the fishing analogy again, it's not that government is casting the net too wide, or is using too fine a mesh of net, to catch aquatic life that shouldn't be caught.  The real problem is that government is using only one net.  It has conceived of the problem in the singular form - "the housing problem" - and has designed a singular solution in order to fix it.  Sure the solution may have different components with different strategies, but it is still conceived in response to a singular problem.

And herein lies the real contrast between conservatives and liberals.  We conservatives are less inclined to view these problems as singular nouns.  We understand that there is no single best solution to any of these problems; what will help Bob & Judy will probably not help Farmer Joe, and vice-versa.

So what is government to do?  Well, government could, in principle, tailor its solution to meet the needs of each individual person who ought to be helped.  With the fishing analogy, it would be equivalent to throwing away the net and individually selecting each fish to be caught.  And this solution, while possible in principle, is just not feasible.  Besides, a government which had this sort of immense power is not one that I care to live with.  So this is why conservatives are knee-jerk opposed to new government programs. It's not that we don't want "the housing problem" to be solved.  It's that the government program won't actually solve the real underlying problems (plural) for which it has been designed to solve.

Republicans need to be the adults in the room

Today I remembered one of the reasons why liberal Democrats are so repulsive: they have the same mentality as an elementary school student.

Don't get me wrong, this obviously doesn't apply to all Democrats. But I get that idea on a relatively frequent basis. Last year the Democrats ran on an economic platform no more sophisticated than looting the rich to give free cash to everyone else. Some say the Republicans dogmatically promote tax cuts, but at least that entails an economic philosophy. The Democrats are still operating from the Robin Hood "steal from the rich and give to the poor" mentality.

For years the left shrieked that Gitmo needs to be closed. So now Gitmo is closing, they find themselves dumbfounded by the fact that they are going to have to put the prisoners somewhere else. They've been whining for a new puppy so long that they forgot that it actually requires responsibility and discipline.

Most Democrats voted for the Iraq war like it was a free trip to Candyland. Of course, once the car ride started to last too long they started hurling abuse at their parents, like all spoiled kids do. "Bush lied for the oil!" they said, as if Bush was taking oil out of Iraq without paying for it. Eventually they demanded that he "end the war" as if the president could wave his magic wand and instantly end all the violence in Iraq.

And of course Bush is responsible for every Iraqi death instead of, you know, the people who actually killed them.

When Bush cut taxes the cuts were derided as being for the "rich" as if a Bill Gates would care that he's paying at a 35% rate instead of 39.6%.

Now the Democrats say that we absolutely have to pass this $800 billion stimulus bill, as if the economy will be in permanent decline for the rest of our lives if we do not. They want their shiny brand new toys so badly that their willing to make their parents go into heavy debt to get them.

Really, how else can you explain the fact that the likes of Frank Rich justify Democrat's obtuseness by citing past, nonexistent attacks on the Democrat's patriotism? Why else would the New York Times rave against Republican immigration extremists without citing a single Republican as an example?

In their editorial today the NYTimes cites a Youtube video of Bill O'Reilly. Of course they're sure nobody who could slap together a YouTube video would take his remarks out of context. It sounds like an arguement I'd make against my teacher back in the third grade.

How can Michael Moore ridicule Bush for his simple mindedness and then publicly justify his opposition against the Iraq War by asking "would you send your child to die in Fallujah?"

How can Oliver Stone sleep at night when he says (based on no evidence) that LBJ assassinated Kennedy to start the Vietnam War to give cash to defense contractors... and then turn around and lecture people on how Fidel Castro has been a "wise leader"?

Why does Chris Matthews think he's being insightful when he claims that the main lesson of Iraq is not to "occupy" a Middle Eastern nation under any circumstances?

The point is that much of the Left is living in a fantasy land. The Republicans need to be the grownups in the room, provide reality checks, and regularly point out the foolishness. We need to avoid getting bogged down in the ideology and instead figure out what works the best and advocate for common sense and responsibility.

 

Wake Up GOP, You Are What You Eat and the Company You Keep.

Timothy Geithner has the ability to lie, cheat, and steal from America’s Tax Payers.  He has, or will be, approved by Socialist, Liberals, Democrats, and by some You Are What You Eat and the Company You Keep Republicans to head the Treasury Department.  The rich will be allowed to follow in his steps while the American Tax Payer will foot the bills for all the Geithnerizers that will be given a legal right to lie, cheat, and steal from people who work for a living.

As Judge Judy would say. “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it is raining.”

 

Why We Fight

It's always tempting for those who study the American Conservative Movement to brush us off as a bunch of situational ideologues held together by anticommunism, and who were doomed to collapse with the Berlin Wall. Much as I believe this narrative to be wrong, it has an interesting point with regard to the fundamental nature of conservative criticism. That is, conservatism aims to "conserve." It has historically been a defensive ideology, which tries to beat back encroaching hordes by its nature. It was this defensive nature of conservatism which repelled the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek, who once wrote that conservatism was "a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change" while also noting, perhaps sadly, that "There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called "liberalism" was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense."

We can quibble with Hayek's usage of the word "liberal" to describe the American tradition, but even if he is correct, by his definition, even "liberal" conservatives seem to still fight with their backs to the proverbial wall. Thus, when there is nothing to fight, conservative ideology runs into the difficulty of flailing at phantoms. As such, along with the question of what we are fighting for (what to conserve, in other words), we also have to ask what we are fighting against.

In this regard, I believe the modern conservative movement has become confused. Stripped of  communism, we have reverted to the most obvious option and decided that liberalism is not only an enemy, but the enemy. This is an absurd belief. Liberalism is not the enemy. Liberalism (or progressivism, depending on your choice of words), at least in its modern form, has neither the spine, the principle nor the conviction born of that principle to be the enemy. Indeed, even in the days of communism, liberalism was never the enemy, even domestically. The Alger Hisses of the world, the Owen Lattimores of the world, the Stalins, the Kruschevs, the bought-off newspaper columnists who opined about how they'd "seen the future, and it worked" - they were the enemy, and whatever else they were, they were not liberals. The liberals were men like Edward R. Murrow, who was too busy being angry at Joe McCarthy to spare a few nasty words for the real traitors in our midst. The liberals were men like Dean Acheson, who famously said "I do not intend to turn my back on Alger Hiss." To be sure, these people were counterproductive, but they were only useful idiots, not the puppet masters pulling the strings.

The same goes for the strife on campuses that occurred in the 60's and 70's. The Eldridge Cleavers, the Huey Newtons, the Bill Ayerses, the Bernadine Dohrns and the Tom Haydens - these people were many things, but if you think they'd ever call themselves "liberals," you'd be mad. These people were radicals reacting against liberalism. They hated it. The only reason they got away with so much when attacking it was because of who the liberals actually were. They were the tolerant university Presidents, like Clark Kerr and Kingman Brewster, who dutifully caved in to every demand the radical exponents of negation made. Again, these people were not only counterproductive, but spineless and pathetic in their worst moments, but they were by no means the primary threat.

And even today, at the close of the war of culture and at the beginning of the war on terror, the liberals still cannot rightly be called the primary threat for a very simple reason - liberals are just too darn reasonable to threaten anyone intentionally. They're too obsessed with their own sophistication. Too blinded by their own (often imagined) intellectual superiority. Too "scientific." Too morally apathetic. These characteristics make them great toadies, but are poor qualities indeed to have in muscular ideological leaders. Throughout history, liberals have been at worst the battered wives of the enemies of conservatism, constantly protesting that their bedfellows are just misunderstood and that they don't hurt them that badly, while ignoring the bruises which slowly accumulate all over the body of civilization. If you want to look for the roots of this gutlessness, look at one of the founding members of contemporary liberalism, John Stuart Mill, whose faith in the power of rational discourse to change minds was perhaps the defining nature of his political philosophy. It's no surprise that his wife, a much more principled radical socialist, eventually ended up defining her husband's worldview.

To explain why liberals tend to assume this role would take too long, though I will suggest one option: for all their claims not to be superficial, liberals do have a shocking shallow and naive vision of human nature. For evidence of this, look at the contemporary liberal view of Sarah Palin, or the constant sneers that liberal comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert threw at George W. Bush for "thinking with his gut." For liberals, human beings are defined by two things - their capacity for reason and their capacity for empathy. Sarah Palin, who believed in such seemingly absurd things as creationism, and who could argue with a straight face that she supported small-town values while arguing for economic policies which were (in the liberals' view) shamelessly royalist, appeared so severely challenged in both regards that she was unacceptable. It was inconceivable to a liberal that a woman who couldn't rattle off Supreme Court cases she disagreed with could ever claim to be a fit potential leader of a country, because liberals simply don't understand any concept of superiority other than the purely intellectual. Some conservatives have this problem too, but it's much more pronounced among the "reasonable" exponents of center-Leftism. Their sense of morals, being defined primarily by emotive urges, is far too underdeveloped for them to use as an argument against someone, though they may mutter about it among themselves at cocktail parties.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that an emphasis on intellectual capability and knowledgeability is at all wrong. It's entirely  reasonable, and quite desirable, and its absence  can be potentially disastrous. But it's not the only thing that matters, and making a fetish of it is sheer stupidity. Liberals tend to side with the enemies of western civilization for a very important reason - frequently, the people supporting it are just too...well, vulgar. Worse yet, tradition is very difficult to defend intellectually as an end in itself (I've tried), and most liberals don't like the idea that something as potentially irrational as human experience could or should be allowed to trump scientific rationality. Sometimes (see also: segregation) they have a point. But that doesn't mean you should throw out tradition entirely. In fact, as postmodern radicals are far too fond of pointing out, the rules of logic and reason themselves are traditions which have evolved with time. Liberals are thus trapped in a completely self-refuting argument - they are trying to defeat tradition using tradition.

But if liberals aren't the threat, then what is? Unlike communism, there's no concrete "evil State" for conservatives to oppose, so the confusion is understandable. The threat we conservatives face today is something much more abstract, much more insidious, and doubly dangerous, especially in the age of international terrorism and postmodern education. This threat, much like communism (the "second oldest religion," according to Whittaker Chambers), is also timeless.

With all due respect to Mr. Chambers, communism is not the second-oldest religion (the oldest being worship of God and his Creation). It's actually the third oldest. God, in creating the universe, had to do it by forcing an amorphous, "formless and void" existence into patterns. To put it bluntly, God created the world from Chaos, and as such, the worship of Chaos is actually the oldest religion. It is this force - Chaos - that conservatives now have to  fight.

And some conservatives - not the ones I usually like best - have recognized this threat, albeit incorrectly. Rod Dreher has written that "Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom." With respect, I obviously disagree that individual freedom is to blame. The threat today comes not from too much individual freedom, but  from the wrong individual freedom. To explain this, I offer the following hypothetical:

Suppose that, in a hypothetical society, people had the legal right to murder each other, but no right to free speech, or property, or assembly. Surely we couldn't criticize this society for having too much individual freedom. Rather, we would reproach it for protecting the wrong freedoms. Mr. Dreher's argument essentially boils down to the idea that because corporations are behaving irresponsibly, economic liberty is a dud. He's wrong. What is at fault is that we have rampantly deregulated some elements of corporate life while keeping other regulations in place which punish small businesses and shield larger corporations from competition. In other words, we've created an economic system where wealthy "philanthropists" can defund peoples' entire life savings using fraud, but where banks are still required to give bad loans to people who can't pay them back because of a redundant, obsolete economic policy from about three decades ago. This is not a system that protects too much individual freedom. This is a system that protects the wrong freedoms. And a society that protects the wrong freedoms is doomed to slide into chaos, which is what Dreher seems to be rightly reacting against.

The market is a wonderful tool for social improvement, but like most competitive games, economic action only improves the world when the rules make sense and in our rush to deregulate, we haven't considered the effects on the whole system, which has made the market an unwitting agent of chaos and caused it to become the scapegoat for all sorts of undeserved blame. I'm no friend of regulation, and I defy most people who tell me it's necessary, but it's only wrong situationally, not conceptually. Most free market economists support antitrust laws, for instance.

But as instruments of chaos go, financial deregulation is the least of our worries. There are much more conscious agents of chaos floating around. I have already alluded to two - postmodern education and terrorism. But these topics are so big (and this post is already so long) that I will save them for later. For now, it suffices to say that conservatives need double their usual amount of creativity to fight these threats, and more than anything else we need unity. As I did in a previous post, I will close on a plea to all those who use this site to think about how this unity might be achieved.

Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America!!

 

 

There is any easy path back: Force Democrats to Commit to a Particular Vision for America.

To do this, consider a coalition between the Green and the Republican Parties.

Crazy you say?

Hear me out.

What is the best way to expose the basic fraud in the democrat appeal?

Force them to choose between the liberal base and the broad coalition.

What is the best way to do that?

Help the Green Party win those "safe" liberal seats tucked away in the inner cities.

Usually, the Republican Party doesn't even run a candidate in these seats. Why not contribute to Green Party victories in those Gerrymandered Liberal State Representative, State Senate, and U.S. Congressional seats?

How can you do that?

Prevent the democrats from blocking Green Party ballot access. Relax restrictions on ballot access. Contribute money to Green Party campaigns. At every opportunity, attack the hypocrisy of Democrat candidates in comparison to Green candidates.

Don't let the Democrats get away with installing another Baraka tHUSAME Obama in a nice safe State Senate seat like the one in Hyde Park, Chicago. Make the would be "liberal" democrats fight the Green Party for those seats. Make them prove their liberal credentials so that they can't run away from their commitments as soon as they see lobby money waived in their faces.

This is way better than the K-Street project. The Green Party project would actually work.

Think of the effect on the Democrat Party.

Democrats would have to choose between, on the one hand, an honest and straightforward socialist approach, or, on the other hand, a weasel-worded, flim-flam, Obama type campaign of deception in which they promise everything and deliver nothing but image.

How can Republicans continue letting the Democrats finesse all the major issues of the day, without forcing them to commit to their best solution?

Exhibit A: immigration policy.

Exhibit B: trade policy and globalism

Exhibit C: income redistribution

Force the democrat liberals to choose.

You really want "Choice not an Echo," then start by forcing the liberals to choose. It'll make your job easier.

If Green members take the liberal seats in the State Houses and Congress, the Green Party can form a coalition with the Republican Party, just as happens with third parties in Canada, Europe and Israel.

Coalitions allow the parties to unite to accomplish specific goals. It's not true that there could never be a project on which Republicans and Greens could agree. Starting with the selection of a Speaker of the House (state or federal), the opportunity to form a coalition with the Green Party could offer significant advantages to Republicans over their Democrat rivals.

The beauty of a multi-party system is that each party passionately represents it's own constituency. As the constituencies expand, the influence of the party expands. Each party negotiates on behalf of its constituency for the best government possible. There is less ideological fraud.

The Republicans have been trying to run on ideology since 1964 - as if Republicans were in a multi-party system. Instead of a straight up debate, Republicans keep using wedge issues and sleezy (Atwater type) campaigns in order to win. This must be frustrating to those who want to have a full opportunity to work out a functioning philosophy of government. How can you do this if the Democrats can't be pinned down?

Force the democrats to stick with a message. Force them to represent their constituents.

Force the democrats to face the Green Party.

Force liberal democrats to chose between the Democrat Party and the Green Party.

Liberal democrats will either disappear; or, the Democrat Party will accept a fixed ideological position. Either way, is good for Republicans. And, coincidentally, it would be good for America.

 

Cautious Optimism?

 Crossposted at http://rockefellerconservative.blogspot.com/

What was the Conservative nightmare on the morning after Election ’08? It was that a green and radically leftist President Obama would be guided by the ultra left wing of the Democratic Party, lead by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. That they would do everything from make us a weak world power cow-towing to foreign bodies like the UN, to overtaxing us into a depression to pay for pie-in-the-sky social programs. Well, we are only a couple weeks into President-elect Obama’s transition, but this conservative has reason for some cautious optimism.

First there is the overall make-up of Obama’s cabinet to be. First take a look at the following excerpt from Mathew Rothschild’s editorial in The Progressive:

When is Obama going to appoint someone who reflects the progressive base that brought him to the White House?
He won the crucial Iowa caucuses on the strength of his anti-Iraq War stance, and many progressive peace and justice activists worked hard for him against John McCain.
So why in the world is he choosing Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State when she was one of the loudest hawks on Iraq and threatened to obliterate 75 million Iranians?
And it’s not just Hillary.… heading Obama’s transition team on intelligence matters are two former deputies to George Tenet, of all people.

When people on the left are this upset, conservatives should be breathing a sign of relief. It seems as though Obama is surrounding himself with people whose stance on foreign affairs is much more hawkish than his own was on the campaign trail. While Obama repeatedly beat up first Mrs. Clinton, and later, Senator McCain on their approval of the Iraq war, he picked war supporter Joe Biden for VP and now looks to be lining his staff with other centrists on international affairs.

Millions of new voters and extreme leftist voted for Obama being lured to the polls by the siren song of change- real change we can believe in. Laura Meckler and Jonathan Weisman write in The Wall Street Journal:

President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on the slogan of "change." But his early appointees, including two top choices that emerged Wednesday, show that experience is one of his main criteria.
His choice for secretary of Health and Human Services, officials said, is former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who has a long Washington résumé. Jacob Lew, one of President Bill Clinton's budget directors, is favored to direct the National Economic Council.
Sen. Hillary Clinton is one of several potential nominees being bandied about for the Obama administration cabinet.
The latest transition news highlighted the three personnel pools supplying Mr. Obama with his picks. Most prominent are Clinton administration veterans -- including, possibly, former first lady Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Some high-profile appointments are also long-serving members and staff from Capitol Hill.


It seems Obama learned from President Clinton’s early mistakes in staffing a White House with neophytes. Ironically he has decided to line his staff with former Clintonites who presumable have already learned the hard way what will work in Washington and what won’t.

Perhaps most comforting to conservatives is the choice of Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle. While at first blush these individuals seem to be incredibly partisan Democrats, and they are. But what is important is that they are also tough enough to stand up to Pelosi and Reid. They have done so in the past and certainly will again. The Republican fear of a radically leftist agenda would appear to be off the table at least for the start of the Obama administration.

Not too worry, I am sure there will be plenty to complain about and fight against in the coming months, but for right now, I am cautiously optimistic.

 

Michelle Bachmann and the Politics of Division

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.

Syndicate content