Thursday, April 30, 2009
First, off the idea that the Republican Party has taken too steep a turn to the right is ridiculous. The public dissatisfaction with Republicans is because they abandoned the conservatism that got them elected in the first place. The Republican party did shift to the right, but it was back when Ronald Reagan won the parties nomination to run for President and then it drifted back to the left and then self-corrected again when Newt Gingrich led the Republican Revolution in 1994. In other words, the Republican party has been the most successful and found its greatest public support, when they were the most conservative.
Since 1994 the party has gone so far to the left that it allowed a massive increase in the Department of education by letting Ted "the Liberal Lion" Kennedy write the No Child Left Behind Act, and President Bush spirit Ralph Nader and Joe Biden, claiming "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system." Compare that to Ronald Reagan who wanted to completely eliminate the Department of Education and thought Government was the problem rather than the solution to economic problems. Such a comparison makes it clear that the Republican Party has only drifted in one direction and that is far to the left.
Second, the idea that Specter is somehow choosing principle over party is ridiculous. He is choosing his personal career over principle. Just a week or two ago he said that he would never switch parties because allowing the Dems to get a supermajority would devestate our country. Yeah that principle only lasted until polls showed he was going to lose in the Republican primary.
Lastly, the idea that the Democrat party is committed to principle is laughable. If Dems are so principled than why were they going to run a Dem candidate against Specter in the general election before he switched parties? If he is such a great asset to the Senate why have they been trying to defeat him in elections for years. Either he caved on his principles, they are caving on their principles, or it has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with party. One must look no further than the disparate treatment Dems have shown to Specter and Sen. Olympia Snowe this week. Both Snowe and Specter are about as liberal as it gets in the Republican party. Yet Dems have spent the weak dishonestly smearing Snowe, while simultaneous praising Specter. The only difference between the two is that Specter just switched parties.
The bottom line is that I am thrilled he switched parties. Why? because I don't care about the Republican party at all. I care about conservatism. Specter was no conservative then and he won't be now, so his party affiliation will not change a thing. The only difference will be that the media will have a tougher time portraying his votes and opinions as representative of conservatives. The Republicans in Congress that are sad to see Specter go need to wake up before they find themselves gone as well. The reason Republicans are struggling is because partisan hacks like them have been more concerned with keeping Republicans in office than keeping principled Conservatives in office.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Two things are certain in my mind.
- This helps the GOP far more in the long run than it hurts it in the short term.
- Personally, I am excited, because I promised Sen. Specter that if he voted for the stimulus bill I would make my first ever political contribution for his opponent in the upcoming primary. Now I can spend my money on the general election instead!
Compare this situation to the way Sen. Lieberman handled his primary. Rather than switch parties for political convenience, he ran as an independent after losing in the primary. Seems far more principled to me.
Update: In celebration, I just made my first contribution to Pat Toomey's election campaign. It is important for conservatives to support Toomey because it is unclear that the Republican leadership will give him the support needed to defeat Specter. Please contribute to his campaign here.
Monday, April 20, 2009
What is certain is the public derision and condemnation that the brave beauty contestant will face. Perhaps she will at least be supported by the Miss California USA organization? Alas, not a chance.
Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.Apparently, the Miss California USA organization believes that only supporters of gay marriage have a right to their beliefs, and that it is fair to insert political and moral questions into a competition and then castigate the contests for their personal political, moral, and religious beliefs. What disturbs me most is that supporters of gay marriage are so hostile to opposing viewpoints, and so aggressive about trying to demonize and ostracize their opponents. Miss California USA should be aware that Carrie Prejean's traditional beliefs, rather than being out of the main stream, represent the view shared by a majority of Californian's who have twice now voted in favor of traditional marriage. Not to mention, at least 42 states plus the District of Columbia define marriage as between a man and a woman according to Wikipedia, either by statute or constitutional amendment. Oh yeah . . . even Obama says he opposes gay marriage, I guess he can kiss his hopes of winning Miss USA goodbye.
"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."
Really there isn't too much that needs to be said about this. Obama announced today that he is asking the Cabinet to cut $100 million from the budget. $100 million? Are you kidding me. This is a slap in the face of the American people. This is an intentional mockery of the Tea Parties. This is Obama telling the participants of the Tea Parties that he believes they are so stupid, gullible, and naive that he can get away with cutting $100 million, off of trillions of dollars in deficits he is running up, and preposterously claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Although, can you really blame him for trying? He knows the media will toe the line for him, and it worked in the election didn't it? Let's hope America isn't as stupid as Obama thinks we are, I pray we have learned from our mistake.
Diagram courtesy of The Heritage Foundation
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Its funny how little the media is saying about yet another embarrassment by the Obama Administration. Unable to understand the power and influence that he possesses as the leader of the free world, Obama has followed through on his campaign promises to buddy up to our nation's enemies. He has made overtures to Iran, Cuba, and now Venezuela. Obama's giant grin, and warm embrace upon meeting Hugo Chavez said it all. The leftist bond shared between the two leaders goes far beyond diplomatic niceties. The exchange was better than Chavez ever dreamed of. In fact, he was so thrilled by the encounter he appeared almost giddy. Obama even posed for a photo-op with Chavez, as the Venezuelan dictator gave him an anti-American book about American exploitation of South America.
The repercussions from the foreign policy disaster will be phenomenal. The anti-American book has already skyrocketed up the Amazon best seller rankings. But more importantly, as William A. Jacobson points out in his blog Legal Insurrection, Obama Threw Venezuelans Under the Bus. Obama lent a burgeoning dictator a great foreign relations victory to help prop up his credibility around the world. This coming after one of our strongest South American allies, Columbia, captured definitive evidence of Chavez's considerable support of the bloody, Marxist, narco, terrorist organization FARC.
Obama's foolishness could have serious repercussions throughout South America, as it undermines those still trying to oppose what is becoming a Chavez funded continental Marxist revolution. The spread of authoritarian socialism poses a serious threat to capitalist democracies in countries like Columbia that have tried to remain loyal to the U.S. With Democrats refusal to pass the free trade agreement with Columbia, it is uncertain how much longer the country can withstand the regional forces pressuring it from all sides.
Obama should have seized the conference as an opportunity to undermine Chavez, while he is facing trouble at home because of the steep drop in oil prices. A true leader would have used the conference as an opportunity to express commitment to the free trade with Columbia and other allies in the region, but alas we should all know by now not to expect so much. Given Obama's recently demonstrated disrespect towards Israel, France, and Great Britain, it is clear that he has little interest in our closest Allies. Just look at his insulting treatment of Gordon Brown and the English, his refusal to visit Normandy with Sarkosy, his snub of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his heavy-handed and one-sided demands of Israel in the "peace process." (I put quotations because, I see little peace and a lot of process, much of which has done more harm than good.)
If anything is clear about Obama's time in office so far it is this: his past associations with terrorists such as Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn, leftist radicals such as Father Pfleger and Saul Alinsky, racists like Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan, and the corrupt and criminal Rod Blagojevich and Antoin "Tony" Rezko, were not flukes or youthful indiscretions. What is the connection between all these character from his past and Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad , and the King of Saudi Arabia? They are all either corrupt, leftist, powerful, or hate America. Is this the group of people we want our President snubbing our allies to hang out with? Not only is a man known by the company he keeps but by the company he chooses not to keep.
Friday, April 17, 2009
I have no problem with moderate or liberal political views in theory. However, it seems much of the Republican establishment has erroneously come to the conclusion that the best way to beat Democrats is to run as Democrats lite. Many are not principled moderates they merely believe it is a advantageous political posture. A former McCain strategist, Steve Schmidt, recently had the delusional self-confidence to offer his advice on how the GOP should right its course. his suggestion? Abandon religion.
Essentially Schmidt is advocating continuing the McCain strategy of disillusioning and disrespecting the core of the party base. I can only imagine he is advocating the strategy because it worked so well for McCain. Oh no wait, McCain lost and did so in a disconcerting fashion, losing states he had no business losing. McCain has even admitted that he would have done much worse without Palin on the ticket. No doubt Palin's conservative Christian cred helped shore up much of McCain's eroding support from the Christian community.
For starters, I am coniunously baffled by McCain advisors and strategists who somehow think that their disasterous campaign gives them the credibility to offer suggests on fixing a party that they are largely responsible for destroying. Secondly, I am dumbfounded that they don't even have the minimal wisdom needed to see the error of their ways and admit that that ostracizing the conservative base of their party was a bad decision. What arrogance and foolishness.
To address the substance of Schmidt's argument, it has numerous flaws. For starters, the argument is completeley devoid of principle. He argues that the GOP should abandon religion and social conservatism not because he believes it it the right thing to do but because he thinks it is politically advantageous. That alone is enough for me to tkae his advice very cynically. However, his political arguments are weak enough to leave no surpise why the campaign he assisted faired as poorly as it did. For starters he argues that young people are much more socially liberal than older generations so we need to become socially liberal to appeal to them. Perhaps when your decision making is devoid of morals, that somehow seems smart, but to the average conservative that sounds like classic Washington blindness.
Politicians should be more than mere representatives of there electorates. If that is all we required then why have a republican form of Government? Representation is not merely more efficient, it is more effective than mob rule. This is because the ordeal Politician in a Republic is not merely a conduit for his electorate but a leader. Leadership involves convincing people to follow you because what you are doing is right. Leaders do not follow the crowd because it will make them popular. That is why Bill Clinton was a poor leader, he couldnt decide where to go on vacation without taking a public opinion poll. He had few true principles merely ambition.
If social conservatism is wrong, then by all means the GOP should abandon it. However, if it is right, then the GOP should educate the American public about why it matters. Why is it better to raise a child in a home with a Mom and a Dad? Why is it dangerous and immoral to undermine the value of life through euthanasia and abortion? The GOP should be answering these questions eloquently and unequivocally rather than shying away from them. Governor Huckabee is great example of the right way to stand up for what is right. And I have personally watched him win over a room full of radical angry liberals while doing so.
The idea that the people should abdicate there morals because of political expediency is hard enough to swallow. But when Schmidt basis his logic on faulty assessments of the country it is even worse. The push for gay rights, abortion rights, and other social issues in this country has been anything but a public movement. It has been driven by radical activists and judges and has created widespread anger and frustration and the general electorate, something that Republicans would be smart to capitalize on if anything. States across the country have popularly voted defense of marriage acts including democratic states such as California which has had to do so twice now.
Schmidt and his ilk are a perfect example of the disconnect between Washington and the American people that has so infuriated the average Americans and given rise to activism such as the Tea Parties. He carelessly assumes that Republicans are more interested in the health of the party than in principle. What a delusional belief. The last several elections have proven if nothing else, that Republicans have little party loyalty and are mostly concerned with issues. Until the Republican party rids itself of cancerous influences such as Schmidt it will not rebuild itself. Also, make no mistake about it, even though Schmidt is advocating economic conservatism at the expense of social conservatism, the reverse point of view has been just if not more detrimental. The economic moderates who are staunch social conservatives, such as President Bush, have done just as much if not more damage to the GOP. In order to rebuild the GOP must not compromise its values, it needs to embrace them, because America is still a conservative country, it just hasn't had anyone conservative to vote for in a long time.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The answer is that liberals have always seen the judiciary as a political branch. It started from nearly the beginning with John Adams creating ten new federal courts after losing to Jefferson in the Presidential Election. In order to insulate his political agenda, Adams then quickly tried to fill the new positions before leaving office, stocking the judiciary with Federalist political allies. The new appointments infamously became known as the "Midnight Judges." Granted, John Adams was hardly liberal compared to the socialists that currently constitute the left wing of American politics, but Adam believed in a bigger federal government than his opponent Jefferson, and is therefore the "liberal" of that era.
Another egregious example is Franklin Roosevelt's court packing plan. The first real shift towards liberalization of of the judiciary in this country came upon the threats of Roosevelt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices in order to get through his New Deal economic agenda.
Lastly, up until Reagan, the Supreme Court nominees were generally quickly approved, and were rarely contested at all. The first real nasty public political opposition to a nomination was Robert Bork, an incredibly prominent and accomplished Federal Judge. According to Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Bork was the best qualified nominee in his own professional lifetime--a span of years that included the appointments of such judicial luminaries as Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. The confirmation hearings included despicable personal attacks, blatant distortions and even out right lies in order to smear the nominee at all costs.
The trend only has intensified since then with outrageous treatment of Clarence Thomas, and many if not most of Bushes conservative appointments. So when Obama's nominees face obstructionist tactics in the senate, the Democrats better not complain, because they are the ones who have continuously denigrated the process to its current deplorable condition. And now, Majority Leader Harry Reid can't say anything about it, because now he has admitted the Supreme Court is all about politics for the Dems.