Oh, Canada, indeed as voters on Monday ended nine years of Conservative party rule and swept Justin Trudeau and the Liberals to power.
It was not even close as the third party, the Liberals, went from 34 seats to a staggering 184 out of 338 seats, a solid majority. And it was not just the ruling Conservatives that were vanquished but the opposition, far-left New Democrats that suffered losses as well. The New Democrats lost 59 seats and is now back to being the third party and has 44 seats. The Conservatives lost 67 seats and is a stronger opposition party than the Liberals were for this election. The Conservatives have 99 seats.
The Liberals meteoric rise from the ashes can be summed up in two words.
Justin Trudeau.
Mr. Trudeau is the son of the late Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the clan is essentially the Kennedy family of the Great White North. The Montreal-Toronto dominated media elevated Mr. Trudeau to a God-like status while it became clear he did a terrible job as PM. But he was an "intellectual" and let's face it, that trumps anything even and including strong leadership. Sure, Mr. Trudeau suppressed terrorism and kept Canada together, at the expense of making French-speaking Quebec a nation within a nation and forcing the nation to become a bilingual one. And his economic record was standard, liberal fare and proved to further alienate the economically stronger prairie provinces and British Columbia.
To be blunt, Justin Trudeau is not even in the same league as his father was. Justin Trudeau is but a dilettante much like the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.
But damn if he is not good looking and has that family name.
Very hard for the soon to be ex-prime minister, Stephen Harper, to go up against.
In comparison, one can compare Prime Minister Harper to Mitt Romney running up against Barack Obama.
No doubt that the Conservatives hurt themselves with some less than savory candidates that made rude comments against First Nation (Native Americans, Eskimos, Indians) people. Also, the economy is beginning to stagnate due to international pressures. Some Canadians saw Prime Minister Harper as wanting to be more like the neighbors to the South, the United States. Yet Prime Minister Harper is openly very much a Canadian nationalist.
But one aspect of a Canadian election compared to an American one is that it is not a popular-vote election. Because it is a parliament and a first past the post system, it is actually 338 separate elections. Think of it as a perpetual congressional mid-term. It is the leader of the majority party that usually forms the government. Even if it is not 170 seats in the case of this past election. Prime Minister Harper led two majority-minority governments before winning an outright majority prior to this election. Another aspect of Canadian elections is that the sitting prime minister can call for elections anytime before the fixed, four-year term ends.
With a 14-seat majority, Justin Trudeau has four years to see what he can do.
It maybe four long years for Canada.
Oh, Canada, indeed.
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Saturday, November 15, 2014
The Big Red Wave Came A Crashin Successfully!
I just love all of the surfing analogies to the recently concluded totally awesome 2014 mid-term elections.
Some quick observations.
Our Dear Leader, President Obama, is a kinda sore loser, isn't he?
Republicans were supposed to lose governorships. Yes, they lost one (Pennsylvania), but gained in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Taxachusetts, er Massachusetts. And the GOP even kept the Maine's governor's office after an all out assault by the Democrat party to take it away.
The GOP not only recaptured the senate but did so with ease. The final total should be a 54-46 GOP majority in the senate.
And it appears that the GOP will have no less than 245 seats in the house with some outstanding races not called yet.
And the GOP now controls this much of the United States, in particular in congress.
Yes, it is a damn red map, isn't it?
But let's start at this map.
As Michael Barone notes in this analysis of the 2014 election, yes it does look very red. But the splotches of blue are some of the highest-populated areas of the United States. So while the map does look favorable for the GOP, there is still work to be done to make any inroads into many of these urban Democrat strongholds. These strongholds can still in a great year give the Democrats the White House. But for the foreseeable future, congress is more than likely be in the hands of the Republicans.
My message is that the GOP can not and should not rest on it's laurels. The party needs to go anywhere and everywhere to win elections. No city, county, sheriffs office, state, or nation should be written off.
So how about that senate?
Your humble blogger seems to have gotten the winners right on election night. I was off on the numbers, but the results seemed to be correct. Out of the five big races I commented on, the only one that did not pan out was the race in New Hampshire between current Democrat incumbent, Jeanne Shaheen, and former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown. Sen. Shaheen won exactly by the margin I thought Mr. Brown would win by. But I noted that a drawback would be the accusation of carpetbagging could hurt Mr. Brown. And I think that it did.
One thing that was learned is that the polls were kinda sorta off. Many of the races won by Republicans were by larger margins than the polls were indicating right up to election day. Interestingly, it appears that Democrats were polled on average more than Republicans. But here is the thing. Polls are but a snapshot in time. There is something called election day. THAT is the only poll that counts. Really, it is.
How is it that Republicans have gained governorships in a year that they were supposed to lose? And as I noted above, in some damn unexpected states.
Take Maryland.
No one, and I mean no one, saw Larry Hogan as a serious candidate against the sitting Lt. governor, Anthony G. Brown. But things started shifting dramatically towards the end of the campaign. But almost all believed that Mr. Brown would still win and handily because after all, Maryland is a solid Blue Democrat stronghold. Not only did Mr. Hogan win, but rather handily. The result was 51% to 47% in favor of Mr. Hogan. And in a state like Maryland, this is a landslide.
And how about Massachusetts?
Once again, the state attorney general, Democrat Martha Croakley, er Coakley, proved that she is so bad a candidate, she lost state office again to a Republican and this time for governor and Charlie Baker defeated the hapless Croakley, 49% to 47%. Mrs. Croakley also lost to former Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy in 2010. As for me, I want her to move to California and run for any statewide office as a Democrat. It's the way we can win something in 2018.
The two above elections are what happens in a year in which there is a big wave and some candidates that would never win pull off good upsets.
And there are the wins to complete a through take over of a state and that is what happened in Arkansas.
The governor's office is now that of former Republican congressman, Asa Hutchinson as he defeated former Democrat congressman, Mike Ross, by the handy margin of 55% to 42%. Republican Tim Griffin was elected Lt. Governor. Another Republican, Leslie Rutledge, is now the state attorney general. The GOP controls the state senate, 24-11 and the sea change was in the house of representatives where the minority GOP gained 13 seats and are now in the majority, 64-36. The congressional delegation and two senators are Republicans. And Arkansas is now the last state in the old Confederacy to be in the Republican column. There are no Democrat governors in the old Confederacy. Only Bill Nelson in Florida and until the December runoff, Mary Landrieu, are Democrat senators in the old Confederate South. The Democrats basically are down to representing racial minority districts in state houses and in congress.
To be fair the Democrats took away the governor's office in Pennsylvania in one of the few highlights of the election night. But the GOP increased their margins in the state legislature.
And the Big Red Wave did ripple here in California as the GOP gained two, maybe three, congressional seats and have denied the Democrats super majorities in both houses of the legislature meaning they will not be able to raise taxes without GOP votes. And a couple of state office races were close giving hope that the GOP could be competitive in the 2018 elections.
So, how did our Dear Leader, President Obama, the titular leader of the Democrat party, take the election results?
Well, lets just say not all that well.
The day after the thrashing that his party took, losing the senate, ground in the house of representatives and even governorships and state legislatures, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said the following:
“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”
No, sorry, you can't give the back hand and claim that people too bothered to vote count the same. In fact, those people may have not voted for the Democrats had they taken the time and effort. But give it to the Dear Leader, President Obama. His delusion went even further:
“The American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now.“They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.”
With all due respect to the office sir, no that is not why voters turned to the Republicans. They turned to the Republicans to reign you in. They want to bring you and your party back to the center. They want you to stop with legalizing as many illegal aliens as you can questionably. They don't believe in the climate change propaganda and want policies that will lead to economic growth. Not in a pipe dream of a government-made green economy. They voted for people that said we will work where we can with the president, but to no longer be patsies. And they want at the very least major changes in Obamacare. Most would be willing to scrap the whole monstrosity and start again.
This election was about a stark contrast between the Republican party and the Democrat party. It showed that the GOP at least was listening to the public overall much better than the Democrats. The Democrats thought that they could win supposedly tight races by the spectre of the Republican "War on Women" and that they want to take birth control away and put 'em back in the kitchen and for sure barefoot and pregnant. And if that did not work, stir up Black voters with the spectre of Ferguson and a national effort by all police forces, at the hands of the Republicans of course, to use Black youth as target practice. And if that did not work, why they would suggest that because many GOP voters were not in favor of same-sex marriage to look out for a GOP win would probably force all sexual alphabet voters back in the closet or some kind of reorientation camp.
The reason for the lack of effort on accomplishment and fanning the fires of fear is because there are no accomplishments. O-Care is a continuous disaster. The economy may be recovering, but at such an anemic rate most Americans do not feel it at all. We look and are absolutely feckless in the face of the rise of the Islamic State and the unrest throughout the Middle East. Our relationship with Red China looks like we are giving up the store at any given opportunity. In other words, to coin a phrase, the American people feel in a malaise.
But the GOP has to deliver. It has to pursue the policies of seeking to streamline the tax code and seek changes that will be accessible to the middle class. It needs to fight the attempts of massive regulation that is keeping the economy from maybe having a stronger recovery. It needs to stop the government from legalizing millions of illegal aliens and must, must support border security first, then reform. It must have the confidence of the American people that it can govern.
But the fact is that the Big Red Wave was just that. And it crashed on the Democrats hopes and dreams. Hopefully it will restore hope in the GOP and the American experience.
Some quick observations.
Our Dear Leader, President Obama, is a kinda sore loser, isn't he?
Republicans were supposed to lose governorships. Yes, they lost one (Pennsylvania), but gained in Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and Taxachusetts, er Massachusetts. And the GOP even kept the Maine's governor's office after an all out assault by the Democrat party to take it away.
The GOP not only recaptured the senate but did so with ease. The final total should be a 54-46 GOP majority in the senate.
And it appears that the GOP will have no less than 245 seats in the house with some outstanding races not called yet.
And the GOP now controls this much of the United States, in particular in congress.
Yes, it is a damn red map, isn't it?
But let's start at this map.
As Michael Barone notes in this analysis of the 2014 election, yes it does look very red. But the splotches of blue are some of the highest-populated areas of the United States. So while the map does look favorable for the GOP, there is still work to be done to make any inroads into many of these urban Democrat strongholds. These strongholds can still in a great year give the Democrats the White House. But for the foreseeable future, congress is more than likely be in the hands of the Republicans.
My message is that the GOP can not and should not rest on it's laurels. The party needs to go anywhere and everywhere to win elections. No city, county, sheriffs office, state, or nation should be written off.
So how about that senate?
Your humble blogger seems to have gotten the winners right on election night. I was off on the numbers, but the results seemed to be correct. Out of the five big races I commented on, the only one that did not pan out was the race in New Hampshire between current Democrat incumbent, Jeanne Shaheen, and former Massachusetts senator, Scott Brown. Sen. Shaheen won exactly by the margin I thought Mr. Brown would win by. But I noted that a drawback would be the accusation of carpetbagging could hurt Mr. Brown. And I think that it did.
One thing that was learned is that the polls were kinda sorta off. Many of the races won by Republicans were by larger margins than the polls were indicating right up to election day. Interestingly, it appears that Democrats were polled on average more than Republicans. But here is the thing. Polls are but a snapshot in time. There is something called election day. THAT is the only poll that counts. Really, it is.
How is it that Republicans have gained governorships in a year that they were supposed to lose? And as I noted above, in some damn unexpected states.
Take Maryland.
No one, and I mean no one, saw Larry Hogan as a serious candidate against the sitting Lt. governor, Anthony G. Brown. But things started shifting dramatically towards the end of the campaign. But almost all believed that Mr. Brown would still win and handily because after all, Maryland is a solid Blue Democrat stronghold. Not only did Mr. Hogan win, but rather handily. The result was 51% to 47% in favor of Mr. Hogan. And in a state like Maryland, this is a landslide.
And how about Massachusetts?
Once again, the state attorney general, Democrat Martha Croakley, er Coakley, proved that she is so bad a candidate, she lost state office again to a Republican and this time for governor and Charlie Baker defeated the hapless Croakley, 49% to 47%. Mrs. Croakley also lost to former Sen. Scott Brown in the special election to replace the late Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy in 2010. As for me, I want her to move to California and run for any statewide office as a Democrat. It's the way we can win something in 2018.
The two above elections are what happens in a year in which there is a big wave and some candidates that would never win pull off good upsets.
And there are the wins to complete a through take over of a state and that is what happened in Arkansas.
The governor's office is now that of former Republican congressman, Asa Hutchinson as he defeated former Democrat congressman, Mike Ross, by the handy margin of 55% to 42%. Republican Tim Griffin was elected Lt. Governor. Another Republican, Leslie Rutledge, is now the state attorney general. The GOP controls the state senate, 24-11 and the sea change was in the house of representatives where the minority GOP gained 13 seats and are now in the majority, 64-36. The congressional delegation and two senators are Republicans. And Arkansas is now the last state in the old Confederacy to be in the Republican column. There are no Democrat governors in the old Confederacy. Only Bill Nelson in Florida and until the December runoff, Mary Landrieu, are Democrat senators in the old Confederate South. The Democrats basically are down to representing racial minority districts in state houses and in congress.
To be fair the Democrats took away the governor's office in Pennsylvania in one of the few highlights of the election night. But the GOP increased their margins in the state legislature.
And the Big Red Wave did ripple here in California as the GOP gained two, maybe three, congressional seats and have denied the Democrats super majorities in both houses of the legislature meaning they will not be able to raise taxes without GOP votes. And a couple of state office races were close giving hope that the GOP could be competitive in the 2018 elections.
So, how did our Dear Leader, President Obama, the titular leader of the Democrat party, take the election results?
Well, lets just say not all that well.
The day after the thrashing that his party took, losing the senate, ground in the house of representatives and even governorships and state legislatures, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said the following:
“To everyone who voted, I want you to know that I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too.”
No, sorry, you can't give the back hand and claim that people too bothered to vote count the same. In fact, those people may have not voted for the Democrats had they taken the time and effort. But give it to the Dear Leader, President Obama. His delusion went even further:
“The American people sent a message, one that they’ve sent for several elections now.“They expect the people they elect to work as hard as they do. They expect us to focus on their ambitions and not ours. They want us to get the job done. All of us in both parties have a responsibility to address that sentiment.”
With all due respect to the office sir, no that is not why voters turned to the Republicans. They turned to the Republicans to reign you in. They want to bring you and your party back to the center. They want you to stop with legalizing as many illegal aliens as you can questionably. They don't believe in the climate change propaganda and want policies that will lead to economic growth. Not in a pipe dream of a government-made green economy. They voted for people that said we will work where we can with the president, but to no longer be patsies. And they want at the very least major changes in Obamacare. Most would be willing to scrap the whole monstrosity and start again.
This election was about a stark contrast between the Republican party and the Democrat party. It showed that the GOP at least was listening to the public overall much better than the Democrats. The Democrats thought that they could win supposedly tight races by the spectre of the Republican "War on Women" and that they want to take birth control away and put 'em back in the kitchen and for sure barefoot and pregnant. And if that did not work, stir up Black voters with the spectre of Ferguson and a national effort by all police forces, at the hands of the Republicans of course, to use Black youth as target practice. And if that did not work, why they would suggest that because many GOP voters were not in favor of same-sex marriage to look out for a GOP win would probably force all sexual alphabet voters back in the closet or some kind of reorientation camp.
The reason for the lack of effort on accomplishment and fanning the fires of fear is because there are no accomplishments. O-Care is a continuous disaster. The economy may be recovering, but at such an anemic rate most Americans do not feel it at all. We look and are absolutely feckless in the face of the rise of the Islamic State and the unrest throughout the Middle East. Our relationship with Red China looks like we are giving up the store at any given opportunity. In other words, to coin a phrase, the American people feel in a malaise.
But the GOP has to deliver. It has to pursue the policies of seeking to streamline the tax code and seek changes that will be accessible to the middle class. It needs to fight the attempts of massive regulation that is keeping the economy from maybe having a stronger recovery. It needs to stop the government from legalizing millions of illegal aliens and must, must support border security first, then reform. It must have the confidence of the American people that it can govern.
But the fact is that the Big Red Wave was just that. And it crashed on the Democrats hopes and dreams. Hopefully it will restore hope in the GOP and the American experience.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Conservatives And GOP Establishment Are Still At Odds
Now the debate among conservatives continues as to the best way to fight the Dear Leader, President Obama, the Democrats and their left-wing agenda continues as this article in National Review accentuates.
Well, Drew M. at Ace of Spades also makes some very salient points here and I do tend to agree a bit more with Drew M. on what he focuses on.
But National Review is also correct that conservatives need not despair and that there is a way forward, especially on Obamacare and how we deal with it.
First, let me take you on a trip to the Wayback Machine and the debate over the Panama Canal treaties that took place in the late 1970s.
The United States completed the Panama Canal in 1903 and maintained control over the canal and a strip of land on either side. It was known as the Panama Canal Zone. It was governed in a rather complicated manner. But the United States controlled it. Needless to say that the people and government of Panama fed on each other for the United States control of the Canal Zone was the real eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll.
The situation strongly divided conservatives. And do you know who led the opposition to the PCT?
Ronald Reagan.
And he debated with one William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, over the treaty. Mr. Buckley and National Review favored the treaty. It was in the debate that Mr. Reagan repeated the famous line from the late Republican senator, Strom Thurmond (R-SC), "The canal is ours, we bought and we paid for it and we should keep it".
Reagan and his allies did lose and the treaty was ratified by a vote of 68-32. In that vote, out of 38 GOP senators, 22 voted no and 16 voted yes. A majority of Republicans were opposed but the treaty won anyway.
Guess who won the GOP nomination in 1980? Who won the presidency in a 44-state landslide with 51% of the vote in a three-way race?
Ronald Reagan.
So why the trip in the Wayback Machine?
To make the point that conservatives and the establishment have long been fighting each other and sometimes over whole issues.
Thus while the Democrats and the left are salivating over what seem to be open cracks, no fissures, in the Republican/conservative coalition, lets get some things straight.
One, there are very few true Rockefeller Republicans left in congress. The only one that I can name off hand is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME.). I suppose now many would like to add Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) but when one has an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 75%, I would classify him as a moderate conservative.
When some are referred to as RINOs, Republican In Name Only, it is on specific issues and or overall demeanor in dealing with the other side.
But the bottom line is that open honest debate does not hurt the movement. But not coming together at some point will hurt overall.
In the National Review piece by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru, they make a valid and important point.
We are not going to see more conservatives elected as it appears that the United States does not have enough conservative voters to elect conservatives. Here is the point:
There is no alternative to seeking to expand the conservative base beyond its present inadequate numbers and to win the votes of people who aren’t yet conservatives or are not yet conservatives on all issues.
Very true. At some point we need to do a better job at keeping the base and trying to find more voters that may not be as conservative as we may be. But the other fact is that many do not realize how much they are conservatives but just have that block that they will not vote for a Republican. That is on us to not dismiss but encourage those fence-sitting voters. Some people talked with one Ronald Reagan and made him realize that the Democrat party was not going to change, that he did and he became a conservative Republican.
But Drew M. has a devastating point about how establishment candidates were not all that stellar in the 2012 election, especially in several senate races. He names names:
Have there been setbacks in Senate races? Yes. Have some "tea party" favorites been disasters? Obviously. But let's not pretend that "establishment" candidates haven't lost races either. Connie Mack in Florida, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan (not only wasn't he a "tea party" guy he ran an ad that was worse than Christine O'Donnell's notorious "I'm Not A Witch" ad), Denny Rehberg in Montana, George Allen in Virginia, and Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin all were "establishment" picks and all lost.
The only name I disagree with is George Allen. He has always been a solid conservative. I think that the argument in regards to his candidacy is that his time as an elected official has past. Not because of his record, but because some people in politics just have a certain shelf life. And Mr. Allen past his.
But otherwise, Drew M. is spot on.
BOTH the establishment and Tea Party candidates took some hits in the last election. The Tea Party did have a couple of clunkers. Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin come to mind. OK, Mr. Akin was not all Tea Party, but he did court their support before he went crazy about rape. Sharon Angle was in Nevada state politics before running for and winning the GOP nomination for senate. In fact I think that she ran a great campaign and no one would have beat the repulsive Sen. Dingy Harry Reid (D-Nev.). And before anyone screams that Mike Castle was a lock to win the Delaware senate race that Miss. O'Donnell ended up losing, where is the proof? Ask Sens. Allen, Hoekstra, Mack, Thompson.
Oops! My bad!
Why they did NOT win yet we were told that they were locks. Each and everyone of them.
The fact is both the establishment and Tea Party took a hit in the last election. An election that the incumbent president won with 51% of the vote, two less than in 2008. Whenever one hears how he, the Dear Leader, President Obama won in a landslide, just yawn. Because he had to fight, lie, cheat and maybe even steal to win every vote that he has.
That is part of the debate between conservatives. Should we go balls-out, scorch the earth and slam Democrats in every way possible. Or should we be more strategic, sober, and try to reach out to new voters?
Both my friends. Both.
We have to show the other side that we are serious about what we talk about. That we want to repeal O-Care and replace it with something that will be better. That is more market oriented and makes it easier for people to purchase insurance as they wish. To have the coverage that they want. Without offering a viable alternative, then what is the point about repealing O-Care?
That when we talk about a strong and capable armed forces, we mean to encourage and recruit the best and the brightest. We do not need to use the armed forces as some social petri dish. That our friends and allies respect us. And our foes and outright enemies fear us.
We need to call out Islamofacist terror for what it is. We need to be clear we are not against the Islamic religion but those that seek to pervert enough of it to create animus. We do not need psychobabble about so-called historical wrongs.
There are three examples.
The bottom line is that we in the conservative movement will disagree and sometimes it will be ugly. But we need to unify on the common threat and what we would do differently. The threat is the left-wing dominance of the Democrat party. What we would do differently is return the federal government to its proper role.
We are not in disagreement on that and while we will debate, when it comes time for elections we must unify and speak in one clear and unmistakable voice.
That is the trick we must learn.
Well, Drew M. at Ace of Spades also makes some very salient points here and I do tend to agree a bit more with Drew M. on what he focuses on.
But National Review is also correct that conservatives need not despair and that there is a way forward, especially on Obamacare and how we deal with it.
First, let me take you on a trip to the Wayback Machine and the debate over the Panama Canal treaties that took place in the late 1970s.
The United States completed the Panama Canal in 1903 and maintained control over the canal and a strip of land on either side. It was known as the Panama Canal Zone. It was governed in a rather complicated manner. But the United States controlled it. Needless to say that the people and government of Panama fed on each other for the United States control of the Canal Zone was the real eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll.
The situation strongly divided conservatives. And do you know who led the opposition to the PCT?
Ronald Reagan.
And he debated with one William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, over the treaty. Mr. Buckley and National Review favored the treaty. It was in the debate that Mr. Reagan repeated the famous line from the late Republican senator, Strom Thurmond (R-SC), "The canal is ours, we bought and we paid for it and we should keep it".
Reagan and his allies did lose and the treaty was ratified by a vote of 68-32. In that vote, out of 38 GOP senators, 22 voted no and 16 voted yes. A majority of Republicans were opposed but the treaty won anyway.
Guess who won the GOP nomination in 1980? Who won the presidency in a 44-state landslide with 51% of the vote in a three-way race?
Ronald Reagan.
So why the trip in the Wayback Machine?
To make the point that conservatives and the establishment have long been fighting each other and sometimes over whole issues.
Thus while the Democrats and the left are salivating over what seem to be open cracks, no fissures, in the Republican/conservative coalition, lets get some things straight.
One, there are very few true Rockefeller Republicans left in congress. The only one that I can name off hand is Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME.). I suppose now many would like to add Congressman Peter King (R-N.Y.) but when one has an American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 75%, I would classify him as a moderate conservative.
When some are referred to as RINOs, Republican In Name Only, it is on specific issues and or overall demeanor in dealing with the other side.
But the bottom line is that open honest debate does not hurt the movement. But not coming together at some point will hurt overall.
In the National Review piece by Rich Lowry and Ramesh Ponnuru, they make a valid and important point.
We are not going to see more conservatives elected as it appears that the United States does not have enough conservative voters to elect conservatives. Here is the point:
There is no alternative to seeking to expand the conservative base beyond its present inadequate numbers and to win the votes of people who aren’t yet conservatives or are not yet conservatives on all issues.
Very true. At some point we need to do a better job at keeping the base and trying to find more voters that may not be as conservative as we may be. But the other fact is that many do not realize how much they are conservatives but just have that block that they will not vote for a Republican. That is on us to not dismiss but encourage those fence-sitting voters. Some people talked with one Ronald Reagan and made him realize that the Democrat party was not going to change, that he did and he became a conservative Republican.
But Drew M. has a devastating point about how establishment candidates were not all that stellar in the 2012 election, especially in several senate races. He names names:
Have there been setbacks in Senate races? Yes. Have some "tea party" favorites been disasters? Obviously. But let's not pretend that "establishment" candidates haven't lost races either. Connie Mack in Florida, Pete Hoekstra in Michigan (not only wasn't he a "tea party" guy he ran an ad that was worse than Christine O'Donnell's notorious "I'm Not A Witch" ad), Denny Rehberg in Montana, George Allen in Virginia, and Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin all were "establishment" picks and all lost.
The only name I disagree with is George Allen. He has always been a solid conservative. I think that the argument in regards to his candidacy is that his time as an elected official has past. Not because of his record, but because some people in politics just have a certain shelf life. And Mr. Allen past his.
But otherwise, Drew M. is spot on.
BOTH the establishment and Tea Party candidates took some hits in the last election. The Tea Party did have a couple of clunkers. Christine O'Donnell and Todd Akin come to mind. OK, Mr. Akin was not all Tea Party, but he did court their support before he went crazy about rape. Sharon Angle was in Nevada state politics before running for and winning the GOP nomination for senate. In fact I think that she ran a great campaign and no one would have beat the repulsive Sen. Dingy Harry Reid (D-Nev.). And before anyone screams that Mike Castle was a lock to win the Delaware senate race that Miss. O'Donnell ended up losing, where is the proof? Ask Sens. Allen, Hoekstra, Mack, Thompson.
Oops! My bad!
Why they did NOT win yet we were told that they were locks. Each and everyone of them.
The fact is both the establishment and Tea Party took a hit in the last election. An election that the incumbent president won with 51% of the vote, two less than in 2008. Whenever one hears how he, the Dear Leader, President Obama won in a landslide, just yawn. Because he had to fight, lie, cheat and maybe even steal to win every vote that he has.
That is part of the debate between conservatives. Should we go balls-out, scorch the earth and slam Democrats in every way possible. Or should we be more strategic, sober, and try to reach out to new voters?
Both my friends. Both.
We have to show the other side that we are serious about what we talk about. That we want to repeal O-Care and replace it with something that will be better. That is more market oriented and makes it easier for people to purchase insurance as they wish. To have the coverage that they want. Without offering a viable alternative, then what is the point about repealing O-Care?
That when we talk about a strong and capable armed forces, we mean to encourage and recruit the best and the brightest. We do not need to use the armed forces as some social petri dish. That our friends and allies respect us. And our foes and outright enemies fear us.
We need to call out Islamofacist terror for what it is. We need to be clear we are not against the Islamic religion but those that seek to pervert enough of it to create animus. We do not need psychobabble about so-called historical wrongs.
There are three examples.
The bottom line is that we in the conservative movement will disagree and sometimes it will be ugly. But we need to unify on the common threat and what we would do differently. The threat is the left-wing dominance of the Democrat party. What we would do differently is return the federal government to its proper role.
We are not in disagreement on that and while we will debate, when it comes time for elections we must unify and speak in one clear and unmistakable voice.
That is the trick we must learn.
Tuesday, October 08, 2013
Will O-Care Turn Liberals Into Conservatives?
Well, to the Kool-aid drinking true believers, not in the least.
But to some people that may not be the above yet have a liberal, do-gooder heart, I think that this will be at the same level as the tax-revolt of the 1970s.
Now I read this article yesterday and the reason it has taken so long to extrapolate on it is because I could not stop laughing.
Now to set it up, the San Jose Mercury-News talked with two people that are big supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and are proud that they voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, not once but twice. Also, they have been huge supporters of the Patient Portability and Affordable Healthcare Act.
Both are high-income earners that earned four times the poverty-level rate. And both buy their own health insurance.
And a funny thing happened when they got their latest bill from their respective insurance companies.
And they were shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Because, surprise! Their rates went up. And waaaay up.
One of those interviewed, Cindy Vinson, is single and self insured and her rate will go up $1,800 a year.
The second interviewed, Tom Waschura, pays insurance for a family of four. And his rate will go up a cool $10,000 a year! Yes, you read that right, $10,000 a year.
Now, do you remember how the Dear Leader, President Obama, on many, many occasions said this, especially as he was running for president:
I think that the video speaks for itself. But in case someone wants to say, but he said about people who have insurance through their employers. No, watch the whole video because really, it all depended on who he was speaking to. The fact is that he sold the public that voted for him that their insurance costs would go down.
Well, maybe Miss Vinson's bill was a typo. Maybe it really should have been a savings of $1,800 a for the year. And Mr. Waschura must be hoping and praying that he is getting a huge savings of $10,000 for his annual premium.
No to both of you. And really, you really should have known you saps.
According to Dana Howard of Covered California, the statewide health exchange why some people's rates are going up and many if not most will not change or even go down. Here is what he said:
"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance, but most people will not."
Dana, that is NOT what the Dear Leader, President Obama said in selling thisscam plan.
Now Covered California is suggesting that 570,000 out of 1,900,000 are eligible for subsidies that could see their rates decrease. OK, that still leaves the overwhelming majority, 1,330,000 to be exact, possibly SOL and see their rates go up.
And you know, people can not be denied health coverage due to a preexisting condition (a good thing and one that at best needs to be kept even after repealing O-Care) and in the case of Marilynn Gray-Raine she also gets a government subsidy that lowered her monthly rate.
Guess who is really paying for that?
Why people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura, of course!
They are apparently healthy people and in the case of Mr. Waschura have a healthy family.
Well, being healthy and buying your own health insurance coverage, taking personal responsibility, gets them the shaft.
It is wealth redistribution, pure plain and simple.
And when people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura come to realize that they, not some magic fairy from the sky, are paying for the federal government subisdy and those with preexisting conditions, well let me have Mr. Waschura explain:
"I was laughing at Boehner (Speaker of the House, John Boehner R-Oh.)-until the mail came today. I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
BINGO!
But if you think that Mr. Waschura is rather now pissed about it, Miss Vinson is even more biting:
"Of course I want people to have health care. I just didn't realize that I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."
And once again, BINGO! And an OUCH!
I'm sorry for these two people, but again, how did they think that this was going to be paid for? Did they not realize that for the federal government to provide a subsidy for people the money would have to come from somewhere? Did they really think that they would not, because of their own success and financial status would not be touched? While both realized that their premiums would go up, they did not realize quite how much.
This goes to what I believe is the heart of the matter.
I too want to see people have access to decent health care. The problem is that if the government gets involved, it will come at many costs. One, people who pay for their own coverage out of pocket have to pay more because of the complexity of this plan. And do you remember this constant line from the Dear Leader, President Obama:
"First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan -- you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
Neither is true for many people.
Ask those that are seeing their hours cut and fall under the 30 hour threshold at major companies. It automatically puts them in the exchange market. And if they have to choose a plan that their doctor is not part of and a plan different from what they had before, well you know the rest of the story.
The reality is that, as I have been arguing, we need to have O-Care take full effect. We should be fighting for not one exemption, period. We need to show the people that a huge undertaking such as this is unworkable and unfeasible.
In other words, to be blunt, we need to show people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura that while their heart is in the right place, they need to think beyond that. They need to think with their brains. And yes, for their own interests as well.
They will more than likely be part of a next generation of conservatives. And we will be able to thank O-Care for that.
But to some people that may not be the above yet have a liberal, do-gooder heart, I think that this will be at the same level as the tax-revolt of the 1970s.
Now I read this article yesterday and the reason it has taken so long to extrapolate on it is because I could not stop laughing.
Now to set it up, the San Jose Mercury-News talked with two people that are big supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and are proud that they voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, not once but twice. Also, they have been huge supporters of the Patient Portability and Affordable Healthcare Act.
Both are high-income earners that earned four times the poverty-level rate. And both buy their own health insurance.
And a funny thing happened when they got their latest bill from their respective insurance companies.
And they were shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Because, surprise! Their rates went up. And waaaay up.
One of those interviewed, Cindy Vinson, is single and self insured and her rate will go up $1,800 a year.
The second interviewed, Tom Waschura, pays insurance for a family of four. And his rate will go up a cool $10,000 a year! Yes, you read that right, $10,000 a year.
Now, do you remember how the Dear Leader, President Obama, on many, many occasions said this, especially as he was running for president:
I think that the video speaks for itself. But in case someone wants to say, but he said about people who have insurance through their employers. No, watch the whole video because really, it all depended on who he was speaking to. The fact is that he sold the public that voted for him that their insurance costs would go down.
Well, maybe Miss Vinson's bill was a typo. Maybe it really should have been a savings of $1,800 a for the year. And Mr. Waschura must be hoping and praying that he is getting a huge savings of $10,000 for his annual premium.
No to both of you. And really, you really should have known you saps.
According to Dana Howard of Covered California, the statewide health exchange why some people's rates are going up and many if not most will not change or even go down. Here is what he said:
"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance, but most people will not."
Dana, that is NOT what the Dear Leader, President Obama said in selling this
Now Covered California is suggesting that 570,000 out of 1,900,000 are eligible for subsidies that could see their rates decrease. OK, that still leaves the overwhelming majority, 1,330,000 to be exact, possibly SOL and see their rates go up.
And you know, people can not be denied health coverage due to a preexisting condition (a good thing and one that at best needs to be kept even after repealing O-Care) and in the case of Marilynn Gray-Raine she also gets a government subsidy that lowered her monthly rate.
Guess who is really paying for that?
Why people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura, of course!
They are apparently healthy people and in the case of Mr. Waschura have a healthy family.
Well, being healthy and buying your own health insurance coverage, taking personal responsibility, gets them the shaft.
It is wealth redistribution, pure plain and simple.
And when people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura come to realize that they, not some magic fairy from the sky, are paying for the federal government subisdy and those with preexisting conditions, well let me have Mr. Waschura explain:
"I was laughing at Boehner (Speaker of the House, John Boehner R-Oh.)-until the mail came today. I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."
BINGO!
But if you think that Mr. Waschura is rather now pissed about it, Miss Vinson is even more biting:
"Of course I want people to have health care. I just didn't realize that I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."
And once again, BINGO! And an OUCH!
I'm sorry for these two people, but again, how did they think that this was going to be paid for? Did they not realize that for the federal government to provide a subsidy for people the money would have to come from somewhere? Did they really think that they would not, because of their own success and financial status would not be touched? While both realized that their premiums would go up, they did not realize quite how much.
This goes to what I believe is the heart of the matter.
I too want to see people have access to decent health care. The problem is that if the government gets involved, it will come at many costs. One, people who pay for their own coverage out of pocket have to pay more because of the complexity of this plan. And do you remember this constant line from the Dear Leader, President Obama:
"First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan -- you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."
Neither is true for many people.
Ask those that are seeing their hours cut and fall under the 30 hour threshold at major companies. It automatically puts them in the exchange market. And if they have to choose a plan that their doctor is not part of and a plan different from what they had before, well you know the rest of the story.
The reality is that, as I have been arguing, we need to have O-Care take full effect. We should be fighting for not one exemption, period. We need to show the people that a huge undertaking such as this is unworkable and unfeasible.
In other words, to be blunt, we need to show people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura that while their heart is in the right place, they need to think beyond that. They need to think with their brains. And yes, for their own interests as well.
They will more than likely be part of a next generation of conservatives. And we will be able to thank O-Care for that.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Liberals Are Not Libertarians
To many, the headline is shocking because many really think that liberalism, the modern form which is really watered down socialism, is actually a form of libertarianism.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be further from the truth.
And leave it to Jonah Goldberg to hit the nail on the head with this wisdom.
Those of you that believe modern liberalism is a form of libertarianism need to understand that it is not all about whether or woman can or can not legally attain an abortion. Whether or not an adult can or can not spark up a joint in the privacy of their own domicile. Libertarianism is much more than that.
Libertarianism is not just as Mr. Goldberg notes a belief in live and let live. It is a set of beliefs that emphasize individualism, not collectivism. And it is not just in the realm of social policy but in form of government and especially economics. Although this link is Wikipedia, please read it whether you are confused about it or not.
Liberals like to present themselves as live and let live types.
The reality is that they are the parents that you kinda sorta think you escaped from.
What caught Mr. Goldberg's attention is the Washington, D. C. city council proposing regulating tattoo parlors and having potential clients wait 24 hours just to make sure they really, really want a tattoo in the first place. Now I have written my views on tattoos here so we do not need to go into that. The actual aspect of this action of a very liberal-left city council was this line from The Washington Post:
“The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.”
Well no kidding, Jonah! Being a social liberal means butting into everyone else's business.
Washington, D. C. is nanny state central. But so is Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City. And even little ol' towns like my hometown, Pasadena, California.
One of the most grievous examples of nanny stateism in Pasadena is if one is an apartment dweller or owns or rents a condo or a townhome, you can not smoke in your own home. Once again, I wrote about the issue here. And yep, it is in full effect in my townhome complex. However, because we do have detached garages, it maybe a place on the grounds we can take the occasional smoke. But hey, I thought you liberals wanted to leave me alone? Insert uproarious laughing-till-you-puke soundtrack here. And FTR, I smoke very occasionally a cigar. I should have the right to do in the townhome that I OWN, right?
Not to the so-called live and let live lib-left crowd.
Another local issue is private businesses and the use of plastic bags.
Today in Pasadena if you forget your reusable plastic bag at the market or even places like Target, you can get a paper bag. For 10c each. It ends up that it is a beautiful collusion between big government and big business. Big Business supposedly found it costly, I guess, to provide plastic bags to shoppers. Big government wanted to look environmentally correct and stop the carnage of plastic bags that are littered all over. And big business makes a little money on the side with the 10c charge. Shameful, but true.
OK, maybe you don't care for my examples. Maybe you so hate smoking tobacco that you see nothing wrong with taking away the rights of homeowners. Fine. But here are some examples that Mr. Goldberg provides to shoot-down the concept that liberals are really libertarians:
Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?
Do you see any live-and-let-live in that? Do you not believe that? Well, wake up folks because it is true.
The Koch Brothers really don't want to take your liberty and freedom away. I know it is hard to believe but they would actually stay out of your personal business.
Not so for the liberal-left.
Even on the issues that they give the impression they are libertarian, same-sex marriage and abortion, they are doing everything in their power to force people to accept these two issues whether they agree with the concepts or not.
I will take this further as proof that the liberal-left is not only anti-libertarian but the most judgemental of all people.
Tell me, when you are around known liberal-lefties, what is something that will inevitably come up in conversation?
"I am not a judgemental person". Be very careful as you are biting your tongue. I know that I have to.
All of the nanny statism is based on judgementalism.
Obviously if you are a couple of say seven year-old boys playing cops and robbers and extending your fingers like a gun and saying "Bang! Bang! Bang!" to each other, you will probably grow up to be a future mass murderer.
Or if you use the words fag, faggot or gay in derisive terms, that makes you a bully. Funny how the liberal-left discovered bullys once homosexuals complained.
Understand that everything to the liberal-lefty is all about judgementalism that they so loathe.
FTR, yes you are damn right if you were to say I am judgemental. We are ALL judgemental. It is how we use and or abuse that judgement. The liberal-left abuses that judgementalism more often than not.
I do not want to leave the impression that conservatives do not on occasion practice similar nanny statism. Yes we do but often in regard to overall "community standards". An example unique to California is because medical marijuana is legal and not overly regulated. Conservatives care about whether there are dispensaries close to schools for obvious reasons.
One important aspect of libertariansim is the respect that people as individuals can work on almost all issues without interference from the government.
Liberal-leftists do not believe in that no matter how hard they try to cloud it that they and not conservatives are closer to that concept.
Liberals are not libertarians.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be further from the truth.
And leave it to Jonah Goldberg to hit the nail on the head with this wisdom.
Those of you that believe modern liberalism is a form of libertarianism need to understand that it is not all about whether or woman can or can not legally attain an abortion. Whether or not an adult can or can not spark up a joint in the privacy of their own domicile. Libertarianism is much more than that.
Libertarianism is not just as Mr. Goldberg notes a belief in live and let live. It is a set of beliefs that emphasize individualism, not collectivism. And it is not just in the realm of social policy but in form of government and especially economics. Although this link is Wikipedia, please read it whether you are confused about it or not.
Liberals like to present themselves as live and let live types.
The reality is that they are the parents that you kinda sorta think you escaped from.
What caught Mr. Goldberg's attention is the Washington, D. C. city council proposing regulating tattoo parlors and having potential clients wait 24 hours just to make sure they really, really want a tattoo in the first place. Now I have written my views on tattoos here so we do not need to go into that. The actual aspect of this action of a very liberal-left city council was this line from The Washington Post:
“The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.”
Well no kidding, Jonah! Being a social liberal means butting into everyone else's business.
Washington, D. C. is nanny state central. But so is Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City. And even little ol' towns like my hometown, Pasadena, California.
One of the most grievous examples of nanny stateism in Pasadena is if one is an apartment dweller or owns or rents a condo or a townhome, you can not smoke in your own home. Once again, I wrote about the issue here. And yep, it is in full effect in my townhome complex. However, because we do have detached garages, it maybe a place on the grounds we can take the occasional smoke. But hey, I thought you liberals wanted to leave me alone? Insert uproarious laughing-till-you-puke soundtrack here. And FTR, I smoke very occasionally a cigar. I should have the right to do in the townhome that I OWN, right?
Not to the so-called live and let live lib-left crowd.
Another local issue is private businesses and the use of plastic bags.
Today in Pasadena if you forget your reusable plastic bag at the market or even places like Target, you can get a paper bag. For 10c each. It ends up that it is a beautiful collusion between big government and big business. Big Business supposedly found it costly, I guess, to provide plastic bags to shoppers. Big government wanted to look environmentally correct and stop the carnage of plastic bags that are littered all over. And big business makes a little money on the side with the 10c charge. Shameful, but true.
OK, maybe you don't care for my examples. Maybe you so hate smoking tobacco that you see nothing wrong with taking away the rights of homeowners. Fine. But here are some examples that Mr. Goldberg provides to shoot-down the concept that liberals are really libertarians:
Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?
Do you see any live-and-let-live in that? Do you not believe that? Well, wake up folks because it is true.
The Koch Brothers really don't want to take your liberty and freedom away. I know it is hard to believe but they would actually stay out of your personal business.
Not so for the liberal-left.
Even on the issues that they give the impression they are libertarian, same-sex marriage and abortion, they are doing everything in their power to force people to accept these two issues whether they agree with the concepts or not.
I will take this further as proof that the liberal-left is not only anti-libertarian but the most judgemental of all people.
Tell me, when you are around known liberal-lefties, what is something that will inevitably come up in conversation?
"I am not a judgemental person". Be very careful as you are biting your tongue. I know that I have to.
All of the nanny statism is based on judgementalism.
Obviously if you are a couple of say seven year-old boys playing cops and robbers and extending your fingers like a gun and saying "Bang! Bang! Bang!" to each other, you will probably grow up to be a future mass murderer.
Or if you use the words fag, faggot or gay in derisive terms, that makes you a bully. Funny how the liberal-left discovered bullys once homosexuals complained.
Understand that everything to the liberal-lefty is all about judgementalism that they so loathe.
FTR, yes you are damn right if you were to say I am judgemental. We are ALL judgemental. It is how we use and or abuse that judgement. The liberal-left abuses that judgementalism more often than not.
I do not want to leave the impression that conservatives do not on occasion practice similar nanny statism. Yes we do but often in regard to overall "community standards". An example unique to California is because medical marijuana is legal and not overly regulated. Conservatives care about whether there are dispensaries close to schools for obvious reasons.
One important aspect of libertariansim is the respect that people as individuals can work on almost all issues without interference from the government.
Liberal-leftists do not believe in that no matter how hard they try to cloud it that they and not conservatives are closer to that concept.
Liberals are not libertarians.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Why Sen. Paul's Filibuster Matters
I know that some people are grousing that Sen. Rand Paul's epic filibuster of yesterday was kinda sorta meaningless yet I am here to write that it not only was not meaningless but maybe a serious turning point for the Republican party.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and here.
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”
Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.
What righteously rankled Sen. Paul is that the Dear Leader, the Obama administration with Attorney General Eric Holder hemming and hawing, would not say outright that this administration would not target American citizens here in the United States for drone strikes.
To me it is not a minor matter.
Look, I may be accused of splitting hairs on this, but I have no problem in the Obama administration taking out Anwar al-Awlaki as it did in Yemen. Mr. al-Awlaki was conducting his terror war against the United States in a foreign nation. We do not know with absolute certitude that Mr. al-Awlaki was not aided possibly by members of the Yemeni armed forces, such as it is, or the government itself. The fact that he was a naturalized American citizen does not bother me. Nor if he was a multi-generational descendant from the Mayflower.
But yes, it does bother me the possibility of such an event happening here on American soil.
While some mocked at Sen. Paul for suggesting that one could be sitting at a coffee bar or an outdoor cafe and suddenly a drone takes out not only a suspect, but many others. It is called collateral damage. The greater good is that it saved lives because that suspect could not carry out a horrific terrorist act.
Oh, as it turns out in that scenario they had the wrong guy and he and those enjoying their coffee drinks also taken out did nothing wrong at all.
Now, I would be for this option.
Same situation but instead of a drone strike, how about said suspect being arrested and tried in a military tribunal? I have not one problem with that. It is a compromise that should please both sides.
So let's get back to the Sen. Paul filibuster.
Sen. Paul decided to block the senate from taking up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama's CIA director nominee, John Brennan. Mr. Brennan is considered one of the chief architect's of the current administration's drone policy.
Sen. Paul is a libertarian type and sees this potential policy that does not rule out entirely using drones on American citizens in the United States as a bad thing. He said that if a Republican president was considering the same thing, he would be against it as well. One should believe him on that score.
And let me go a step further.
I supported the Patriot Act when it was implemented.
But, with the passage of time, there is time to see what good it has or not done. And if necessary, make revisions. It is a law passed by congress, signed by a president. Meaning it can always be scrutinized. Scrapping it entirely would be a huge, huge mistake.
Having said that, Sen. Paul put an administration that ran against such things as the Patriot Act and drone attacks and the like on notice. They are being watched. And Sen. Paul had not just Republican support but some rather left-wing Democrats ended up in support of what he was saying.
Republicans were watching how one should deal with the Democrats in general. Stick to issues. If even one that is not all that glamorous as whether or not drone strikes within the United States against American citizens are OK. Sen. Paul was focused and never went into the gutter about his serious concerns.
And as an aside, too bad two of his "Republican allies", Sen. Lindsey Goober Graham (R-SC) and Sen. John "F--- you" McCain showed what douchbrains they really are.
Instead of seeing what a serious debate can do, in which in the end the Obama administration assured Sen. Paul that is not and will not be administration policy to use drones against Americans in the United States, both not only attacked him but on the floor of the senate.
Face palm and
Rather than realizing what Sen. Paul was bringing up is a legitimate issue, Sen. Goober went so far to say this amazing statement in regard to as to if it is legitimate to question whether the president has the right to kill Americans by drones:
“I do not believe that question deserves an answer.”
Hey Sen. Goober, you're wrong! It sure as hell does deserve an answer because it is a legitimate question.
And of course Sen. "F--- You" McCain, man of such decorum, said that the filibuster was a disservice to the American people and that Sen. Paul was misinforming the public about the use of drones.
Oh yeah, and where were these two douchebrains last night?
Dinning with the Dear Leader, President Obama rather than actually being able to maybe help their colleague get that answer that took him close to 13 hours of talking on the senate floor to eventually get.
No, Sen. Paul is not a disservice to the American people. You two douchebrains are.
In fact, Sen. Paul showed poise, composure and moxie that Republicans need to show in dealing with not only the Dear Leader, President Obama, but in relating to the American people.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
So, If The United States Is STILL More Conservative Than Liberal, How In The Hell Did Obama Win Again?
I have been asking myself this question since the election results of the November 6, 2012 election.
I mean, really, in poll after poll asking Americans their political ideology the majority say that they are conservative. In second place, generally, people will consider themselves moderate or middle of the road. People who consider themselves liberal bring up the rear.
Once again, how does this jibe with the election results?
I am sure I have addressed this somewhere back in the RVFTLC archives.
If this poll from Gallup is correct, in only two states of the union, do a majority consider themselves liberal. And they should not come as a surprise that one of them is Taxachusetts Massachusetts. The other one is Rhode Island, basically an unincorporated extension of Massachusetts. Think of Rhode Island as where the regular folks live yet still keep voting liberal and Democrat.
So what gives?
Well, look at the link to Gallup. And look at the people that consider themselves moderate. Eight of the top 10 states ended up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Three were considered so-called swing states in the last presidential election and they are Michigan, Nevada and Ohio. Yet six of those 10 states have Republican governors. For the first time in recent memory, the Republican party controls the majority of state legislatures. Have 29 governorships.
Again, what gives?
Well, defining moderate is always tricky. But I will give it a shot.
In general, people that consider themselves middle of the road generally are conservative in many ways yet liberal in others. Their conservatism is on governance, fiscal policy and national security. Their liberalism is not so much liberalism as much as a live and let live attitude on a lot of the so-called social issues. And even there that has to be more broken down by a slew of issues. In other words, they don't want to be boxed in under one party or one ideology. They are most likely to not care for either political party yet in their mind choose the lesser of two evils. But, in the last election, they not not as likely to vote as they did in 2008.
And what about conservatives?
Go backwards and more conservatives stayed home than moderates. And while almost none would identify with the Democrat party, most in the past did with the Republican party. But a sizable number are not happy with the Republican party. Many feel that they just want to elect people with R's after their name and it does not matter what they believe in.
Well, there is something of an explanation as to how the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win reelection.
One, the base was fired up a lot more stealth than in 2008. It was stealth enough that most political analysts did not see it. They fought for and got every vote they could squeeze out. They were able to convince just enough moderates where they had to how eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Mitt Romney and the Republicans were. And it worked.
Speaking of Mr. Romney, he did not offer a serious vision and basically ran a classic defense campaign not realizing that he was really already behind everywhere he needed to be ahead. And I add one other thing. Mr. Romney could not explain and correlate that taxes and wasteful spending and big, inefficient government is as much if not more a threat than one's city, county or state government.
Which leads to this smart, yet short, piece from Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online.
Remember those swing states I wrote about earlier? You know, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio? All three have Republican governors, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Brian Sandoval in Nevada and John Kasich in Ohio. In Michigan and Ohio, the states legislatures are Republican-dominated. Mr. Goldberg gets to the heart of the matter right here:
I think an overlooked part of the story is the fact that Americans tend to see federal and local governments differently. At the local level, people seem to have a better grasp that it’s their tax dollars at work. They are far more sensitive to tax increases and more easily outraged by spending boondoggles. They understand the importance of sustainable economic growth.
And I think that he is right. And it does go back to when many of these states did have Democrat leadership and how, after a sufficient time to see how lousy things get when the Dems do run things, people want to change and get some adults in the room.
Now California bucked the trend on the whole issue of tax hikes, but that had to be sold as a tax on the rich and the proponents left out the hike on the state sales tax. But the trend will go back to the Republicans when they get their act together here in the once Golden State.
That goes back to where Mr. Romney could not translate the big, bad government in Washington, D. C. to the voter in Ohio that thought maybe the Dear Leader, President Obama, is still kind of sort of a moderate as he is portrayed to be.
And one more thing about us conservatives.
We need to stop eating each other up and focus on what the next years under the Dear Leader, President Obama, will be. Don't blame So Cons and So Cons need to learn a little about economics before going after Fis Cons. And all need to agree that the biggest international threat is radical Islam.
Conservatives need to translate what the majority of Americans believe into a governing majority at the national level.
That is why one Barack Hussein Obama won reelection. Playing up conservative division.
I mean, really, in poll after poll asking Americans their political ideology the majority say that they are conservative. In second place, generally, people will consider themselves moderate or middle of the road. People who consider themselves liberal bring up the rear.
Once again, how does this jibe with the election results?
I am sure I have addressed this somewhere back in the RVFTLC archives.
If this poll from Gallup is correct, in only two states of the union, do a majority consider themselves liberal. And they should not come as a surprise that one of them is Taxachusetts Massachusetts. The other one is Rhode Island, basically an unincorporated extension of Massachusetts. Think of Rhode Island as where the regular folks live yet still keep voting liberal and Democrat.
So what gives?
Well, look at the link to Gallup. And look at the people that consider themselves moderate. Eight of the top 10 states ended up voting for the Dear Leader, President Obama. Three were considered so-called swing states in the last presidential election and they are Michigan, Nevada and Ohio. Yet six of those 10 states have Republican governors. For the first time in recent memory, the Republican party controls the majority of state legislatures. Have 29 governorships.
Again, what gives?
Well, defining moderate is always tricky. But I will give it a shot.
In general, people that consider themselves middle of the road generally are conservative in many ways yet liberal in others. Their conservatism is on governance, fiscal policy and national security. Their liberalism is not so much liberalism as much as a live and let live attitude on a lot of the so-called social issues. And even there that has to be more broken down by a slew of issues. In other words, they don't want to be boxed in under one party or one ideology. They are most likely to not care for either political party yet in their mind choose the lesser of two evils. But, in the last election, they not not as likely to vote as they did in 2008.
And what about conservatives?
Go backwards and more conservatives stayed home than moderates. And while almost none would identify with the Democrat party, most in the past did with the Republican party. But a sizable number are not happy with the Republican party. Many feel that they just want to elect people with R's after their name and it does not matter what they believe in.
Well, there is something of an explanation as to how the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win reelection.
One, the base was fired up a lot more stealth than in 2008. It was stealth enough that most political analysts did not see it. They fought for and got every vote they could squeeze out. They were able to convince just enough moderates where they had to how eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Mitt Romney and the Republicans were. And it worked.
Speaking of Mr. Romney, he did not offer a serious vision and basically ran a classic defense campaign not realizing that he was really already behind everywhere he needed to be ahead. And I add one other thing. Mr. Romney could not explain and correlate that taxes and wasteful spending and big, inefficient government is as much if not more a threat than one's city, county or state government.
Which leads to this smart, yet short, piece from Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online.
Remember those swing states I wrote about earlier? You know, Michigan, Nevada and Ohio? All three have Republican governors, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Brian Sandoval in Nevada and John Kasich in Ohio. In Michigan and Ohio, the states legislatures are Republican-dominated. Mr. Goldberg gets to the heart of the matter right here:
I think an overlooked part of the story is the fact that Americans tend to see federal and local governments differently. At the local level, people seem to have a better grasp that it’s their tax dollars at work. They are far more sensitive to tax increases and more easily outraged by spending boondoggles. They understand the importance of sustainable economic growth.
And I think that he is right. And it does go back to when many of these states did have Democrat leadership and how, after a sufficient time to see how lousy things get when the Dems do run things, people want to change and get some adults in the room.
Now California bucked the trend on the whole issue of tax hikes, but that had to be sold as a tax on the rich and the proponents left out the hike on the state sales tax. But the trend will go back to the Republicans when they get their act together here in the once Golden State.
That goes back to where Mr. Romney could not translate the big, bad government in Washington, D. C. to the voter in Ohio that thought maybe the Dear Leader, President Obama, is still kind of sort of a moderate as he is portrayed to be.
And one more thing about us conservatives.
We need to stop eating each other up and focus on what the next years under the Dear Leader, President Obama, will be. Don't blame So Cons and So Cons need to learn a little about economics before going after Fis Cons. And all need to agree that the biggest international threat is radical Islam.
Conservatives need to translate what the majority of Americans believe into a governing majority at the national level.
That is why one Barack Hussein Obama won reelection. Playing up conservative division.
Saturday, September 08, 2012
I Do Not Want To Love A President As Much As I Do Want To Respect A President
Now that the conventions are over, the real campaign finally begins in Presidential Death March 2012.
But a little snippet of our Dear Leader, President Obama, is illustrative of a very fundamental difference between most conservatives and most liberals.
Liberals want to be loved.
Conservatives want to be respected.
Now, it is not to say that a little of both is a bad thing. Actually it is what I think most people do believe even if is not the reality.
So in the snippet, a member of the assembled audience listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, shouts "We love you, Obama!" to which he shouts back, "I love you back. But let me tell you the fourth thing -- you’ll love me even more. (Laughter.)"
Now I know one thinks that it is innocuous from both.
But not really.
For the liberal it is all about self-worth. And an insatiable need to be loved. And they do not understand when somebody or people do not love and or like somebody.
A few of my Facebook friends were writing about this during the just concluded Democrat National Convention. Feel the love. See the love. Sense the love. And so on.
Who cares? Is it that important to be loved by all?
No, not in the least.
One of the aspects of this self-love fest is in foreign policy.
One of the constant complaints about foreign affairs is that when a Republican is president, the world does not love us.
When a liberal is, the world loves us.
However, that is a total fallacy.
See, what the liberal is talking about are governments that do not like or even love us. Many of these governments have sycophantic people that either back up that position or in real hardcore dictatorships back the government out of fear for their lives.
So, it is true that maybe the last Republican president, George W. Bush, faced protests and visceral personal hate from said protesters and even governments. But what about the average person in these nations? Do they hate us? No, not at all. They love the United States and what it stands for if they had a chance, they would come here in a nano-second.
And yes, in the days even before Barack Obama became president, the world loved him. Of course these are people who would agree with his point of view in the first place. And they are on the left. And they need to emote. And they did.
Maybe Mr. Bush 43 was not loved, but he was respected. Because unlike the leader seeking self-gratification, Mr. Bush did have a set of beliefs that he stuck to. One did not have to like them, but they had to be respected.
That is what people should be looking for first and foremost in any kind of leader.
Respect.
And what I have seen in the past three-plus years is a love-fest in regards to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and little if any respect.
Or let me speak personally here.
If you read this blog and totally disagree with it, fine. I have no problem with that. I hope that you would at the very least respect the point of view I present. And really, one does not have to do that. And again I have no problem with that. I do have only one problem and that is if one chooses to be nasty and hateful. I do not tolerate that. Nor do I respect that. The fact is that I know I am not liked and or loved by everybody. And I just do not seek that.
But many liberal people I know just do not understand that whole concept. To them it is all love and nothing else.
But that is a two-way street.
The one that truly seeks to be loved by all must love all as well.
And then reality smacks them in the face. And they crawl into a corner and sulk. Thus they seek no respect and get none. Nor are they all that loved in the end.
But as far as a president goes, I expect that person to be respected at home and abroad. I don't need to love that person at all. Thus I can write that as time goes on, I have developed a certain respect for the former president, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. And I even kind of sort of like the guy in a weird way.
No, when I hear people say they love any president, and that president shouts back that you'll love me more because of, laundry list here, there is a narcissism about that I find disturbing. And it is a marked difference between a conservative and a liberal.
Love vs. respect. What do you seek?
But a little snippet of our Dear Leader, President Obama, is illustrative of a very fundamental difference between most conservatives and most liberals.
Liberals want to be loved.
Conservatives want to be respected.
Now, it is not to say that a little of both is a bad thing. Actually it is what I think most people do believe even if is not the reality.
So in the snippet, a member of the assembled audience listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, shouts "We love you, Obama!" to which he shouts back, "I love you back. But let me tell you the fourth thing -- you’ll love me even more. (Laughter.)"
Now I know one thinks that it is innocuous from both.
But not really.
For the liberal it is all about self-worth. And an insatiable need to be loved. And they do not understand when somebody or people do not love and or like somebody.
A few of my Facebook friends were writing about this during the just concluded Democrat National Convention. Feel the love. See the love. Sense the love. And so on.
Who cares? Is it that important to be loved by all?
No, not in the least.
One of the aspects of this self-love fest is in foreign policy.
One of the constant complaints about foreign affairs is that when a Republican is president, the world does not love us.
When a liberal is, the world loves us.
However, that is a total fallacy.
See, what the liberal is talking about are governments that do not like or even love us. Many of these governments have sycophantic people that either back up that position or in real hardcore dictatorships back the government out of fear for their lives.
So, it is true that maybe the last Republican president, George W. Bush, faced protests and visceral personal hate from said protesters and even governments. But what about the average person in these nations? Do they hate us? No, not at all. They love the United States and what it stands for if they had a chance, they would come here in a nano-second.
And yes, in the days even before Barack Obama became president, the world loved him. Of course these are people who would agree with his point of view in the first place. And they are on the left. And they need to emote. And they did.
Maybe Mr. Bush 43 was not loved, but he was respected. Because unlike the leader seeking self-gratification, Mr. Bush did have a set of beliefs that he stuck to. One did not have to like them, but they had to be respected.
That is what people should be looking for first and foremost in any kind of leader.
Respect.
And what I have seen in the past three-plus years is a love-fest in regards to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and little if any respect.
Or let me speak personally here.
If you read this blog and totally disagree with it, fine. I have no problem with that. I hope that you would at the very least respect the point of view I present. And really, one does not have to do that. And again I have no problem with that. I do have only one problem and that is if one chooses to be nasty and hateful. I do not tolerate that. Nor do I respect that. The fact is that I know I am not liked and or loved by everybody. And I just do not seek that.
But many liberal people I know just do not understand that whole concept. To them it is all love and nothing else.
But that is a two-way street.
The one that truly seeks to be loved by all must love all as well.
And then reality smacks them in the face. And they crawl into a corner and sulk. Thus they seek no respect and get none. Nor are they all that loved in the end.
But as far as a president goes, I expect that person to be respected at home and abroad. I don't need to love that person at all. Thus I can write that as time goes on, I have developed a certain respect for the former president, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. And I even kind of sort of like the guy in a weird way.
No, when I hear people say they love any president, and that president shouts back that you'll love me more because of, laundry list here, there is a narcissism about that I find disturbing. And it is a marked difference between a conservative and a liberal.
Love vs. respect. What do you seek?
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Chris Matthews, One Obnoxious Dumb S--t
Oh yeah, the dude that has Hardball on OMNBC, er MSNBC, hosts The Chris Matthews Show, the left's version of the McLaughlin Group is one annoying dumb s--t.
Sorry for the blunt assessment. But the man that said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin couldn't hack it on the game show Jeopardy, well he could not hang at all.
Mr. Matthews should thank Almighty God that he was guaranteed $10,000 for his Charity as his pathetic performance netted a paltry $2,300 dollars.
Over at NewsBusters there is the video link and a literal blow-by-blow display of Mr. Matthews, er, how should I write this.
Dumbs--tery.
As a pretty faithful watcher of Jeopardy, let me explain the very basic of the game.
The host, Alex Trebek, gives an answer clue and the contestant must provide the answer in the form of a question.
Well, damn!
Mr. Matthews just did not get it.
Here is an answer clue provided by Mr. Trebek:
"At ____, soldier! Four letters."
And Mr. Matthews shot back:
"At ease, soldier,"
Now, what is wrong with Mr. Matthews answer?
Remember how the answer is to be provided?
In the form of a question.
Mr. Matthews does eventually redeem himself, bless his huge, massive brain:
"What is 'At ease, soldier?'"
Oops! My bad! I am mistaken. It really is not the correct answer because Mr. Matthews added a word. "At" is already in the provided answer. But, Mr. Trebek and the judges took pity on the befuddled Mr. Matthews and let it go.
Now, keep in mind that Mr. Matthews had this to say about Mrs. Palin back in 2008 regarding her vice-presidential debate with then Sen. Joe The Brain Surgeon Biden:
Well Mr. Matthews, you sure did not.
Because it just gets better as Mr. Matthews stumbles along.
Going back to the heady days of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, here is an answer clue Mr. Trebek gave:
"Full name of the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960."
And the question answer from Mr. Matthews:
"Who is Gary Powers?"
OK, that is part of it. And Mr. Trebek tells Mr. Matthews that he needs the full name. And Mr. Matthews continues to insist that Gary Powers is his full name.
Well too bad for Mr. Matthews because the full name is Francis Gary Powers.
Francis Gary Powers.
And it just gets worse from there.
I suggest reading the full link at NewsBusters for more.
But let me give you another bit of Mr. Matthews dissing the intellect of Mrs. Palin:
They find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book — it’s full of that crap....It’s unbelievable how little this woman knows!...Don’t put her on Jeopardy!”
Chris, Chris, Chris.
Your went on Jeopardy and made an absolute fool of yourself.
Mr. Matthews, do you even actually watch the show? Do you realize you have to provide the answer as a question?!
As I wrote earlier, I watch the show. I get a lot of the question answers. Mrs. RVFTLC thinks that I should try out for the show. I think about it every now and then.
And I watched last night's show and realized, well hell yeah! I could do a better job than Mr. Matthews. Cashew, the Little Guy, could do a better job.
But what this does is show something interesting.
How the left loves to question the intelligence of conservatives and when push comes to shove, it is often in the case of a game show competition that they can show that they are not all that bright.
Could Mrs. Palin have done a better job than Mr. Matthews? I don't know but I think that it is way better than 75/25 she would have.
Remember back in the 1980s we were told constantly by the likes of Mr. Matthews and his boss, the former Speaker of the House, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill (D-Mass.) how dumb President Reagan was?
And move ahead to the 2000s and how dumb and stupid President George W. Bush was?
And guess what?
We are told how wonderful and brilliant President Clinton was.
How we just do not deserve the likes of the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Say, where are those high school records of the Dear Leader, President Obama? What about his college records? Have they all just gotten lost?
Knowledge, last I checked, is not based on partisanship and or political ideology. It is about a ability to absorb facts and deliver them. It is a natural curiosity about the world around them. Some have an amazing gift for absorbing and delivering knowledge. Some do not. But, I can assure you that there has not been, until recent years, anything remotely political about one's knowledge and by extension, intellect.
So, when a Leftywhore media maven like Chris Matthews dumps on Sarah Palin and he ends up on the show he think she can't hang on, and looks like a dumb s--t, well should I say he is just not all that smart?
Sorry for the blunt assessment. But the man that said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin couldn't hack it on the game show Jeopardy, well he could not hang at all.
Mr. Matthews should thank Almighty God that he was guaranteed $10,000 for his Charity as his pathetic performance netted a paltry $2,300 dollars.
Over at NewsBusters there is the video link and a literal blow-by-blow display of Mr. Matthews, er, how should I write this.
Dumbs--tery.
As a pretty faithful watcher of Jeopardy, let me explain the very basic of the game.
The host, Alex Trebek, gives an answer clue and the contestant must provide the answer in the form of a question.
Well, damn!
Mr. Matthews just did not get it.
Here is an answer clue provided by Mr. Trebek:
"At ____, soldier! Four letters."
And Mr. Matthews shot back:
"At ease, soldier,"
Now, what is wrong with Mr. Matthews answer?
Remember how the answer is to be provided?
In the form of a question.
Mr. Matthews does eventually redeem himself, bless his huge, massive brain:
"What is 'At ease, soldier?'"
Oops! My bad! I am mistaken. It really is not the correct answer because Mr. Matthews added a word. "At" is already in the provided answer. But, Mr. Trebek and the judges took pity on the befuddled Mr. Matthews and let it go.
Now, keep in mind that Mr. Matthews had this to say about Mrs. Palin back in 2008 regarding her vice-presidential debate with then Sen. Joe The Brain Surgeon Biden:
"Is this [vice presidential debate] about her brain power?... Do you think cute will beat brains?...Do you think she’d do better on the questions on Jeopardy! or the interview they do during a half-time?...My suspicion is that she has the same lack of intellectual curiosity that the President of the United States has right now and that is scary!"
Well Mr. Matthews, you sure did not.
Because it just gets better as Mr. Matthews stumbles along.
Going back to the heady days of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, here is an answer clue Mr. Trebek gave:
"Full name of the U2 pilot shot down over the Soviet Union in 1960."
And the question answer from Mr. Matthews:
"Who is Gary Powers?"
OK, that is part of it. And Mr. Trebek tells Mr. Matthews that he needs the full name. And Mr. Matthews continues to insist that Gary Powers is his full name.
Well too bad for Mr. Matthews because the full name is Francis Gary Powers.
Francis Gary Powers.
And it just gets worse from there.
I suggest reading the full link at NewsBusters for more.
But let me give you another bit of Mr. Matthews dissing the intellect of Mrs. Palin:
They find these empty vessels who know nothing about the world! Nothing about foreign policy! Who immediately begin to spout the neo-con line. I read her book — it’s full of that crap....It’s unbelievable how little this woman knows!...Don’t put her on Jeopardy!”
Chris, Chris, Chris.
Your went on Jeopardy and made an absolute fool of yourself.
Mr. Matthews, do you even actually watch the show? Do you realize you have to provide the answer as a question?!
As I wrote earlier, I watch the show. I get a lot of the question answers. Mrs. RVFTLC thinks that I should try out for the show. I think about it every now and then.
And I watched last night's show and realized, well hell yeah! I could do a better job than Mr. Matthews. Cashew, the Little Guy, could do a better job.
But what this does is show something interesting.
How the left loves to question the intelligence of conservatives and when push comes to shove, it is often in the case of a game show competition that they can show that they are not all that bright.
Could Mrs. Palin have done a better job than Mr. Matthews? I don't know but I think that it is way better than 75/25 she would have.
Remember back in the 1980s we were told constantly by the likes of Mr. Matthews and his boss, the former Speaker of the House, Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill (D-Mass.) how dumb President Reagan was?
And move ahead to the 2000s and how dumb and stupid President George W. Bush was?
And guess what?
We are told how wonderful and brilliant President Clinton was.
How we just do not deserve the likes of the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Say, where are those high school records of the Dear Leader, President Obama? What about his college records? Have they all just gotten lost?
Knowledge, last I checked, is not based on partisanship and or political ideology. It is about a ability to absorb facts and deliver them. It is a natural curiosity about the world around them. Some have an amazing gift for absorbing and delivering knowledge. Some do not. But, I can assure you that there has not been, until recent years, anything remotely political about one's knowledge and by extension, intellect.
So, when a Leftywhore media maven like Chris Matthews dumps on Sarah Palin and he ends up on the show he think she can't hang on, and looks like a dumb s--t, well should I say he is just not all that smart?
Saturday, April 07, 2012
How John Derbyshire Has Set Conservatism Back Decades-Unless We Conservatives Reject This And Now
Until today, John Derbyshire has been a contributor to the conservative fortnightly, National Review.
There is a reason why he is no longer welcomed at National Review.
It is for this horrifying piece he wrote for a webzine called Taki's Mag.
The piece that will be written about here is allegedly in response to what is known in the Black community as "The Talk". But I am certain it is not limited to the Black community. I think the Hispanic, the Asian and yes, Whites, can also have "The talk".
So, what is "The Talk"?
It is how parents speak to their children about how they dress. How they act. What other people will think of them. This is the article that Mr. Derbyshire linked that explains, in part, what "The Talk" is all about.
In and of itself, I think that it is a good thing. A lot about this has risen from the Trayvon Martin killing. And a big part of it was the fact Master Martin was wearing a hoodie. And yes, Master Martin was Black. I addressed that here in regards to the hoodie.
So, one would think that Mr. Derbyshire would address that with his children, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
His piece starts off negative about Blacks and how they refer to themselves. And seemingly yearning for the days when they were referred to as Colored or Negroes.
Friends, it does not get any better from there.
Oh, we should be nice and courteous. Us non-Blacks to Blacks. And Mr. Derbyshire does concede that gee, there are all kinds of Black Americans. But in the same breath explains that he knows of no Black who has been a Fields Medal winner.
Pssst! Until this, I had no idea what a Fields Medal was. I never heard of it. It involves math. And I am lousy in math. Maybe I am part Black?!
Sorry to digress.
The most grievous is the following from the piece. I warn you now that this is from Mr. Derbyshire, not your humble blogger.
(10) Thus while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense.
(10a) Avoid concentrations of Blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily Black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with Blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by a gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of Blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of Blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by Black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a Black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a White.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to Blacks in apparent distress, e. g., on the highway.
I mean, is this for real? Do non-Blacks really feel this way in general?
Now, I don't limit places that I may find myself to bad Black neighborhoods. Bad predominantly Hispanic ones. Bad predominantly Asian ones. And yeah, the bad White neighborhoods.
And since I attend sporting events, I guess I should worry. Oooh! There maybe. . .Black people there! YIKES! Be afraid, very afraid! You know. That is that whole concentration thing.
And, well I guess I should never, ever go to the beach or Disneyland. Maybe skip Magic Mountain. And does Knott's Berry Farm count too?! Never mind I would not go to said parks because I don't really like them. And they can cost a month's salary at the low end. Especially Disneyland. And yeah, I don't think Mr. Derbyshire finds "It's A Small World" a good thing.
As far as where one lives, some of that is not easy. I mean, the United States is being governed by a. . .BLACK POLITICIAN! Where shall I go now, Mr. Derbyshire?! You offer no escape! And BTW, what are you doing here?!
And being acosted by a "strange Black" on the street? Really? Has Mr. Derbyshire ever encountered a homeless person? Shockingly, a lot are not B L A C K. Shhh!
And yeah, I am going to pass by a person in distress just because they are Black. Because you know, they are gonna do something to me fo sure anyways.
OK, I guess there is the Blacks are not very smart meme.
There is a grain of truth to that.
But it nowhere near their fault for crying out loud.
They are the victims of the true Axis of Evil.
That is the following:
Big Government.
Big Labor.
Big Business.
Big government conspires with big labor to keep Black youths in government schools in low-income areas and there almost no chance to get out. And while many Blacks vote Democrat when the Democrats really do not care about them except election time or to full-throat a victim hood story, I think this kind of piece kind of helps make many feel that no one cares.
In one of the parts I highlighted, Mr. Derbyshire did note about scrutinizing Black politicians. I do feel the leftywhore media ignored a lot of baggage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, that they would not have if he was a White politician. But where I part company is on two of the greatest members of the United States House of Representatives. They are Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina and Congressman Allan West of Florida. I wished that I could have good, decent men of their standing and character representing me in congress.
Now, there are some things that are stereotypes and generally spot on about any given group or even individual.
And I am honest enough to say that yeah, sometimes I myself fall into the trap of it. But not to just demean any given person and or group.
See, I think anyone can improve their lot in life. If one lives in the world of victim hood, there is always someone there to enable.
More than anything, that is what has happened to Blacks in America.
Keep these stereotypes out there, and it is a self-destructive cycle that will keep getting worse.
But what the above piece has done is set back conservatives decades.
Because by Monday morning, this will be topic number one all over the blogosphere, MSNBC, the Leftywhore media, you know, the usual suspects.
Well, I am not in this group that would call themselves "conservatives".
I am a Republican because I believe in the rights of and dignity of the individual. The only group that I care to want to see is the American group. I am first and foremost an American. The heritage I have while proud of it, is not what defines me. It is that I was blessed to be born in the greatest nation ever in the history of the world. Thus, I am an American.
I am a conservative because we need to break the Balkanization of this Great Land. When conservatives engage in propagating the continuing Balkanization of the United States, we have to totally and absolutely reject them.
And that is why I support Rich Lowry, editor at National Review for not only rejecting what Mr. Derbyshire wrote, but making him no longer a contributor at National Review or National Review Online.
I know that some will think that this is censorship, but it is not.
Poison like what Mr. Derbyshire wrote is what I expect from the other side. Not from one of our own.
There is noting wrong with open and honest discussion of such issues. But when it looks more like something written by a member of the Ku Klux Klan than one seeking open, honest dialogue, it has to be stopped.
Conservatives have been fighting this stereotype as long as I have been alive, 47 years. In the spirit of that, when one of our own commits this kind of grievous act, demeaning and degrading a whole group of people, we have to speak up. We can not just say it is OK to say, as fact, that Blacks are not so smart. That we should be afraid of them if we are not Black. I will not go on.
Now we must reject any of this "thinking" from the likes of Mr. Derbyshire.
I am one individual, but I reject it and will always speak out against this kind of hate from a "conservative" for it is hate.
There is a reason why he is no longer welcomed at National Review.
It is for this horrifying piece he wrote for a webzine called Taki's Mag.
The piece that will be written about here is allegedly in response to what is known in the Black community as "The Talk". But I am certain it is not limited to the Black community. I think the Hispanic, the Asian and yes, Whites, can also have "The talk".
So, what is "The Talk"?
It is how parents speak to their children about how they dress. How they act. What other people will think of them. This is the article that Mr. Derbyshire linked that explains, in part, what "The Talk" is all about.
In and of itself, I think that it is a good thing. A lot about this has risen from the Trayvon Martin killing. And a big part of it was the fact Master Martin was wearing a hoodie. And yes, Master Martin was Black. I addressed that here in regards to the hoodie.
So, one would think that Mr. Derbyshire would address that with his children, right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
His piece starts off negative about Blacks and how they refer to themselves. And seemingly yearning for the days when they were referred to as Colored or Negroes.
Friends, it does not get any better from there.
Oh, we should be nice and courteous. Us non-Blacks to Blacks. And Mr. Derbyshire does concede that gee, there are all kinds of Black Americans. But in the same breath explains that he knows of no Black who has been a Fields Medal winner.
Pssst! Until this, I had no idea what a Fields Medal was. I never heard of it. It involves math. And I am lousy in math. Maybe I am part Black?!
Sorry to digress.
The most grievous is the following from the piece. I warn you now that this is from Mr. Derbyshire, not your humble blogger.
(10) Thus while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense.
(10a) Avoid concentrations of Blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily Black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with Blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by a gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of Blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of Blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by Black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a Black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a White.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to Blacks in apparent distress, e. g., on the highway.
I mean, is this for real? Do non-Blacks really feel this way in general?
Now, I don't limit places that I may find myself to bad Black neighborhoods. Bad predominantly Hispanic ones. Bad predominantly Asian ones. And yeah, the bad White neighborhoods.
And since I attend sporting events, I guess I should worry. Oooh! There maybe. . .Black people there! YIKES! Be afraid, very afraid! You know. That is that whole concentration thing.
And, well I guess I should never, ever go to the beach or Disneyland. Maybe skip Magic Mountain. And does Knott's Berry Farm count too?! Never mind I would not go to said parks because I don't really like them. And they can cost a month's salary at the low end. Especially Disneyland. And yeah, I don't think Mr. Derbyshire finds "It's A Small World" a good thing.
As far as where one lives, some of that is not easy. I mean, the United States is being governed by a. . .BLACK POLITICIAN! Where shall I go now, Mr. Derbyshire?! You offer no escape! And BTW, what are you doing here?!
And being acosted by a "strange Black" on the street? Really? Has Mr. Derbyshire ever encountered a homeless person? Shockingly, a lot are not B L A C K. Shhh!
And yeah, I am going to pass by a person in distress just because they are Black. Because you know, they are gonna do something to me fo sure anyways.
OK, I guess there is the Blacks are not very smart meme.
There is a grain of truth to that.
But it nowhere near their fault for crying out loud.
They are the victims of the true Axis of Evil.
That is the following:
Big Government.
Big Labor.
Big Business.
Big government conspires with big labor to keep Black youths in government schools in low-income areas and there almost no chance to get out. And while many Blacks vote Democrat when the Democrats really do not care about them except election time or to full-throat a victim hood story, I think this kind of piece kind of helps make many feel that no one cares.
In one of the parts I highlighted, Mr. Derbyshire did note about scrutinizing Black politicians. I do feel the leftywhore media ignored a lot of baggage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, that they would not have if he was a White politician. But where I part company is on two of the greatest members of the United States House of Representatives. They are Congressman Tim Scott of South Carolina and Congressman Allan West of Florida. I wished that I could have good, decent men of their standing and character representing me in congress.
Now, there are some things that are stereotypes and generally spot on about any given group or even individual.
And I am honest enough to say that yeah, sometimes I myself fall into the trap of it. But not to just demean any given person and or group.
See, I think anyone can improve their lot in life. If one lives in the world of victim hood, there is always someone there to enable.
More than anything, that is what has happened to Blacks in America.
Keep these stereotypes out there, and it is a self-destructive cycle that will keep getting worse.
But what the above piece has done is set back conservatives decades.
Because by Monday morning, this will be topic number one all over the blogosphere, MSNBC, the Leftywhore media, you know, the usual suspects.
Well, I am not in this group that would call themselves "conservatives".
I am a Republican because I believe in the rights of and dignity of the individual. The only group that I care to want to see is the American group. I am first and foremost an American. The heritage I have while proud of it, is not what defines me. It is that I was blessed to be born in the greatest nation ever in the history of the world. Thus, I am an American.
I am a conservative because we need to break the Balkanization of this Great Land. When conservatives engage in propagating the continuing Balkanization of the United States, we have to totally and absolutely reject them.
And that is why I support Rich Lowry, editor at National Review for not only rejecting what Mr. Derbyshire wrote, but making him no longer a contributor at National Review or National Review Online.
I know that some will think that this is censorship, but it is not.
Poison like what Mr. Derbyshire wrote is what I expect from the other side. Not from one of our own.
There is noting wrong with open and honest discussion of such issues. But when it looks more like something written by a member of the Ku Klux Klan than one seeking open, honest dialogue, it has to be stopped.
Conservatives have been fighting this stereotype as long as I have been alive, 47 years. In the spirit of that, when one of our own commits this kind of grievous act, demeaning and degrading a whole group of people, we have to speak up. We can not just say it is OK to say, as fact, that Blacks are not so smart. That we should be afraid of them if we are not Black. I will not go on.
Now we must reject any of this "thinking" from the likes of Mr. Derbyshire.
I am one individual, but I reject it and will always speak out against this kind of hate from a "conservative" for it is hate.
Sunday, March 04, 2012
Now California Wants To Harass Roach Coaches
OK, it is not politically or "foodie" correct to call "food trucks" by their traditional name, roach coaches, but in California, once again, trolls for big government want to regulate where food trucks can set up their ware.
Yep, only in Cali can this come about. Although give it time folks. It will come to a town, county or state near you.
The "brainchild" of state Assemblyman William Monning (of course Democrat-Carmel) says he likes him some of the "gourmet" fare that the "food trucks" serve. But it is those darn roach coaches that are the problem according to the good assemblyman.
Here is some wisdom from Assemblyman Monning:
"The reality is the trucks that are coming to the schools are pushing low-cost, sugar-sweetened beverages and high-sodium snacks. The kids aren't paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck."
Really?! The kids are not paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck?
I would like to know where one does pay $17 for risotto from a food truck, roach coach, whatever!
First of all, the elitist snob, Monning, represents tony and posh Carmel-by-the-Sea, hometown of Clint Eastwood, the former mayor. And as the article points out, surprise, there are no licensed food trucks or roach coaches in Assemblyman Monning's hometown.
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! That there is no such animal in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
And when one looks at this website about some of the restaurants in Carmel-by-the-Sea, I do not see a fast-food one on this list. Nor anything inexpensive either.
The problem is simple.
Traditional roach coaches serve the workingman and woman in many cases. Many of those workers would not have anywhere to eat nearby their place of employment. Because many work in factories and or areas that sit down restaurants do not operate.
No, they do not serve gourmet food. That is an invention of the liberal or Stuff White People Like "foodie" crowd. They took the roach coach and turned into snobby fare for foodies. And while I do not deny my inner foodie every now and then, I have enjoyed many, many a meal from a roach coach and I am still alive, and do not blame my slight overweight to roach coaches.
But Assemblyman Monning does. And this is not a new attempt at regulating the traditional roach coach over the nouveau food truck.
So what does this legislation do exactly?
It would make all food trucks, roach coaches have to set up shop a minimum of 1,500 feet away from elementary, middle and high schools.
To show the absurdity of this legislation, a "medical" marijuana dispensary only has to be 600 feet from the aforementioned schools.
So, it is easier to get that joint than to get food from the roach coach, food truck, whatever.
But this has united the SWPL foodies with the roach coach purveyors.
As Matt Geller, chief executive of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, pointed out, gee those kids will still be able to go to McDonalds if they really want to. From Mr. Geller:
"This bill won't do anything to cut children's access to unhealthy food. They won't eat at the food trucks, but they are going to eat at the McDonald's nearby. They are going to eat at the convenience store, the gas station."
Bingo!
Oh, his bad! He may give Assemblyman Monning some more dim ideas.
But Mr. Geller is spot on. Kids will eat what they want and where they can.
And there is a group called California United Family Loncheros Association. They are essentially the group for the roach coach, or taco truck crowd. And their CEO, Erin Green said pretty much the same thing:
Trying to improve student health is "noble," said Erin Glenn, the group's chief executive, but the legislation (AB 1678) is too broad. It doesn't address, for example, the proximity of stores where students can "buy a bag of Hot Cheetos and a bottle of Coke," she said
Once again, bingo!
The best way to change people's eating habits is through education, pure and simple. If people have the information about good eating, I really think that they can make good choices. The problem with the busy-body left is that they think you are stupid and easily taken in by such things as roach coaches and anything else in their "minds".
If schools do their job and, oh boy, e d u c a t e said students and yes, parents, I think that they so-called obesity problem will lessen.
And it will lessen without the busy-body left telling us once again how to conduct legal business with no clue.
Yep, only in Cali can this come about. Although give it time folks. It will come to a town, county or state near you.
The "brainchild" of state Assemblyman William Monning (of course Democrat-Carmel) says he likes him some of the "gourmet" fare that the "food trucks" serve. But it is those darn roach coaches that are the problem according to the good assemblyman.
Here is some wisdom from Assemblyman Monning:
"The reality is the trucks that are coming to the schools are pushing low-cost, sugar-sweetened beverages and high-sodium snacks. The kids aren't paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck."
Really?! The kids are not paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck?
I would like to know where one does pay $17 for risotto from a food truck, roach coach, whatever!
First of all, the elitist snob, Monning, represents tony and posh Carmel-by-the-Sea, hometown of Clint Eastwood, the former mayor. And as the article points out, surprise, there are no licensed food trucks or roach coaches in Assemblyman Monning's hometown.
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! That there is no such animal in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
And when one looks at this website about some of the restaurants in Carmel-by-the-Sea, I do not see a fast-food one on this list. Nor anything inexpensive either.
The problem is simple.
Traditional roach coaches serve the workingman and woman in many cases. Many of those workers would not have anywhere to eat nearby their place of employment. Because many work in factories and or areas that sit down restaurants do not operate.
No, they do not serve gourmet food. That is an invention of the liberal or Stuff White People Like "foodie" crowd. They took the roach coach and turned into snobby fare for foodies. And while I do not deny my inner foodie every now and then, I have enjoyed many, many a meal from a roach coach and I am still alive, and do not blame my slight overweight to roach coaches.
But Assemblyman Monning does. And this is not a new attempt at regulating the traditional roach coach over the nouveau food truck.
So what does this legislation do exactly?
It would make all food trucks, roach coaches have to set up shop a minimum of 1,500 feet away from elementary, middle and high schools.
To show the absurdity of this legislation, a "medical" marijuana dispensary only has to be 600 feet from the aforementioned schools.
So, it is easier to get that joint than to get food from the roach coach, food truck, whatever.
But this has united the SWPL foodies with the roach coach purveyors.
As Matt Geller, chief executive of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, pointed out, gee those kids will still be able to go to McDonalds if they really want to. From Mr. Geller:
"This bill won't do anything to cut children's access to unhealthy food. They won't eat at the food trucks, but they are going to eat at the McDonald's nearby. They are going to eat at the convenience store, the gas station."
Bingo!
Oh, his bad! He may give Assemblyman Monning some more dim ideas.
But Mr. Geller is spot on. Kids will eat what they want and where they can.
And there is a group called California United Family Loncheros Association. They are essentially the group for the roach coach, or taco truck crowd. And their CEO, Erin Green said pretty much the same thing:
Trying to improve student health is "noble," said Erin Glenn, the group's chief executive, but the legislation (AB 1678) is too broad. It doesn't address, for example, the proximity of stores where students can "buy a bag of Hot Cheetos and a bottle of Coke," she said
Once again, bingo!
The best way to change people's eating habits is through education, pure and simple. If people have the information about good eating, I really think that they can make good choices. The problem with the busy-body left is that they think you are stupid and easily taken in by such things as roach coaches and anything else in their "minds".
If schools do their job and, oh boy, e d u c a t e said students and yes, parents, I think that they so-called obesity problem will lessen.
And it will lessen without the busy-body left telling us once again how to conduct legal business with no clue.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Wanna Know Why Conservatives And Liberals Can't Seem To Have A Conversation With Each Other?
For once, the Left Angeles Times had something in today's op-ed section that was useful.
In the print edition, the conservative vs. liberal discussion was titled Cross Purposes.
What it really was about is a conservative writer and a liberal novelist writing about why it is so hard to speak with each other.
It is worth linking the liberal first, Diana Wagman because, as a conservative, I think that reading her point of view is instructive.
One has to go only a few short paragraphs to get the thought that because the people her and her husband were having a good time because they were. . .Democrats.
In paragraph five, we find that one of those people had the nerve to say the following:
"The tea party is not racist."
WHOA! Mrs. Wagman was totally taken aback. She could not believe it. And worse, how can a dude married to a Black woman be a member of the Tea Party?
Now it should be noted that while the conversation deteriorated, it appears that a lot of adult beverage passed the lips of those participating.
And that is never a good thing.
Yet as I continued to read Mrs. Wagman, she went on to write about what she thought was so right and logical that it clearly set up the end result:
My views on all these things — gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, healthcare, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding — seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.
Well, of course Mrs. Wagman is in Fantasyland, IMHO.
But would it be a dealbreaker to me to be friends with someone that we had such political disagreements?
For me, no.
But for Mrs. Wagman, her life is her politics. And she just does not understand why anyone would disagree with her point of view.
And how she ends her piece is to me rather tragic:
Next time I drive to our cabin, I'm going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don't want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it's their weekend to stay home.
Really, Mrs. Wagman? You claim that as a liberal you are the one that is tolerant. That you have the superior ideas. That everyone should agree with that no matter what. Yet when the opportunity is there to engage with someone on the other side, you would rather not.
It is the smugness of the liberal mind.
So, I read with great interest Charlotte Allen and her take as to why it is so difficult to talk to a liberal.
For one, I am totally understanding of Mrs. Allen and her family relations.
She points out that most of her family are liberals.
Same with me.
As I have written here before, I am the only Republican in my family. Living or dead. I am the first and only one that I know of. Talk about being outnumbered!
But bless Mrs. Allen's heart for trying to engage with liberal people. Here how well that works out:
Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I'm greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.
Yep, that sounds just about my experience with my family mostly.
That is why I have tried desperately to follow the Dennis Prager rule. That it is not worth talking about politics and or religion with family members that you know there is disagreement.
But Mrs. Allen points out that for the liberal, there is not that kind of common courtesy.
The personal is always the political, and vice versa. I nearly lost one of my oldest and dearest friends in 2004 after she forwarded me an email containing an incendiary anti-George W. Bush op-ed by the leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow. Among other charges in the op-ed, which made Bush look about as caring as King George III in the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Doctorow claimed Bush didn't care about the "forty percent" of Americans "who cannot afford health insurance." "Do you really believe this?" I emailed back, pointing out that Doctorow had gotten his numbers jumbled. It was not 40% but 40 million Americans — more like 15% — who lacked health insurance for various reasons back then. It took six years for my friend and me to mend our sundered relationship.
Now note the contrast between the angst of Mrs. Allen nearly losing a long-time friend over some political disagreement and Mrs. Wagman totally dismissing a potential new friend because they were not of the same political mindset. Mrs. Allen was in pain because she did not want a political disagreement to ruin a friendship.
That is humanity at the gut, personal level. Something that Mrs. Wagman really did not show other than in a smug, condescending way.
The rest of what Mrs. Allen wrote is funny and so true to my own experience in dealing with many liberals.
But what both sides need to realize is that at a level of personal relationship, we are not all that far apart.
I firmly believe that we both want the best for our children. Our families. Out neighborhoods. Our cities, states and nation. We just disagree about how to get there.
To me it is not worth it, especially in family relationships, to let this politics stuff ruin relationships.
Yet the first thing is talking with each other.
An example of how this can work is a situation at church that really bothered me.
In the prayers of the people recently, we prayed for two men that were duly convicted and executed.
I was thoroughly bothered by that. I felt that two things were wrong with that. One that we forgot about the victims of the crimes that the two men were executed for. And that we are elevating the two convicted killers over those they were convicted of killing and executed for.
In a discussion group, I talked about my concern. And a member of the clergy was present. I would have to say that other than myself, there was two others that saw my point of view and are marginal supporters of the death penalty. I was the only absolute supporter of the death penalty.
We layed everything out there about it. What we thought and why we believed the way we do. The reality is that no minds were changed. But what was done is we listened to each other. We did not diminish any one's thoughts or feeling on this most contentious subject.
The problem is that when people are so convinced they are right that they do not want to hear that maybe, just maybe there is another point of view.
What I got out of the two articles?
That the liberal writer, Diana Wagman, is a caricature of liberalism, pure plain and simple. She wants to be be in her cocoon of a liberal world and not recognize that there is maybe another way of getting to the same place.
That the conservative writer, Charlotte Allen, has the more open mind. That she wants and seeks to have many friends no matter their political point of view. That a political disagreement should not end a friendship. One willing to give the other side that benefit of the doubt.
If we can not agree on how to speak with each other, then how are we able to have the discussion to begin with?
In the print edition, the conservative vs. liberal discussion was titled Cross Purposes.
What it really was about is a conservative writer and a liberal novelist writing about why it is so hard to speak with each other.
It is worth linking the liberal first, Diana Wagman because, as a conservative, I think that reading her point of view is instructive.
One has to go only a few short paragraphs to get the thought that because the people her and her husband were having a good time because they were. . .Democrats.
In paragraph five, we find that one of those people had the nerve to say the following:
"The tea party is not racist."
WHOA! Mrs. Wagman was totally taken aback. She could not believe it. And worse, how can a dude married to a Black woman be a member of the Tea Party?
Now it should be noted that while the conversation deteriorated, it appears that a lot of adult beverage passed the lips of those participating.
And that is never a good thing.
Yet as I continued to read Mrs. Wagman, she went on to write about what she thought was so right and logical that it clearly set up the end result:
My views on all these things — gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, healthcare, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding — seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.
Well, of course Mrs. Wagman is in Fantasyland, IMHO.
But would it be a dealbreaker to me to be friends with someone that we had such political disagreements?
For me, no.
But for Mrs. Wagman, her life is her politics. And she just does not understand why anyone would disagree with her point of view.
And how she ends her piece is to me rather tragic:
Next time I drive to our cabin, I'm going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don't want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it's their weekend to stay home.
Really, Mrs. Wagman? You claim that as a liberal you are the one that is tolerant. That you have the superior ideas. That everyone should agree with that no matter what. Yet when the opportunity is there to engage with someone on the other side, you would rather not.
It is the smugness of the liberal mind.
So, I read with great interest Charlotte Allen and her take as to why it is so difficult to talk to a liberal.
For one, I am totally understanding of Mrs. Allen and her family relations.
She points out that most of her family are liberals.
Same with me.
As I have written here before, I am the only Republican in my family. Living or dead. I am the first and only one that I know of. Talk about being outnumbered!
But bless Mrs. Allen's heart for trying to engage with liberal people. Here how well that works out:
Whenever I advance to them even the mildest of challenges to liberal orthodoxies, on topics ranging from the welfare state to illegal immigration to abortion, I'm greeted with name-calling, obscenities, shout-overs and, finally, the grave-like silence of ostracism.
Yep, that sounds just about my experience with my family mostly.
That is why I have tried desperately to follow the Dennis Prager rule. That it is not worth talking about politics and or religion with family members that you know there is disagreement.
But Mrs. Allen points out that for the liberal, there is not that kind of common courtesy.
The personal is always the political, and vice versa. I nearly lost one of my oldest and dearest friends in 2004 after she forwarded me an email containing an incendiary anti-George W. Bush op-ed by the leftist novelist E.L. Doctorow. Among other charges in the op-ed, which made Bush look about as caring as King George III in the run-up to the Revolutionary War, Doctorow claimed Bush didn't care about the "forty percent" of Americans "who cannot afford health insurance." "Do you really believe this?" I emailed back, pointing out that Doctorow had gotten his numbers jumbled. It was not 40% but 40 million Americans — more like 15% — who lacked health insurance for various reasons back then. It took six years for my friend and me to mend our sundered relationship.
Now note the contrast between the angst of Mrs. Allen nearly losing a long-time friend over some political disagreement and Mrs. Wagman totally dismissing a potential new friend because they were not of the same political mindset. Mrs. Allen was in pain because she did not want a political disagreement to ruin a friendship.
That is humanity at the gut, personal level. Something that Mrs. Wagman really did not show other than in a smug, condescending way.
The rest of what Mrs. Allen wrote is funny and so true to my own experience in dealing with many liberals.
But what both sides need to realize is that at a level of personal relationship, we are not all that far apart.
I firmly believe that we both want the best for our children. Our families. Out neighborhoods. Our cities, states and nation. We just disagree about how to get there.
To me it is not worth it, especially in family relationships, to let this politics stuff ruin relationships.
Yet the first thing is talking with each other.
An example of how this can work is a situation at church that really bothered me.
In the prayers of the people recently, we prayed for two men that were duly convicted and executed.
I was thoroughly bothered by that. I felt that two things were wrong with that. One that we forgot about the victims of the crimes that the two men were executed for. And that we are elevating the two convicted killers over those they were convicted of killing and executed for.
In a discussion group, I talked about my concern. And a member of the clergy was present. I would have to say that other than myself, there was two others that saw my point of view and are marginal supporters of the death penalty. I was the only absolute supporter of the death penalty.
We layed everything out there about it. What we thought and why we believed the way we do. The reality is that no minds were changed. But what was done is we listened to each other. We did not diminish any one's thoughts or feeling on this most contentious subject.
The problem is that when people are so convinced they are right that they do not want to hear that maybe, just maybe there is another point of view.
What I got out of the two articles?
That the liberal writer, Diana Wagman, is a caricature of liberalism, pure plain and simple. She wants to be be in her cocoon of a liberal world and not recognize that there is maybe another way of getting to the same place.
That the conservative writer, Charlotte Allen, has the more open mind. That she wants and seeks to have many friends no matter their political point of view. That a political disagreement should not end a friendship. One willing to give the other side that benefit of the doubt.
If we can not agree on how to speak with each other, then how are we able to have the discussion to begin with?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)