Posts Tagged ‘bush’
Political Strategy Lessons for Conservatives
Written by Cal August
Wednesday, 04 February 2009 04:59
1 Comment

Having listened to various conservative-minded commentators, various opinions are coming out on how Obama’s instincts in the choices he makes should be perceived.  Listening to Rush Limbaugh, it’s obvious that he doesn’t trust Obama’s instincts.  Limbaugh would argue that he’s studied the man, he knows leftists, and he believes that Obama is a leftist through and through.

The leftist instinct is to do just about everything you want to do, regardless of public opinion or opposition. That instinct is also to go after one’s opponents relentlessly.  I think that could be said of how the Clintons operated politically.  George W. Bush’s instincts seemed to be just the opposite, reaching out in every possible way, and of course, getting burned by his opponents and the media. Now, he is being lambasted in the short-term by conservatives too, as they look back on his presidency!

It is clear that the present economic situation is tied strongly to past Democrat policies and blunders, but they will hang this like an anvil around the neck of Bush’s presidency.  In fact, as Obama presses for a new “bailout” package, the Democrats will do what they can to push this as an add-on to the bailout of Bush’s tenure. This will happen, especially if it fails, which regarding the evidence of the first “bailout” package, it likely will.

Another conservative, Bill Bennett had a different opinion regarding Obama’s instincts.  He believes that Obama has conservative-minded tendencies. I think Bennett’s point would be, in order for Obama to continue to succeed he will have to do a number of “conservative” things, that is if he wants to be a “two-termer.” Bennett has suggested that Obama does actually have some conservative instincts, otherwise he wouldn’t have made it this far politically.

My thought is, until we see what he does, I have my doubts.  More likely, because the conservative vote is needed to win, liberals in the media and in politics will spin liberal policies as “conservative” and talk about a more bi-partisan effort in congress. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will talk about how their efforts are far more bi-partisan than past Republican congresses, when in fact, they will most certainly be more democratically partisan.

Conservatives who want to win will have to be genuinely conservative in their approach to all policies, while taking on a more liberal-mindset in just one area: they’ll have to do like liberals do, and go out and crush their opponents, defeating them and their ideas decisively. They must not worry so much about working with the Democrats, but providing a strong alternative to foolish Democrat policies. They must relentlessly go after liberalism, and forget bipartisanship.

Conservatives must also remember that the mainstream media is essentially in the left-hand pocket of Democrat politicians. They should not trust the media to get their message out, or to portray them in a positive light. They must therefore spotlight media foolishness and hypocrisy when possible, and when asked to do interviews, decline when they believe they won’t get a fair shake. Instead, conservatives should go to a variety of alternative media sources where they will get a fairer shot at sharing their message.

–Cal Samuel August, copyright 2009.  All rights reserved.

 
Has the Woolen Wig Slipped Over the Eyes of the Masses?
Written by Hank Rothrock
Tuesday, 04 November 2008 04:24
No Comments

When it comes to politics, Americans seem to have an inability to see through the wool of politicians.

When George W. Bush stands in front of a gigantic American flag or when Barrack Obama stands behind a podium bearing the words “Change” or “Hope” in large letters, we catch ourselves taking all those good feelings we have for the American flag or the idea of change and hope and we unconsciously associate them with the one who stands beside them. In politics they call this transfer and it as truthful as any other illusion. Not only do these images and the ideas they convey transfer to the man or woman associated with them, but any policies the person in question is pushing that week pick up those good vibes as well. So whether you are for Bush’s tax cuts or Obama’s tax relief system, you take what you like or dislike about these men and you associate it with their course of action.

Transfer is not only exploited visually, but linguistically. Take for instance Bush’s tax cuts and Obama’s plan for tax relief. Early on in the Obama campaign there was not a substantive difference between Obama’s tax plan and President Bush’s tax plan. Some would say that there is no difference at all. That being the case, why doesn’t Obama just use the same wording the Bush administration used? Because Obama cannot in anyway associate himself with Bush let alone tell the American public that he wants to use the same method of taxation. To avoid this he doesn’t change the policy; he changes his choice of words.

While Obama mixes up the language, the Bush administration has pulled off just as much. If you look at Bush, you see a man that speaks the language of the common man; you see a guy collecting brush at his ranch in Texas; you see a guy who looks a lot like John Wayne to me. What you do not see is a man from a staggeringly rich family, a former Harvard cheerleader, or a cousin to the queen. You do not see this because you are not supposed to. The method is referred to as “plain folks” and John Stewart uses it every night on his program when he claims that he rides the subway with everyone else. They separate themselves from their large and expensive cars to bring themselves down to our level. We grab onto it hook line and sinker because we want to believe that we are just like this week’s most popular celebrity, politician, etc.

Isn’t it time we learned to look beyond what the majority has accepted as the unvarnished truth? When we observe politicians, we need to do so offensively. That means getting past the image portrayed by savvy politicians and their handlers. We have to search and make the effort to know whom these people really are and are not. If we will make the effort, then perhaps we can fix our broken political machine and bring politics to a new high. We have to let these politicians know that we are smarter than their crafty ad campaigns. We have to let them know we are tired of rooting through ambiguous drivel. We need specific answers to our specific questions and we need them now more than ever.

 
Gore vs. Bush: a tale of two houses
Written by Chad Phillips
Friday, 17 August 2007 03:20
4 Comments

By Chad Phillips
MTW contributing writer

One of our readers sent me an email recently on a story which just has to be seen to be believed. What was thought to be a clever ruse once again turned out to be true and was corroborated by Snopes.

Apparently, George W. Bush's private residence near Crawford Texas is more eco-friendly than (you guessed it) that quasi econut, Al Gore.

Reasic, however, gives some very good justifications for why Gore appears to be the quintessential politician in Green clothing. I'm told that Gore's extravagance really is only apparent and that the colossal size of his carbon footprint is easily reduced to zero by purchasing "carbon offsets."

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore's do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

Gore must've missed this segment which tells us that the most effective way to reduce our carbon footprint is to give up consuming meat. And for once, I agree with Gore: Some things are just not worth giving up, even if it means saving the planet from certain doom.