Tag Archives: Republican Party (United States)

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

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 Want To Continue Failing Our Children

President Obama has failed these children

President Obama, the man figuratively chosen to lead the Democrat party, and literally chosen to lead the United States of America, wants to maintain the status quo of education in this country and, if anything, bolster the same system that is currently failing out children in record numbers in inner cities and poor neighborhoods across this country.

In a system which currently fails black children, hispanic children and other minorities not by giving them failing grades but by failing to actually educate them in a meaningful way, the President says we must not “shortchange” the children by addressing the real causes of failure in our schools.

Responding to the GOP proposals for cutting the budget and reigning in the rampant and run-away spending that is currently costing our great grandchildren their fiscal futures, President Obama shows a shocking lack of willingness to deal with reality, either economically or educationally:

“Even as we focus on speeding up our economic recovery, we also know that when it comes to jobs, opportunity, and prosperity in the 21st century, nothing is more important than the quality of your education,” the president said in his weekly address on the radio and the Internet.

If Republicans controlled Congress, the U.S. would have a harder time offering children the best education because “they’d have us cut education by 20 percent,” Obama said.

The president said “tough” choices need to be made to reduce the federal budget deficit, “but what I’m not prepared to do is shortchange our children’s education.” (Bloomberg and The Associated Press)

When education bureaucrats get 6-figure salaries while teachers have a hard time getting the supplies they need there is a real problem. And have you seen the list of stuff parents have to buy for their children before and during the school year? (This from a New York charter school or this from an Austin, TX public school.)

When the Los Angeles school district broke through the morass of union and bureaucratic opposition and attempted to stop the evil practice of “social promotion” they found one thing they couldn’t get around: over half of the children would have to be held back due to poor grades. The administrators were not willing to make this necessary and truly meaningful policy change, and so the Los Angeles school district continued failing our children.

Democrats have failed these boys too

School districts, the US education system, and teachers and their unions have been primarily and overwhelmingly Democrat for the last 40 years. The blame for these and many other failures have been the Democrats being beholden to special interests besides the parents and our children, and being enslaved to an ideology of social revolution based on an assumption of the inherent goodness of mankind and the inherent badness of any social system more advanced than a tribe.

It is time to break and hold of Democrats on the education system of the United States. It is time to force the bureaucracy to starve itself and go away and allow the proven successful reforms of local education control, merit pay and easy firing of failing teachers, school choice and competition between public and private schools.

Inner city school children are being overwhelmingly condemned to a life of poverty because they are being failed by an education system whose policies and people have been shaped and controlled by liberals and Democrats.

Enough is enough. You cannot have hope for the future if your future has been sold for political power.

Enhanced by Zemanta