Tag Archives: Democratic

Clinton, Pelosi, Alexi, Obama & Republicans

Description unavailable
Image by dbking via Flickr

Former President Bill Clinton tried hard to get Democrats elected. He was indeed effective, just not so much in how he planned. And he’s no Godfather.

But Clinton’s biggest goof came months before the election. Former Democratic Presidents have made it standard fare to reinvent their presidencies. Jimmy Carter, for example, this year blamed the deceased Teddy Kennedy for blocking his big health-care bill 30 years ago.

Clinton’s reinvention was this: if the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1993-’94 would have passed Hillary’s healthcare bill, the party would not have lost the Senate and House in the Gingrich revolution.

The New York Times tries to tell San Fran Nan she’s not cut out for the job of Minority Leader. That’s gotta be a bitter pill. And they try sooo hard to not offend her *ness in the process. But it really boils down to them realizing they actually want to win, and will give up loads of agenda for the sake of that seductive power.

Meanwhile, President Obama was surprised by the unpopularity of the health care law he didn’t communicate the benefits of to us effectively enough:

Obama said the health care system itself is huge and complicated and that changing it eluded previous presidents because it was so difficult.”I made the decision to go ahead and do it, and it proved as costly politically as we expected — probably actually a little more costly than we expected, politically,” he said.

This encapsulates the reason Obama is no Clinton: Obama is first and foremost an ideologue. Clinton is first and foremost a flirt.

Obama believes in the moral superiority and absolute necessity of his vision of America and it’s government. He cannot change that even to maintain his grasp on power. He is no megalomaniac.

Clinton was able to adjust his ideological moorings post-1994 because his moorings were only to is being loved by everybody and being always before their eyes.

I do not believe an Obama second term is anywhere near a certainty. The 2010 sentiment will still be flowing strong and it will be up to Republicans to keep it strong and to attract more to their cause with a clear exposition of positive reform and real and worthwhile and very necessary change to show they can do more than be the party of No. It’s the Republican’s election to lose.

Alexi Giannoulias, who I had the privilege of confronting face-to-face before he lost his bid for President Obama’s former senate seat to Republican Mark Kirk, apparently gave quite the surprise at this concession speech. I cannot find video of this anywhere and am relying on reports of friends of mine who said that after congratulating Kirk in his win and hearing boos from the crowd at Kirk’s name, Giannoulias came down very strongly against such behavior stating that we ought to respect the office and its occupant.

Mark Kirk, the next day, invited Alexi to a local bar where they drank beers together and discussed politics.

Finally, some in the media think this election is the result of careful and shrewd planning by the Republican establishment. I’m more in the “Republicans only kind of suck” camp, and can report, from inside the belly of the Republican beast, that the establishment of the Republican party is as clueless and wary of the Tea Parties as the Democrat establishment is. It is only by convenience that the ideas of the Republican party more closely align with those of the Tea Party, and 50 years ago it would’ve probably been the other way around.

The PowerPoint slides presented to House Republicans in January 2009 seemed incongruously optimistic at a time when the very word hope belonged to the newly ascendant Democrats and their incoming president, Barack Obama. “If the goal of the majority is to govern, what is the purpose of the minority?” one slide asked.”The purpose of the minority,” came the answer, “is to become the majority.”

The presentation was the product of a strategy session held 11 days before Obama’s inauguration, when top Republican leaders in the House of Representatives began devising an early blueprint for what they would accomplish in Tuesday’s election: their comeback. (Columbus Dispatch)

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels blamed the Tea Party for the fact we didn’t take the Senate as well.

“We didn’t turn up the strongest candidates,” Daniels, who some think might contend for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, said in response to a question about the Senate tally.

That line probably just cost Daniels any chance of a 2012 nomination. He doesn’t get it.

To the extent Tea Party candidates can be blamed for their failures in the elections, they can be blamed for being unpolished. And I don’t consider that quite the problem others may. Yes it’s harder to win when you’re on a shoe-string and have no idea what you’re doing and no who does have an idea to coach you.

Which places the blame exactly where it ought to be: the Republican establishment. Failing to capitalize (literally) races such as the Reid-Angle contest in Nevada will win the Republican leadership no brownie points. The fact that, with as much laughing coming from the purported right as from the left at Sharon Angle, she came within inches of wiping that snide smile from Dingy Harry Reid’s face should be ringing alarm bells all over RNC headquarters.

If the NRCC wasn’t so busy trying to maintain the status quo with statist ideologues and their own ideas of the American dream, we’d probably have control of both houses of Congress going into next year.

The Murkowski/Miller race was another travesty. Obviously, Murkowski is popular, and if she won, she won. But she lost before she won. She lost, and then refused to give in as she ought to have. Give her points for tenacity, but make sure you’re giving her points for lust for power, greed for position, and the helpline number for Megalomaniacs Anonymous.

Further, the establishment of the Republican party has no more to offer most Americans than the Democrat party. More of the same. Blue bloods. Lifers. Idiots who can pass monstrosities and tell us we have to pass it to know what’s in it. People who haven’t earned a real dollar their entire lives.

Sure they’ve got experience. But seeing what experience has got us so far, I’m ready to place my bets on the newbie.

So move aside, NRCC, RNC, and all ye ol’ elephants. There are people here who have good ideas and real experience in the real world (that place that happens outside the beltway that you fly over every so often) who have beat you as surely as they beat all other comers.

It’s our turn.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Election Link Roundup

Don't Tread on Me flag
Image by St. Murse via Flickr

What is at stake this election?

Abortion: The health care bill passed by Democrat majorities in congress and signed by President Obama contains provisions supporting increased federal support and engagement in the wholesale infanticide championed by leftists. For this reason alone our voice should be strong and unwavering in criticism of those who supported such a travesty.

Poor: Democrat leadership have continued to support and expand the reach of programs that enforce a permanent underclass. Welfare provisions that punish stable, two-parent, families. Education bureaucracy that stifles innovation and imprisons untold millions of children in schools that ought to be shut down. Opposition to school choice and voucher systems that would free these children from a future of dependency.

Liberty: The current leadership in Washington are convinced they know best. From the biggest decisions we make to the smallest things we take for granted, Washington is there to tell us what to do, how to do it, and to slap our wrist when they feel like it.

All this must end now. And Tuesday is now.

To the links:

While they’re just college students, they hold rather forcibly to an idea and then find themselves to be going against any and all known and accepted science. So what do they do? Why the science must not be all it’s cracked up to be.

Watch these students try to defend the indefensible. It’s rather sad seeing the hash they make of it.

Oh, and actually they’re not “just” college students. They are actually members of a group run by Planned Parenthood. This is the best they’ve got.

It’s the economy stupid. And the optimum economy is comprised of you and me doing our best to create something we can share and trade for something someone else created. Bill Whittle breaks it down.

Charles Krauthammer says Democrats are losing this election season because they haven’t been able to control the narrative the way they used to. I agree. With the advent of the internet, the importance of traditional media has faded just a little. And that was just enough that contrary voices can now be heard above the din of the talking heads telling us what we ought and ought not believe.

This frustrates the Democrat leadership.

But after trotting out some of these (historical) charges with a noticeable lack of success, President Obama has come up with something new, something less common, something more befitting his stature and intellect. He’s now offering a scientific, indeed neurological, explanation for his current political troubles. The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can’t think straight.

And P.J. O’Rourke asks why Democrats hate themselves. And addresses a common theme I hear ever more frequently.

Perhaps you’re having a tiny last minute qualm about voting Republican. Take heart. And take the House and the Senate. Yes, there are a few flakes of dander in the fair tresses of the GOP’s crowning glory—an isolated isolationist or two, a hint of gold buggery, and Christine O’Donnell announcing that she’s not a witch. (I ask you, has Hillary Clinton ever cleared this up?) Fret not over Republican peccadilloes such as the Tea Party finding the single, solitary person in Nevada who couldn’t poll ten to one against Harry Reid.

Don’t give up or give in to depression or cynicism. Sure the glass is half empty and the people who claim to be bringing the pitcher always seem to be the most abject idiots and inconsistent failures. But there is always hope. So long as we can still vote.

Remember though, it can take 2 of our votes to counter one of theirs. Fraud and deceit are more and more the name of the game. With lawless organizations like the New Black Panthers and SEIU and public-sector unions and ACORN operating with relative impunity we must, each and every one of us, stand and be counted.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Could A Christian Vote Democrat, Part 2

Strong Woman

Part 1 is here.

In responses to the previous article, comments were made that while Democrats are obviously not a good choice for support by Christians, the Republicans fare little better. Two friends in particular spoke to the fact they could not in good conscience support the Republicans any more than they could Democrats.

Professor Keith Drury, whose article I am commenting on here, finds much the same in a couple different issues in particular.

My own feelings on this are that I tend to stand with the Republicans because of what they say, to a large extent, and to a lesser extent because of what they do. And just as the rank and file Democrats may hold many of the same ideas as the Democrat leadership but for radically different (and possibly better) reasons or even may hold radically different opinions, evidenced by the fact that many Democrat successes in more mainstream areas of our country have been achieved by running to the right of the local Republican challenger, the rank and file Republicans tend to not agree with the master plan of the leadership of the party.

Regardless, ideologically conservative people who primarily inhabit the Republican party have been on the right side of the vast majority of issues for nearly 4 decades now, and with the principles written in the official platform of the Republican party of limited government, constitutionally defined freedoms, protections for all (including the unborn), and other points, I find it is necessary to support this side of the political spectrum.

Even better is the fact that the Tea Party movement has created a massive wave of pressure against the entrenched and now befuddled Republican leadership who have no more idea where this came from nor any more love for it’s outcome than the Democrats, because it is their party this groundswell is mostly affecting. Gone are the fat-cat lards of largesse, the caricatures of statesmen that have taken the name Republican and have been no better than common fleas (but that would unfair to fleas) once elected. Now it is the young and vibrant, the fresh and energized and ideological and impassioned people standing up and running for office and surmounting the odds.

Can you tell I’m excited?

Yes, the Democrats will likely experience extensive losses during the elections next month. But the winners will not be the old guard Republicans, they’re no more loved than the Dems.

Digressions aside, though, let’s resume the commentary.

Healthcare

Professor Drury’s next topic on which he finds himself more closely aligned with Democrats is healthcare.

His main argument? Doctors should not be getting rich healing the poor. Fair enough.

But what is the logic supporting a structure of punishment for those who do? And can we penalize all doctors for the greed of some?

No. A principle of basic human justice is that justice is never served if, while punishing the guilty, the innocent are willfully harmed.

Keith uses the evidence of Christ healing the sick constantly during his earthly life to show the value God places on caring for the health needs of people. This is all very well and good, but we are called to be wise, to be stewards. In human economic terms, this means efficient allocation of resources.

In fact, it is the money involved in the profession that attracts so many incredibly talented people into this field. And for every person who is in it for the money, there are likely others who are not. Look at all the free and cheap clinics that are sprouting up all over the place. Walgreens, then CVS, Walmart, and now even Target super stores have clinics where you can get standard preventative medicine for pennies on the dollar. And at the upper end of the health care system, all that money funds amazing research providing cures we’d have trouble distinguishing from dark magic even 10 years ago.

The health care issue is fraught with peril, incredibly complex, and nothing I can solve here in this column. Suffice it to say, the federal government taking over health care will no more solve the issue than federal government taking over primary education has created a system embodying quality and equality.

Feminism

Professor Drury does not spend much time on this, except to note that while Republicans have talked the talk, they’ve not walked the walk.

The problem here is once again that it is not justice to harm the innocent.

Just as I cannot and should not under and law or logic known to God or man be held responsible for crimes committed by my Grandfather, so no man should or can be held responsible for a system they have not created or unjustly taken advantage of.

And yet, the prescription for the cure to the female condition is the unnatural hampering of males.

Would not a better solution be the removal of any and all barriers to equalize potential rather than outcome?

In so many social justice issues, the measure is always the outcome. Is the number of women making widgets equal to the number of men making widgets? Do they get paid the same? The problem is that there is no reasonable logical support for a system that guarantees equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee equality of outcome is to limit the potential of everybody until some unnecessary and destruct least common denominator is achieved. This is what the USSR tried and achieved. That is the socialist ideal. It’s the best you get when you look for real equality.

This is one reason why the American experiment has been such a rousing success. America, in it’s social and governmental systems never attempted to guarantee equality of outcome. Our founders recognized the moral folly of such an goal. Instead, there is equality of opportunity. All people are equal under the law. What one does with that inherent equality is their own. They can truly blame none but themselves if they fail to achieve all they could.

Continue with part 3.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Could A Christian Vote Democrat

christian communism
Christian Democrat

Professor Keith Drury, of Indiana Wesleyan University, penned an article in 2008 explaining his reasons for voting primarily for the Democrat ticket. He has several specific points which he believes show that a traditional Christian belief system will tend to support the Democrat ideology more so than the Republican.

I disagree. (Well, that’s the news today, folks!)

The Caveats

Keith begins with the points where he agrees more with the Right:

Free trade

I believe in free trade because I do not worry about what is “best for America” but what is best for all of the world’s people—that is the Christian view I think.  On this issue I often fall in with the Republicans, and disagree with the protectionist inclinations of many Democrats.

Fiscal conservatism

I see this stance based on a doctrine of stewardship…  I believe it is unwise to go into debt to live high now then make future generations pay the bill—whether to pay for welfare, for a war in Iraq, or for a tax cut giveaway to the wealthy (or even middle class). Generations ought to pay our own bills—I think that’s biblical, or at least good Christian sense.

Opposition to special rights for homosexuals

I believe it is wrong to deprive gay Americans (or Americans who commit adultery, get divorced or otherwise sin) of their civil rights—such a fair access to housing or jobs. But I reserve the right of religious organizations and churches to hire whomever they want to based on whatever lifestyle issues they consistently practice.

Opposition to abortion

If I was a one-issue voter and abortion was the only issue I’d vote Republican.  But I have other issues to consider, and I honestly don’t think the Republicans actually deliver much on this issue…what they deliver most is rhetoric.

The Argument

Then Keith gets into the meat of his argument, the points where he believes the Democrat party more closely aligns with his understanding of Christianity and the instructions of the Scriptures.

First up is the environment.

…if we truly believe God created the snail darter and spotted owl how could we be so casual about the death of something God purposely put on earth?  Can I so lightly destroy the Creator’s creation?  And this does not even get into the pro-life aspect of the environment—pollution kills people…slowly but they are just as dead as a fetus when it does its work. I am a radical environmentalist because I believe God is creator of everything we have and we should to care for it like a gift. On this issue I have much affinity with the Democrats—my only complaint is they don’t go far enough.

There problems here are several. First it is private ownership of property that best protects and preserves the environment.  This is an immutable fact, that people care for and practice stewardship of that which has value to them, personally. It is not selfishness or slavish allegiance to the almighty corporation to speak the facts. In societies where people have not owned property, there has always been excessive waste, extreme pollution, and all the attending problems. In societies where people own property and have sovereign right over that land you find sustainable forestry, attempts to prevent natural disasters such as wildfires, gardens and preserves and protected wilderness.

Second, the leadership of the Democrat party is no more environmentally minded than your opinion of the leadership of the Republican party. It is a historical fact that those leading the environmentalist movement are socialists who have found a group they can champion who cannot protest. The goal of modern environmentalism is the enforced government control of the means of production and the enslavement of any and all people under the heel of communist master minds in the hope of creating a worker’s paradise. The Nazis were incredibly environmentally conscious in their propaganda, turning being green into a religious paradigm. The goal is the enslavement of people, rationalized, this time, by the plight of the spotted owl.

Next, the poor.

Caring for the poor is not an option for anyone who takes a serious reading of the Bible—it is a demand and even a test of whether I am really a Christian… I still don’t want the church to do it all. Why?  I think rich non-Christians ought to pay their fair share too.  When I pay my taxes I pay them like I pay my tithe—some of that money fulfills Christ’s command to care for the poor.   Democrats help me fulfill this command of Christ far better than most Republicans do…

The problem here is one of responsibility and internal consistency. First, all God’s commands regarding are to the Church and to Christians. He does speak to the political nation of Israel regarding treatment of the poor, but this is during the time of their Theocracy, when they were directly ruled by God, and something Keith says earlier in his argument may help clarify this distinction. “In my tradition (the holiness movement) we don’t expect unsaved people to live holy lives,” Keith says. This is perfectly acceptable. The world is not to be expected to think or act like Christians are commanded to act. It would be the height of folly on our part to expect the unrepentant and the unredeemed to act as thought repentant and redeemed.

Second, Keith, you can’t have it both ways. Either it is the church’s responsibility or it is not. Or it is individual responsibility or it is not. I don’t pretend that non-Christians cannot be generous and well-intentioned. Many of them are, and in ways that would put many Christians to shame. But the commands of the Bible are directly applicable to individual Christians and the Church. Any shirking or enforced sharing of that responsibility is wrong.

Third, doesn’t Keith sound a little selfish there? “I think rich non-Christians ought to pay their fair share too.” Are rich non-Christians directly and personally responsible for the poor among us? And if God did not exempt the Christian poor from the command to give, and in fact clearly and explicitly praises and encourages the giving from want more than the giving from ‘got’, why should we exempt the non-Christian poor from such a responsibility? After all, the poor in America are only relatively so, and are in fact wildly wealthy relative to their counterparts the world over.

Finally, a distinct difference between a politically-Right view of alms and a politically-Left view of alms is the source of the responsibility. I am responsible for doing what I can to alleviate the condition of those God has called me to serve. To the best of my ability and with appropriate and applicable due diligence to ensure wise use of those resources I have. This gives me two sub-responsibilities, that I produce resources I can share of, and that I do so wisely, with the stewardship Keith praises in his fiscal conservatism. A politically-Left person, such as Keith, sees alsm as a responsibility of the Government. God will not judge governments before His eternal throne. He judges people, their hearts, intentions, and actions. You, Keith, are responsible before God for how you gather and spend your resources for the benefit of your fellow man. You are not responsible for how you spend your neighbor’s resources to help his fellow man.

Read part 2.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democrats Are Anti-Free Speech

Karl Marx
Cover of Karl Marx

Let us begin with the caveat that many average Democrats are very pro-free speech and would give their lives as readily as any conservative I know to defend that right for all other Americans.

That being said, the average Democrat party leader, official, and elected representative do not support freedom of speech, though they will go to their grave claiming they do.

The leadership of the Democrat party is enthralled with the philosophy and ideology of Karl Marx. They adhere to the marxist ideal that government should be used as a catalyst to bring about the proletariat’s (poor, have nots) overthrow of the bourgeois (rich, haves). They believe that the evolutionary destiny of mankind is to reach a worker’s paradise, heaven on earth.

The idea that man can achieve perfection on earth is blatantly anti-Christian. Man is sinful and will not achieve heaven on his own. Further, looking to politics or government or even the poor of the earth for some sort of human redemption is faulty, is folly, and is sin to those who call on the name of Christ. Political messianism is never a safe, happy, or productive path. It will never reach it’s goal.

Further, because the goal of marxism is a man-made heaven, and the path is socio-political evolution, there is no moral compass to guide or constrain the actions of those who have tasked themselves with bringing about this momentous and wrong-headed change.

There is no rule that cannot be broken, nor should not if the need is there. There is no truth that cannot be lied about, there is no fact that cannot be contravened.

And there is no freedom or liberty of bedrock foundation of our system of government and society that cannot be broken down for the sake of the inexorable march of human evolution towards the marxist nirvana.

So there is a vision of human heaven, a path of agreed-upon human evolution, a messianic government. And people who don’t agree.

The result is this: Democrat leaders in Congress using the power of the IRS and the Department of Justice to investigate people and organizations who oppose them.

If at first you don’t succeed, get some friends in high places to shut your opponents up. That’s the latest Washington power play, as Democrats and liberals attack the Chamber of Commerce and independent spending groups in an attempt to stop businesses from participating in politics.

Since the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Democrats in Congress have been trying to pass legislation to repeal the First Amendment for business, though not for unions. Having failed on that score, they’re now turning to legal and political threats. Funny how all of this outrage never surfaced when the likes of Peter Lewis of Progressive insurance and George Soros helped to make Democrats financially dominant in 2006 and 2008.

Chairman Max Baucus of the powerful Senate Finance Committee got the threats going last month when he asked Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman to investigate if certain tax exempt 501(c) groups had violated the law by engaging in too much political campaign activity. Lest there be any confusion about his targets, the Montana Democrat flagged articles focused on GOP-leaning groups, including Americans for Job Security and American Crossroads. (Wall Street Journal: Shutting Up Politics)

Freedom of speech for me but not for thee.

When President Obama complained recently that foreign money was playing too big a role in American politics, he neglected to note his own election largesse was significantly funded by unaccounted for donations with evidence that significant portions were from foreign sources.

Dirty politics for me but not for thee.

When an “end justifies the means” attitude meets political messianism, the only thing that result is hurt and wrong. This is not the path to redemption as marxists seek. The only thing found at the end of this path is more human suffering.

UPDATE: NYTimes and AP say foreign money canard is just that, a canard.

“These ads are not a threat to democracy,” (former national Republican party Chairman Ed) Gillespie said of the chamber’s efforts. “They may be a threat to their power, but their power and democracy are not the same thing, and it’s very revealing that they see it that way.” (AP: Dems: Business group using foreign cash to aid GOP)

Enhanced by Zemanta