Posts Tagged ‘republicans’
Straight talk expressly about Obama
Written by Ted West
Wednesday, 05 March 2008 05:07
No Comments

Is the fad over? We'll know in a few hours..

It's been almost effortless to support Obama – because he's nearly weightless. You don't have to overlook much, because there's little there
to overlook.. Which is probably why he's capturing the youth vote.

That in itself may be a contradiction in terms. The young don't vote.. They talk big, as young people are wont to do, but when it cones to actually voting, that's another story. Someone pointed out that they loved McGovern but didn't vote for him even in the middle of a raging war and a draft.

Many of the positive things we hear about Obama are the same things we heard about Bill Clinton in '92. But Clinton was successful for other reasons: he didn't rely on the youth vote, he had a spectacularly bad opponent, he had a strong third party candidate to split the opposition, and there were other lesser factors such as Dan Quayle.

And still, Clinton couldn't get anywhere near a majority of the vote.

Obama has considerably less stature than Clinton (I never imagined I'd be able to say that), and Obama's candidacy is based on gimmicks – he's the black guy with the mellifluous tone, who makes women weak in the knee, but when the same tone plays on and on, it gets irritating.

We've been experiencing his high energy, high visibility campaign, but is there anything behind it? For example, since all the fainting at Obama
rallies drew national attention, has it happened lately? Was it a gimmick? Who knows, but focusing on it has apparently caused people to come to their senses.

Hillary has unusually strong negatives, but, her core group – women, is, shall we say, somewhat larger than Obama's – blacks. Although if you
include flakes as part of Obama's core group, he probably has a huge edge on paper, but they're flakes for God's sake, so who knows where they'll be in November?

Also, Obama, being black, loses a certain segment of people on the left. A black conservative candidate would not have that problem, since
conservatives don't vote by group except for the evangelicals. What matters to conservatives are a person's views, experience, integrity… you know, the sort of things that are insignificant to liberals.

Let me give you an example: Condoleeza Rice is a stinking dog. I don't say that because she's black, I say that because she's a stinking dog. OK, I apologize if you're easily offended by that characterization… like if you feel that's an affront to stinking dogs? Oh all right, would you prefer
malodorous cur?

Years ago when it was suggested that Rice might be the negative of Hillary…there's probably a better way to put that, but anyway, when Condo was touted as a potentially ideal presidential candidate, I said, "Huh?" And that was long before she sold out Israel.

I said that because it was sufficient acknowledgement. Rice had never impressed me, even with her credentials. That's because every time she opened her mouth, she sounded… well… dolt-like… and occasionally, like a dolt on steroids!

Where was I? OK, not only will Obama lose the bigots, but he'll also (rightly) lose the Jews, and there's nothing he can do to regain either's
support. Now there are McCain bigots to be sure, but I believe they are far fewer than it might seem. They are the right's version of Obama's loud left.

Hillary doesn't have any specific group that would vote against her en masse, unless you call those who can't stand her for various reasons a group? And right-wing radio hosts do. Therefore, to them, Obama is the more formidable opponent for McCain.

But Obama's far more likely to peter out or go down in flames. And according to reports, he looked positively shell-shocked yesterday when reporters suddenly demanded he answer a real question. That guy's the Obama I thought I saw all along. And that guy actually fled the news conference.

Now let me say one sort of positive thing about Hillary. Sean Hannity said that he doesn't see much difference between Obama and her. I think there's plenty of difference, and there's plenty between she and her husband as well..She's stronger.

Not only would I have infinitely more trust in Hillary making decisions than I would Obama, but I believe that Hillary would love to have her name associated with a positive outcome in Iraq, whereas Obama would not only accept defeat and all it's consequences, he'd even orchestrate it.

Don't take any of that as an endorsement. I only mention it to demonstrate that Hillary is the tougher opponent for McCain. In fact, Clinton is more similar to McCain than she is to Obama.

I think McCain can beat Mr. In-Between, but if you feel he can't beat either Democrat, vote Hillary. And in the final analysis, if you like the idea of a Justice Obama or Justice Clinton, vote Democrat. You'll be glad you did.

Now this: I wondered how she'd do it, and now we know: Ann Coulter has found a way to save face and vote for McCain. She said that if he chose Romney for VP (his only real choice, anyway), she'd vote for him. Wow, she's easy.

Editor's Note: You can view this post in its entirety at the home of MTW Contributing Writer Ted West, The Naked Conservative dot com. 

 
Which Senator for President?
Written by Cal August
Wednesday, 27 February 2008 05:13
No Comments

Now that you’ve gotten over the initial shock of who is left in the presidential race, it’s time to weigh the candidates. The good thing about the Republicans having pretty much chosen their candidate, is that it gives the country plenty of time to see the enormous difference between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Speaking as a layperson, and not as a pundit who has looked at the minutia of every candidate’s policies, this is the picture that is shaping up for me.

Both of the Democrats lean very hard to the left, with Obama being further to the left than Clinton. These are the impressions that I am getting. We can depend on the Democrats to do these things: they will both clearly raise taxes, especially those on the highest income brackets. I can’t imagine fuel costs going any lower under the Democrats either. We can also depend on government to get bigger under both the Democrats on the slate. They will do “something” about health care, but it will not be the something that needs to be done.

John McCain has had his problems, especially for conservatives, but there’s one thing we can depend on McCain to do. He will support the military, and do what needs to be done to secure Iraq. This obviously is not a popular position right now. If he loses, it is not because he is not the best available man for the job; I believe many of his positions would make him a good Commander-in-Chief. The problem is that we live in really insane times, especially when it comes to how those on the left demonize conservatives.

There’s no getting around it: people are simply tired of George W. Bush, and tired of the war.

Supporting the war in this climate may be a liability. An aside: I believe that history will see George W. Bush as a good president overall, but the idea of going to war with Iraq may be seen as a blot on his record. Unfortunately, I think even going to war against Afghanistan would be seen as a mistake by the doves of our country, even though it was a “just” war. McCain is no conservative, but the label “Republican” has been given a bad name because of the way people seem to feel about George W. Bush.

Other than McCain’s position on the war, his other weakness is one he shares with all the candidates: He seems to believe in Global Warming, and his subsequent policies on energy could be a problem. However, I like his “straight talk” and I hope that people will listen to what he has to say.

Barack inspires, but has little experience. Clinton has experience but doesn’t inspire. I think McCain has the ability to do both, but as Michael Medved has pointed out, McCain will have to clearly differentiate himself from Obama to make it clear how important the difference really is. McCain would not satisfy conservatives or liberals, but I think he would make the best president of the three.

Here’s what I think the ideal candidate would focus on. I think these are winners:
1. Reform Social Security and Medicare.

McCain talks “straight talk” and I think he realizes something needs to be done here before this “House of Cards” collapses. The Democrats want to reshape health care, but don’t want to deal with the problem of funding this mess.
Do you want to decrease health care costs? Here’s an idea: we need more doctors and fewer lawyers involved.

2. Energy Costs

Approach the problem of energy with a multi-faceted solution. Forget biofuels. It’s a waste of time. Instead, focus on increasing cheap energy and take away some regulation if possible. Mid to long term: work on getting energy plants up to date to create cleaner energy, but get technologies into action that can help eliminate our dependence on foreign sources for oil. Increase refineries in the meantime. Republicans could really take it to Democrats on this one. We need “straight talk” on energy. Just how many taxes are there on our gasoline? Just how much does it cost the average family? I think the problem of high fuel costs could easily be placed at the door of the Democrats. This is a big interstate commerce issue – dealing with this one would actually be one of the few things Federal government has a mandate to do.

3. Lower taxes.

Everyone thinks that more government programs are the answer to all our problems. I feel that there is a great deal of taxation without representation going on in our government. Often our lawmakers are out of touch with our needs, and vote accordingly, all the while taxing us at higher and higher rates. Taxation stagnates the economy and stunts the growth of jobs. You can tax big business, but they WILL move away and do business where they can keep profits up, and expenses down. Business isn’t the enemy; BIG government is!

4. Support the nation’s security.

A candidate might take this approach. We’re in Iraq, and this is not the ideal situation, but to protect those people from further bloodshed, it is a moral obligation for us to stay. Getting us out, could also lead to a power vacuum, which unsavory elements will quickly fill. We must do what is best for America abroad, which also means not signing treaties, especially when the other signatories refuse to keep them. A strong America is good for the world. It would be wise for us to maintain the size of our military (even if we bring some military people home), and continue to improve weaponry.
The CIA may also need a house-cleaning. We don’t need policy wonks and bureaucrats; we need people on the ground, getting important information, and that means more spies.

5. Cut government. Let the private sector fill the void.

Reading a “Wired” magazine article about private space travel versus NASA, I found their satirical NASA patch humorous. On it I believe was an upside down American flag and the words, “Big. Dumb. Slow.” This is a good description of how big government bureaucracies do things. We need to streamline. We need private innovators and less regulation. Fewer taxes will put more money in the pockets of innovators, giving them the incentive to take risks that will pay off. We also need the ability to protect the things our people invent.

6. One more pet idea: put the United Nations elsewhere. Someone else can pay for it.

What do you think?

 
Welfare falls short of Christian charity
Written by Thomas Lasher
Tuesday, 26 February 2008 05:58
14 Comments

The favorite example of Democratic righteousness is the party’s support of the welfare system. They claim that if conservatives really cared about Christian values and helping fellow Americans in need, then the Republican Party would favor policies that tax the rich and redistribute wealth to the poor. Liberal Democrats point to government assistance and the welfare state as a model of Christian charity in action. In reality government welfare is at best a pale reflection of true Christian giving.

Admittedly, the welfare system was designed for a noble purpose – to assist the less fortunate either financially or through other means including food, housing, and work programs. Certainly this type of assistance benefits many people. And those who work for or support government sponsored welfare programs generally have the best intentions at heart. They genuinely want to make a positive difference in the lives of those who receive these services. I do not doubt the honesty of their convictions, nor should we discredit the good they do accomplish. But in the end government bureaucracy does not fulfill the demands of Christian love of neighbor.

Liberals correctly point out that Jesus commanded his followers to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick. The Sermon on the Mount and the command to love our neighbor form the basis for the liberal argument in favor of the “Christian” welfare state. Liberals argue that Christian Conservatives neglect this key element of their faith when applying Christian principles to their own version of public policy. Supposedly conservatives have no heart when it comes to the down-trodden and do not heed the words of Jesus about those in need. In truth, conservatives are not heartless or dismissive of human suffering or ignorant of basic Christian ethics. Conservatives know that the poor suffer and need our help. But they also know that making charitable work an integral function of the government actually diminishes the goodness of charity and reduces its spiritual impact.

Charitable acts, when they are truly “Christian,” not only alleviate the suffering of those in need, which is a great good in itself, but goodness is also found in the giver who makes a willing sacrifice. Jesus tells Christians to help the poor because in doing so we not only help our neighbor, but we too benefit spiritually by strengthening our own faith and by building communal bonds with others. Government welfare on the other hand creates a barrier between the giver (the taxpayer) and the receiver (those in need) that filters out any spiritual context. The poor receive benefits from a faceless and faithless bureaucracy; and taxpayers pay taxes, not out of charitable goodwill or faith in God, but because the force of law compels them to do so under strict penalties. That is not Christian charity; it is simply doing your duty to Uncle Sam.

This is not to say that the government should never play a role in assisting the poor. The government has an obligation to regulate certain variables within the economy to prevent or correct social injustices including poverty. But the primary responsibility for ensuring basic human rights and assisting economically oppressed rests with individuals and private organizations such as churches and civic groups which meet the spiritual and emotional as well as the physical needs of those they serve. A partnership with government that allows faith-based organizations to do the job that government is not equipped to do would be in the best interest of all involved.

Making “charity” a function of the secular bureaucracy, rather than a genuine outpouring of love between individuals, contradicts the true spirit of the Christian message. Authentic Christian charity is given out of compassion and love for humanity, and as an act of obedience to God. From a Christian perspective, our charitable good works belong to God. If we make government the primary facilitator of charity, in effect forfeiting our Christian duty to love our neighbor, is this not in effect giving to Caesar what is rightfully God’s? That is a concept no “party of Christian values” should ever proclaim.