It is clear that there were warnings about terrorism months in advance and they were ignored, it is clear that troops were ordered to stand down when they could have gone to the rescue, and it is clear that the talking points were severely manipulated by the White House and State Department.
We were lied to about the reasons for the attack, we were told it was a mob action in reaction to an anti-Islam video, and the creator of that video was arrested and is still in jail.
But we don't know that a rescue could have saved any lives, maybe it could and maybe it couldn't, and we don't know who knew what and when.
But it is beyond any reasonable dispute that we need answers.
But sadly politics has crept into this, and we probably shouldn't be surprised. Democrats have been demagoging the investigation, carrying the administration's water and denouncing any attempt to find the truth a "Partisan witch-hunt." And some Republicans have begun to use the "I" word, "Impeachment."
Both these extremes should be rejected. Republicans should drop all talk of impeachment immediately, this is not something that should be taken lightly and it is never something to be excited about. Whatever you think about President Obama he is the President and we should all hope he serves out his full term in office, it is never good for the country when a President is forced to leave office before is term is over, no matter what you think of the man or his policies.
And Democrats need to stop shilling for Obama and Hillary and start looking for the truth wherever it takes us. This is a serious issue, not a non-story as some partisan hacks on the left have tried to paint it. People died and we were not told the truth and we deserve to know why.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Republican Voters Need to Get a Clue
After a long string of losses that should have been victories in the last few years yet another election is likely to be handed to the Democrats, a special election of a heavily Republican seat in South Carolina. The Republican candidate is disgraced Former Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford.
He is running against Elizabeth Colbert Busch and nearly every poll has him behind is a seat that should have been an easy landslide win for any Republican with little need for money even being spent on a campaign.
Who is to blame for this? Is it the liberal media? No. The blame on this one rest completely in the hands of Republican primary voters who nominated him. He joins a long line of deeply flawed candidates who were just plain out of touch, like Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Now Sanford's problem is ethical and not that he's on the fringe like these other candidates.
But it shows a tone deafness in Republican voters who only realize their mistake after they've thrown the election away.
Even if Sanford somehow squeaks out a small victory, possible, but according to the polls (which despite Republican cries of skewed polls were accurate last year) Sanford is headed for defeat, he will still face another tough race in 2014 and will be a distraction for Republicans in congress.
If Republicans want to win elections they need to choose better candidates. And, no, that is not a code word for nominating wishy washy moderates who won't rock the boat, conservatives like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson have shown the right conservatives can win even in Purple and nominal Blue states. These people knew how to connect with voters and not alienate them. And that's what we need, and we need it badly.
He is running against Elizabeth Colbert Busch and nearly every poll has him behind is a seat that should have been an easy landslide win for any Republican with little need for money even being spent on a campaign.
Who is to blame for this? Is it the liberal media? No. The blame on this one rest completely in the hands of Republican primary voters who nominated him. He joins a long line of deeply flawed candidates who were just plain out of touch, like Sharon Angle, Christine O'Donnell, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. Now Sanford's problem is ethical and not that he's on the fringe like these other candidates.
But it shows a tone deafness in Republican voters who only realize their mistake after they've thrown the election away.
Even if Sanford somehow squeaks out a small victory, possible, but according to the polls (which despite Republican cries of skewed polls were accurate last year) Sanford is headed for defeat, he will still face another tough race in 2014 and will be a distraction for Republicans in congress.
If Republicans want to win elections they need to choose better candidates. And, no, that is not a code word for nominating wishy washy moderates who won't rock the boat, conservatives like Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson have shown the right conservatives can win even in Purple and nominal Blue states. These people knew how to connect with voters and not alienate them. And that's what we need, and we need it badly.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Fiscal Cliff Thoughts
With the fiscal cliff approaching and no sign of a deal it is time for Republicans to come up with a new strategy. They want to bring in new revenue by getting rid of deductions, but leaving rates the same, and cut spending. Obama wants to bring in new revenue by raising rates to the pre-Bush Tax Cut levels, plus add a lot more revenue, which would mean either higher rates than the pre-Bush Tax Cut levels, removing some deductions, or both. But instead of cutting spending Obama wants to raise spending with a new stimulus, even though previous ones failed to generate growth to the economy. Not only if the President willing to meet the Republicans half-way, he is giving them less than nothing. But with the media openly shilling for the Democrats and Republicans in disarray public opinion is on the Democrats' side, it doesn't help that the public does not know how unwilling to compromise the President is.
So, it is time for a new strategy.
In fairness, Obama won the election, albeit narrowly, so Republicans should give up the tax cuts. Let the rates for the top 2% expire and come up with a couple deductions that would only affect top income earners and get rid of them. Announce it in the press and make sure the message gets out. If conservative complain tell them "We don't like it but compromise has to start somewhere," and add, "If more of you had come out and voted we wouldn't be in this situation."
I don't like letting the tax cuts expire, I think we need further tax cuts, but elections have consequences.
However, Republicans did hold the House by more than a slim margin. So after Republicans give in on taxes, tell the President it is time to cut spending. Ask the President for his proposal for spending cuts and make it know immediate cuts are required, because we all know from experience the promise of future cuts will not be honored.
I know we can't balance the budget in one year, but more than token cuts will have to be part of the deal. Hundreds of billions of cuts must be made in the first year. The President won the election but he did not win the House so he will have to give in some as well.
Republicans must make it known they are willing to compromise, and further, make it known to the voters that as of yet, President Obama isn't.
And if they want to get their tax cuts back, they will have to win an election.
So, it is time for a new strategy.
In fairness, Obama won the election, albeit narrowly, so Republicans should give up the tax cuts. Let the rates for the top 2% expire and come up with a couple deductions that would only affect top income earners and get rid of them. Announce it in the press and make sure the message gets out. If conservative complain tell them "We don't like it but compromise has to start somewhere," and add, "If more of you had come out and voted we wouldn't be in this situation."
I don't like letting the tax cuts expire, I think we need further tax cuts, but elections have consequences.
However, Republicans did hold the House by more than a slim margin. So after Republicans give in on taxes, tell the President it is time to cut spending. Ask the President for his proposal for spending cuts and make it know immediate cuts are required, because we all know from experience the promise of future cuts will not be honored.
I know we can't balance the budget in one year, but more than token cuts will have to be part of the deal. Hundreds of billions of cuts must be made in the first year. The President won the election but he did not win the House so he will have to give in some as well.
Republicans must make it known they are willing to compromise, and further, make it known to the voters that as of yet, President Obama isn't.
And if they want to get their tax cuts back, they will have to win an election.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Illegal Immigration Questions
One of the main groups that helped reelect President Obama was Hispanics. This has led for calls by some for Republicans to rethink their policies on illegal immigration. And rethinking the rhetoric some use on illegal immigration and possibly some policies on the margins should be considered.
But some questions need to be asked. Let's say we grant another amnesty to all illegal immigrants currently in the country. They are now legal. What happens to illegals who come after the amnesty is granted? Would we finally enforce the law? Or would we just let it slide again for several years until to pro-illegal lobby calls for another amnesty? Would we even secure our borders?
We had these promises before the last amnesty. Enforcement was promised. Border security was promised. Both were delayed and then dropped when public attention drifted away.
Wouldn't this just happen again?
But some questions need to be asked. Let's say we grant another amnesty to all illegal immigrants currently in the country. They are now legal. What happens to illegals who come after the amnesty is granted? Would we finally enforce the law? Or would we just let it slide again for several years until to pro-illegal lobby calls for another amnesty? Would we even secure our borders?
We had these promises before the last amnesty. Enforcement was promised. Border security was promised. Both were delayed and then dropped when public attention drifted away.
Wouldn't this just happen again?
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Romney to Name VP Today
Late last night it was announced that Mitt Romney would name his running mate Saturday morning in Virginia at 9 AM Eastern (6 AM Pacific). Soon after that sources started to leak that it was Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. More and more sources have come out to confirm this so it is almost certainly true, of course we won't be 100% certain until this morning.
Assuming it is Ryan this is an unquestionably bold pick that will be remembered as either pure genius or utter folly.
This choice will excite budget hawks who have decried deficits for years, but it will also excite the left who is opposed to any fiscal restraint. The attacks will be predictable and relentless: Romney/Ryan wants to throw seniors in the streets, they want to slash vital services for the poor, if they win old people will die because they won't get the medical services they need.
These attacks were going to come in one for or another anyway, but they will be more intense with Ryan on the ticket. So I can see the wisdom in choosing Ryan and facing the attacks head on. Romney and Ryan will have to be bold, not timid. They can't wince at the attacks coming. They need to defend the Ryan plan with all their energy and tell the voters why we need it.
Who wins this election will be determined by who is more effective in persuading the voters which vision is better for America: fiscal restraint, low taxes, and more regulation; or more spending, tax hikes and more regulation.
Romney's choice of Ryan will be a defining point of the campaign. It will be the choice that sealed his political defeat, or a choice that made his victory and his Presidency possible.
Assuming it is Ryan this is an unquestionably bold pick that will be remembered as either pure genius or utter folly.
This choice will excite budget hawks who have decried deficits for years, but it will also excite the left who is opposed to any fiscal restraint. The attacks will be predictable and relentless: Romney/Ryan wants to throw seniors in the streets, they want to slash vital services for the poor, if they win old people will die because they won't get the medical services they need.
These attacks were going to come in one for or another anyway, but they will be more intense with Ryan on the ticket. So I can see the wisdom in choosing Ryan and facing the attacks head on. Romney and Ryan will have to be bold, not timid. They can't wince at the attacks coming. They need to defend the Ryan plan with all their energy and tell the voters why we need it.
Who wins this election will be determined by who is more effective in persuading the voters which vision is better for America: fiscal restraint, low taxes, and more regulation; or more spending, tax hikes and more regulation.
Romney's choice of Ryan will be a defining point of the campaign. It will be the choice that sealed his political defeat, or a choice that made his victory and his Presidency possible.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Attacks On Romney Taking Their Toll
The Obama campaign as well as his allies have been hammering Romney relentlessly on his record at Bain Capital; accusing him of being or at the very least strongly suggesting he is an out of touch venture capitalist pirate with no regard for any but the very rich and his own pocket.
The attacks have gone largely unanswered and this is taking a toll on Romney's image.
It is not too late yet, but if the Romney campaign does not come up with a good answer to these attacks the perceptions these ads are creating will solidify in the minds of the electorate making victory in November nearly impossible.
He needs to show the real story of his work at Bain, address the failures but stress the successes. Show not just companies that are thriving because of his work but workers who have jobs. Show men and women who themselves are living the American dream because they have a job with a company saved by Bain. There must be thousands of these stories. Pick a few of the most interesting and inspiring.
Further we need to hear more about Romney's record as governor and his management skills and how all of these will come into play if he becomes our next President.
It's not too late, but if the Romney campaign doesn't write a positive narrative of Romney the only story there will be is the Obama campaign's negative one.
The attacks have gone largely unanswered and this is taking a toll on Romney's image.
It is not too late yet, but if the Romney campaign does not come up with a good answer to these attacks the perceptions these ads are creating will solidify in the minds of the electorate making victory in November nearly impossible.
He needs to show the real story of his work at Bain, address the failures but stress the successes. Show not just companies that are thriving because of his work but workers who have jobs. Show men and women who themselves are living the American dream because they have a job with a company saved by Bain. There must be thousands of these stories. Pick a few of the most interesting and inspiring.
Further we need to hear more about Romney's record as governor and his management skills and how all of these will come into play if he becomes our next President.
It's not too late, but if the Romney campaign doesn't write a positive narrative of Romney the only story there will be is the Obama campaign's negative one.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Obama Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage, Again
Yesterday President Obama finally came out in favor of same-sex marriage. But he had supported it before.
Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed has a more in depth timeline with videos posted as well.
Obama Gay Marriage Timeline
In 1996 he was running for a very liberal State Senate seat in Illinois. No Republican was going to be elected, his concern was other Democrats in the Primary: So he supported it.
In 2004 he was going statewide, so it was a riskier position to have: So he opposed it.
In 2008 he was running for President, and the majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage at the time: So he was still against it.
Now in 2012 polls have show a narrow plurality to a narrow majority supporting it, and he knows he won't carry states that oppose it that he carried last time, ones like Indiana and North Carolina: So he supports it.
The President has said that he supports states being able to make the decision on same-sex marriage (which happens to be my position, both in support of SSM and states having the right to legalize it or ban it). But is this his real position? I don't doubt he supports same-sex marriage, but it is possible he does not really favor states' rights in this area.
Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed has a more in depth timeline with videos posted as well.
Obama Gay Marriage Timeline
Obama in 1996: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
Obama in 2004: "My religious faith dictates marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage is not a civil right."
Obama in 2008: "I believe marriage is the union between a man and a woman. As a Christian it's also a sacred union."
In 1996 he was running for a very liberal State Senate seat in Illinois. No Republican was going to be elected, his concern was other Democrats in the Primary: So he supported it.
In 2004 he was going statewide, so it was a riskier position to have: So he opposed it.
In 2008 he was running for President, and the majority of Americans were against same-sex marriage at the time: So he was still against it.
Now in 2012 polls have show a narrow plurality to a narrow majority supporting it, and he knows he won't carry states that oppose it that he carried last time, ones like Indiana and North Carolina: So he supports it.
The President has said that he supports states being able to make the decision on same-sex marriage (which happens to be my position, both in support of SSM and states having the right to legalize it or ban it). But is this his real position? I don't doubt he supports same-sex marriage, but it is possible he does not really favor states' rights in this area.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Why Can't Republicans Come Up With A Stronger Field?
With unemployment over 8.5% and a President that is out of touch ideologically with voters you would think this election would be a cake walk for Republicans. But it isn't.
President Obama either leads, is tied with, or at worst is slightly behind every single candidate on a regular basis, the only candidate in the top tier who leads him occasionally is Mitt Romney and the lead is not impressive. Generic Republican has lead the President more or less consistently but not any of these candidates. If only Generic Republican was the nominee the GOP would be set.
All the candidates are flawed to some extent. Mitt Romney has Romneycare to answer for as well as layoffs in companies he managed, and although he has been getting better at answering these charges he will be confronted with them in the General if he gets the nomination. You can count on that. Newt Gingrich has marital infidelity, taking money from Fannie and Freddie and numerous missteps in the past against him, including appearing in a climate change ad with Nancy Pelosi. He appears to be on the decline.
Santorum and Bachmann have no appeal with the center, which will absolutely be needed to win next year. Bachmann has only a few years experience in Washington, and several years of experience in each house the Minnesota legislature combined so she will likely suffer a stature problem in the General. And Santorum lost his last election in a landslide, that should make any Republican primary voter think twice about his chances of winning a national election against an entrenched incumbent.
Next we have Rick Perry, his poor debating skills, troublesome statements on illegal immigration and George W Bush like swagger (he was Bush's Lieutenant Governor in Texas) make his prospects against an above average debater like Obama in a country that still has a hangover from the Bush years less than appealing. And need anything be said about Ron Paul? The man has no chance at the nomination, he is over 70 years old and his foreign policy positions would likely trigger a 3rd party or independent run by conservatives if somehow over all the odds he managed to capture the nod.
The only other candidate than Romney who has a decent chance of winning is Jon Huntsman. But he is nowhere in the polls and some of his statements have angered conservatives. He also, unfairly I believe, loses points for being President Obama's Ambassador to China. This really shouldn't be counted against him, anyone who can offer service to his country or his President should if it doesn't violate his personal convictions.
It's too late for latecomers so we are stuck with this field. The only comfort is that the President is still unpopular and has been far below the critical 50% an incumbent should have to feel secure against Mitt Romney the still likely, although not inevitable Republican Nominee. Because the nominee will also have an affect on House and Senate races. A strong one will carry seats for Republicans over the top and a weak one will sink the prospects of candidates who might otherwise win.
President Obama either leads, is tied with, or at worst is slightly behind every single candidate on a regular basis, the only candidate in the top tier who leads him occasionally is Mitt Romney and the lead is not impressive. Generic Republican has lead the President more or less consistently but not any of these candidates. If only Generic Republican was the nominee the GOP would be set.
All the candidates are flawed to some extent. Mitt Romney has Romneycare to answer for as well as layoffs in companies he managed, and although he has been getting better at answering these charges he will be confronted with them in the General if he gets the nomination. You can count on that. Newt Gingrich has marital infidelity, taking money from Fannie and Freddie and numerous missteps in the past against him, including appearing in a climate change ad with Nancy Pelosi. He appears to be on the decline.
Santorum and Bachmann have no appeal with the center, which will absolutely be needed to win next year. Bachmann has only a few years experience in Washington, and several years of experience in each house the Minnesota legislature combined so she will likely suffer a stature problem in the General. And Santorum lost his last election in a landslide, that should make any Republican primary voter think twice about his chances of winning a national election against an entrenched incumbent.
Next we have Rick Perry, his poor debating skills, troublesome statements on illegal immigration and George W Bush like swagger (he was Bush's Lieutenant Governor in Texas) make his prospects against an above average debater like Obama in a country that still has a hangover from the Bush years less than appealing. And need anything be said about Ron Paul? The man has no chance at the nomination, he is over 70 years old and his foreign policy positions would likely trigger a 3rd party or independent run by conservatives if somehow over all the odds he managed to capture the nod.
The only other candidate than Romney who has a decent chance of winning is Jon Huntsman. But he is nowhere in the polls and some of his statements have angered conservatives. He also, unfairly I believe, loses points for being President Obama's Ambassador to China. This really shouldn't be counted against him, anyone who can offer service to his country or his President should if it doesn't violate his personal convictions.
It's too late for latecomers so we are stuck with this field. The only comfort is that the President is still unpopular and has been far below the critical 50% an incumbent should have to feel secure against Mitt Romney the still likely, although not inevitable Republican Nominee. Because the nominee will also have an affect on House and Senate races. A strong one will carry seats for Republicans over the top and a weak one will sink the prospects of candidates who might otherwise win.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Election 2010 Post Mortem
There is no other way to put this: last night's election was historic. Republicans picked up a minimum of 60 seats in the House of Representatives, the biggest pickup by a party since 1948.
House
Republicans will have a minimum of 239 seats but will likely end up with between 240 and 242 by the time all the races are called. The Democrats will have less than 200 members of the House for the first time since 1946.
So far, 49 incumbent Democrats have been defeated including 3 Committee Chairmen: James Oberstar (MN-8)- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ike Skelton (MO-4)- Armed Services Committee, and John Spratt (SC-5)- Budget Committee. Two Republicans incumbents were defeated, Charles Djou (HI-1), and Joseph Cao (LA-3).
Senate
The Senate was a more mixed picture. Republicans have picked up 6 seats so far while successfully defending all of their own. The GOP picked up open seats in Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. But failed to pick open seats in Connecticut, Delaware, and West Virginia. Two Democratic incumbents were knocked off, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas by a landslide, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin by a narrow but comfortable margin. Targeted Democrats survived in California, Colorado, and Nevada. Washington has yet to be called but the Democrat is leading by 1-2 percent.
Alaska has also yet to be called with Lisa Murkowski apparently leading by 6-7 points in a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Since Democrat Scott McAdams will finish in 3rd place and both Miller and Murkowski have vowed to caucus with Republicans that seat can safely be called a Republican hold.
Governorships
Republican now have the majority of governorships after the 2010 Elections. The have captured state houses from Democrats in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Races in Oregon and Illinois have yet to be called but Democrats are leading in both.
Democrats took California, and Hawaii from the GOP but are leading in Minnesota and Connecticut as well, although some outlets have already called Connecticut for the Democrats already. Republicans have also lost Rhode Island to independent candidate Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator.
State Legislatures
Democrats came into the election with a significant advantage but so far have lost 18 state legislatures: Alabama House and Senate, Indiana House, Iowa House, Maine House and Senate, Michigan House, Minnesota House and Senate, Montana House (which was 50/50 before), New Hampshire Senate, New York Senate, North Carolina House and Senate, Ohio House, Pennsylvania House, and the Wisconsin House and Senate. The Oregon House which was under firm Democratic control before the election is now split 30/30.
The winning of the House of Representatives by Republicans and the severely narrowed Democratic majority in the Senate will put a very effective block on any left-wing legislation that President Obama may wish to pass, and the pick ups in Governorships and state legislatures bodes well for Republicans in the upcoming redistricting that will reshape the electoral map.
Tea Party
Tea Party energy is what is primarily what made the gains Republicans won possible, but they have a mixed record of success in the Senate: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul won big victories in Republican seats, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania won seats previously held by Democrats. But Sharon Angle was defeated by Harry Reid by 5 points in Nevada and Ken Buck lost to Michael Bennett in Colorado, and O'Donnell cost Republicans a sure victory in Delaware and Joe Miller appears headed for defeat in Alaska to moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski.
Toomey, and Rubio proved strong conservatives can win swing states and nominal blue states, but the Tea Party defeats also prove that the Tea Party must be more careful to nominate credible candidates.
House
Republicans will have a minimum of 239 seats but will likely end up with between 240 and 242 by the time all the races are called. The Democrats will have less than 200 members of the House for the first time since 1946.
So far, 49 incumbent Democrats have been defeated including 3 Committee Chairmen: James Oberstar (MN-8)- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Ike Skelton (MO-4)- Armed Services Committee, and John Spratt (SC-5)- Budget Committee. Two Republicans incumbents were defeated, Charles Djou (HI-1), and Joseph Cao (LA-3).
Senate
The Senate was a more mixed picture. Republicans have picked up 6 seats so far while successfully defending all of their own. The GOP picked up open seats in Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania. But failed to pick open seats in Connecticut, Delaware, and West Virginia. Two Democratic incumbents were knocked off, Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas by a landslide, and Russ Feingold in Wisconsin by a narrow but comfortable margin. Targeted Democrats survived in California, Colorado, and Nevada. Washington has yet to be called but the Democrat is leading by 1-2 percent.
Alaska has also yet to be called with Lisa Murkowski apparently leading by 6-7 points in a write-in campaign over Tea Party candidate Joe Miller. Since Democrat Scott McAdams will finish in 3rd place and both Miller and Murkowski have vowed to caucus with Republicans that seat can safely be called a Republican hold.
Governorships
Republican now have the majority of governorships after the 2010 Elections. The have captured state houses from Democrats in Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Races in Oregon and Illinois have yet to be called but Democrats are leading in both.
Democrats took California, and Hawaii from the GOP but are leading in Minnesota and Connecticut as well, although some outlets have already called Connecticut for the Democrats already. Republicans have also lost Rhode Island to independent candidate Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator.
State Legislatures
Democrats came into the election with a significant advantage but so far have lost 18 state legislatures: Alabama House and Senate, Indiana House, Iowa House, Maine House and Senate, Michigan House, Minnesota House and Senate, Montana House (which was 50/50 before), New Hampshire Senate, New York Senate, North Carolina House and Senate, Ohio House, Pennsylvania House, and the Wisconsin House and Senate. The Oregon House which was under firm Democratic control before the election is now split 30/30.
The winning of the House of Representatives by Republicans and the severely narrowed Democratic majority in the Senate will put a very effective block on any left-wing legislation that President Obama may wish to pass, and the pick ups in Governorships and state legislatures bodes well for Republicans in the upcoming redistricting that will reshape the electoral map.
Tea Party
Tea Party energy is what is primarily what made the gains Republicans won possible, but they have a mixed record of success in the Senate: Marco Rubio and Rand Paul won big victories in Republican seats, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania won seats previously held by Democrats. But Sharon Angle was defeated by Harry Reid by 5 points in Nevada and Ken Buck lost to Michael Bennett in Colorado, and O'Donnell cost Republicans a sure victory in Delaware and Joe Miller appears headed for defeat in Alaska to moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski.
Toomey, and Rubio proved strong conservatives can win swing states and nominal blue states, but the Tea Party defeats also prove that the Tea Party must be more careful to nominate credible candidates.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Predictions: 2010 Elections 10/31/10
The election is just 2 days away and Republicans are poised to take control of at least one chamber of congress. Some Governor and Senate races are beginning to tighten as House races are generally headed in the direction of Republicans.
I predict a 60 or so net pick up for Republicans in the House, giving them control by at least a 20 seat margin. Although there are far more seats in play I think that some of these seats will in the end send the Democrat back to Washington, albeit narrowly which will make them think twice about voting party line with the left.
The Senate could go Republican, but in the end I don't think it will. Connecticut is now a near lost hope for Republicans, as is Delaware. However, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana are lost for Democrats. Wisconsin is almost as hopeless for the Dems. That's 4. But several tossups look to make election night interesting: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, West Virginia, Washington, and California are all considered tossups.
Among those Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Colorado seem headed for the Republican column. Illinois looks slightly tilted Republican as well, but not as much. It is also unknown is the Democratic candidate will receive a bounce from last minute campaigning by President Obama, who is still popular in that state. If those seats go Republican that will be a pick up of 8.
In West Virginia Manchin is headed up in the polls, the most Recent Rasmussen poll has him up 49-46% over his Republican opponent.
Washington is neck and neck between Democrat Senator Murray and Republican challenger Rossi. But this state is Blue by nature so the edge has to go to Murray. Finally in California, 3-term Senator Barbara Boxer is within the margin of error ahead of Businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Boxer has been consistently ahead, but also, consistently under 50%, a danger for any incumbent. I wouldn't rule out an upset for any of these races, but odds are at least two, if not all three of them, will stay Democratic.
I'd say Republicans will pick up 7-9 seats in the Senate.
37 Governorships are up this year and Republicans stand to pick up several. Rasmussen has Republicans picking up Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming for sure. Illinois, and Pennsylvania are also leaning that way. That is 11 seats.
Ohio, Oregon, and Massachusetts, all Democrat seats, are tossups, but Ohio does look like it will go Republican. Rhode Island is a 3-way race with the Republican a distant 3rd in every poll so that seat will either go independent or Democrat. Hawaii had been a near certain Democrat pick up but recent tightening in polls have shown a close race. However other, newer polls have shown former Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie pulling ahead once again of Lt Governor Duke Aiona. When this election is over I expect Republicans to have between 31 and 33 governorships.
My Predictions:
House- About +60 GOP (239 House seats)
Senate- +7-9 GOP (48-50 Senate seats)
Governorships- +7-9 GOP (31-33 Governorships)
A larger than expected Republican turnout could mean even greater gains than expected, just like last minute liberal enthusiasm could reduce expected gains.
Check out these sites for the latest on the Election:
Rasmussen Reports
Real Clear Politics
I predict a 60 or so net pick up for Republicans in the House, giving them control by at least a 20 seat margin. Although there are far more seats in play I think that some of these seats will in the end send the Democrat back to Washington, albeit narrowly which will make them think twice about voting party line with the left.
The Senate could go Republican, but in the end I don't think it will. Connecticut is now a near lost hope for Republicans, as is Delaware. However, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Indiana are lost for Democrats. Wisconsin is almost as hopeless for the Dems. That's 4. But several tossups look to make election night interesting: Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Illinois, West Virginia, Washington, and California are all considered tossups.
Among those Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Colorado seem headed for the Republican column. Illinois looks slightly tilted Republican as well, but not as much. It is also unknown is the Democratic candidate will receive a bounce from last minute campaigning by President Obama, who is still popular in that state. If those seats go Republican that will be a pick up of 8.
In West Virginia Manchin is headed up in the polls, the most Recent Rasmussen poll has him up 49-46% over his Republican opponent.
Washington is neck and neck between Democrat Senator Murray and Republican challenger Rossi. But this state is Blue by nature so the edge has to go to Murray. Finally in California, 3-term Senator Barbara Boxer is within the margin of error ahead of Businesswoman Carly Fiorina. Boxer has been consistently ahead, but also, consistently under 50%, a danger for any incumbent. I wouldn't rule out an upset for any of these races, but odds are at least two, if not all three of them, will stay Democratic.
I'd say Republicans will pick up 7-9 seats in the Senate.
37 Governorships are up this year and Republicans stand to pick up several. Rasmussen has Republicans picking up Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming for sure. Illinois, and Pennsylvania are also leaning that way. That is 11 seats.
Ohio, Oregon, and Massachusetts, all Democrat seats, are tossups, but Ohio does look like it will go Republican. Rhode Island is a 3-way race with the Republican a distant 3rd in every poll so that seat will either go independent or Democrat. Hawaii had been a near certain Democrat pick up but recent tightening in polls have shown a close race. However other, newer polls have shown former Democratic congressman Neil Abercrombie pulling ahead once again of Lt Governor Duke Aiona. When this election is over I expect Republicans to have between 31 and 33 governorships.
My Predictions:
House- About +60 GOP (239 House seats)
Senate- +7-9 GOP (48-50 Senate seats)
Governorships- +7-9 GOP (31-33 Governorships)
A larger than expected Republican turnout could mean even greater gains than expected, just like last minute liberal enthusiasm could reduce expected gains.
Check out these sites for the latest on the Election:
Rasmussen Reports
Real Clear Politics
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Real Healthcare Reform is Needed, Not a Left-Wing Monstrosity
The Democrats could have had an easy win last year by passing a simple set of reforms to improve the healthcare system. Instead chose to go down the road of the worst mix of ideological obstinacy and special interest capitulation. They even openly and blatantly bribed senators on the fence to try to pass their bill. They ignored public will and paid the price in Massachusetts, with the cost of their filibuster-proof senate, and, the seat of one of the left's most beloved icons Ted Kennedy going to Republicans.
What kind of bill could they have passed for an easy win? Just a few easy reforms would have gone a long way with the public's good will:
1. Interstate Competition
2. Portability when employees change jobs
3. Don't allow companies to drop customers when they get sick
4. Tort reform
5. Pre-existing conditions
The first three would have been easy, with no real opposition to block it, tort reform would have had opposition by the trial lawyers but could have been done. Pre-existing conditions may have been difficult. What reason would an insurance company have for taking someone with a condition that they know for a fact will cost them much more then the customer could possibly put in? However, even this could have been done with smart and delicate legislation.
America would have been better off with a bill with the provisions stated, but the Democrats chose to go the ideological and special interest routes. If Republicans know what is good for them, and they manage to regain the majority in the midterm elections, they would be wise to pass smart, simple, and effective healthcare reform if they want to help the country and themselves at the same time.
What kind of bill could they have passed for an easy win? Just a few easy reforms would have gone a long way with the public's good will:
1. Interstate Competition
2. Portability when employees change jobs
3. Don't allow companies to drop customers when they get sick
4. Tort reform
5. Pre-existing conditions
The first three would have been easy, with no real opposition to block it, tort reform would have had opposition by the trial lawyers but could have been done. Pre-existing conditions may have been difficult. What reason would an insurance company have for taking someone with a condition that they know for a fact will cost them much more then the customer could possibly put in? However, even this could have been done with smart and delicate legislation.
America would have been better off with a bill with the provisions stated, but the Democrats chose to go the ideological and special interest routes. If Republicans know what is good for them, and they manage to regain the majority in the midterm elections, they would be wise to pass smart, simple, and effective healthcare reform if they want to help the country and themselves at the same time.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Republicans, Conservatives, and 3rd Parties
The fact that the Republicans had everything for 4 years and expanded government is disheartening, almost to the point of wanting to leaving the party. However, seeing what the Democrats have done when they have complete power made me realize that the Republicans at their worst are still better than the Democrats at their best. The Democrats are getting more unpopular by the week and will face crushing defeats in upcoming elections. The only thing that can stop this and give the left even more power is a divided conservative movement.
The right thing to do is not ditch the party and ensure conservatism's demise, but to change the Republican party. Third party conservatives should get inside the party and work to change the it themselves, and we need to invite Libertarians in as well. Although I don't agree with them on everything, most of them have a passion for shrinking government that Republicans could use.
Conservatives should also consider infiltrating the Democratic party as well, the Democratic Party has drifted so far left that moonbats are in charge of both houses of congress and the Presidency. We should run conservatives in Democratic primaries where a Conservative has a decent chance of winning. However, we should only support Conservative Democrats who can say no to their leadership.
In short, Conservatives should think beyond the Republican party, but Conservative 3rd parties will only hurt the Conservative movement.
The right thing to do is not ditch the party and ensure conservatism's demise, but to change the Republican party. Third party conservatives should get inside the party and work to change the it themselves, and we need to invite Libertarians in as well. Although I don't agree with them on everything, most of them have a passion for shrinking government that Republicans could use.
Conservatives should also consider infiltrating the Democratic party as well, the Democratic Party has drifted so far left that moonbats are in charge of both houses of congress and the Presidency. We should run conservatives in Democratic primaries where a Conservative has a decent chance of winning. However, we should only support Conservative Democrats who can say no to their leadership.
In short, Conservatives should think beyond the Republican party, but Conservative 3rd parties will only hurt the Conservative movement.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Republicans Will Need 60 Senators For Conservative Reform
In just a few months under the far left leadership of President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid America's policies have been pushed drastically to the left. And it may get worse if they don't suffer massive losses in at least one house of congress next year. Such a defeat would only give them pause and causing them to slow down for a spell before continuing to advance their far-left agenda.
In fact, even if Republicans are able to take back both houses of congress and the White House in 2012 the Democrats will stonewall 90% of a Conservative reform agenda. The Democrats as a minority will use the filibuster at every conceivable opportunity. Then they will use this to call the majority a do-nothing congress and hope things fall apart enough for them to be able to slither into power again.
America needs several reforms that Democrats will never support. Offshore drilling, real tort reform, securing our boarders, streamlining government, campaign finance freedom, education reform, tax reform, and smart deregulation to name some needed reforms.
Unless the filibuster is taken away from the Democrats as an option they will stonewall and demonize every single reform that they can. To stop this, Republicans need 60 Senate seats minimum, preferably 61-63 to be able to handle the odd defection or two on some issues, and a majority in the House of Representatives, a House with at least 240 Republicans would be needed to handle defections and Democratic pressure of vulnerable Republicans from left-wing special interest groups.
If Republicans can mount a smart enough campaign they can retake the majority in the House in 2010 and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, defeat Obama in 2012, and retake in Senate in 2012 or 2014. Getting a 60 seat majority would likely take at least one or two cycles more, unless Republicans are lucky. I'm pessimistic of the likelihood of this happening, but Republicans must try if they are to enact positive change for the country.
In fact, even if Republicans are able to take back both houses of congress and the White House in 2012 the Democrats will stonewall 90% of a Conservative reform agenda. The Democrats as a minority will use the filibuster at every conceivable opportunity. Then they will use this to call the majority a do-nothing congress and hope things fall apart enough for them to be able to slither into power again.
America needs several reforms that Democrats will never support. Offshore drilling, real tort reform, securing our boarders, streamlining government, campaign finance freedom, education reform, tax reform, and smart deregulation to name some needed reforms.
Unless the filibuster is taken away from the Democrats as an option they will stonewall and demonize every single reform that they can. To stop this, Republicans need 60 Senate seats minimum, preferably 61-63 to be able to handle the odd defection or two on some issues, and a majority in the House of Representatives, a House with at least 240 Republicans would be needed to handle defections and Democratic pressure of vulnerable Republicans from left-wing special interest groups.
If Republicans can mount a smart enough campaign they can retake the majority in the House in 2010 and reduce the Democratic majority in the Senate, defeat Obama in 2012, and retake in Senate in 2012 or 2014. Getting a 60 seat majority would likely take at least one or two cycles more, unless Republicans are lucky. I'm pessimistic of the likelihood of this happening, but Republicans must try if they are to enact positive change for the country.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Bernard Goldberg's Brilliant Plan on Affirmative Action
On the O'Reilly Factor today, Conservative author Bernard Goldberg gave an ingenious solution that would satisfy both sides of the affirmative action debate. White Americans who really believe America would be a better place with affirmative action should give up their jobs on the condition that the person who replaces them is not white.
If they are serious about their desire for "justice" they would have no problem with offering their job, after all, many people have given a lot more for civil rights. When you think about it most of them would not even have to give up their jobs. All they need to do is offer to give up their job and once racial equity has been established in the workplaces across America the remaining liberals can keep their jobs.
I would be curious to hear what objections white proponents of affirmative action would have to this plan, it would change America forever and give minorities the equity in the workplace they have long sought.
If the left does object to this it will confirm what I have always suspected about them, they don't mind using the government to force other people to sacrifice for their ideological beliefs, as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything.
I suspect we will see fierce attacks on both Goldberg and his idea by the left without actually addressing why they oppose it. The reason being that Goldberg's plan, whether serious or not, exposes the left for exactly what they are, and they won't let that stand without demonizing the man and the idea without actually addressing the particulars.
If they are serious about their desire for "justice" they would have no problem with offering their job, after all, many people have given a lot more for civil rights. When you think about it most of them would not even have to give up their jobs. All they need to do is offer to give up their job and once racial equity has been established in the workplaces across America the remaining liberals can keep their jobs.
I would be curious to hear what objections white proponents of affirmative action would have to this plan, it would change America forever and give minorities the equity in the workplace they have long sought.
If the left does object to this it will confirm what I have always suspected about them, they don't mind using the government to force other people to sacrifice for their ideological beliefs, as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything.
I suspect we will see fierce attacks on both Goldberg and his idea by the left without actually addressing why they oppose it. The reason being that Goldberg's plan, whether serious or not, exposes the left for exactly what they are, and they won't let that stand without demonizing the man and the idea without actually addressing the particulars.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
New Liberal Taking Point: We Need Public Competition
A new talking point the left is using for things like health insurance and the like is, what's the problems with a little public competition. This is an attempt to annex conservative arguments about competition and free-enterprise.
What they purposely avoid telling you is that when the private sector has the government as competition it is never a fair fight. The government has a bottomless pit of money that they can use to drive competition out of the market. All they have to do is lower their prices to a point where competitors can't maintain a profit if they match their prices and services. These lower prices would be explained as making their service affordable to lower income Americans, and while it would help the poor afford the service, it would also kill free enterprise by giving an unfair advantage to the so-called public competition.
Once the competition has been effectively eliminated, like in the private sector, either prices would go up and/or services would be cut. This is why the government needs to stay out of the private sector.
What they purposely avoid telling you is that when the private sector has the government as competition it is never a fair fight. The government has a bottomless pit of money that they can use to drive competition out of the market. All they have to do is lower their prices to a point where competitors can't maintain a profit if they match their prices and services. These lower prices would be explained as making their service affordable to lower income Americans, and while it would help the poor afford the service, it would also kill free enterprise by giving an unfair advantage to the so-called public competition.
Once the competition has been effectively eliminated, like in the private sector, either prices would go up and/or services would be cut. This is why the government needs to stay out of the private sector.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Protests in Iran Not Going Away.
Despite the Iranian Supreme Leader's demand for an end to protests, they continue. No one knows how far these protests will go. Will they bring the regime down? Probably not, but never say never. Whether it happens in a month or in 20 years theocracy's days are numbered.
If anything these demonstrations prove something many have known all along: the Iranian people want democracy. They value the right to determine who leads them just like we do. Iranian youth especially are much more modern than the those who run their country. Their values, while not exactly like ours, are modern.
Afghanistan is free and Iraq is free, I hope Iran is soon to follow.
If anything these demonstrations prove something many have known all along: the Iranian people want democracy. They value the right to determine who leads them just like we do. Iranian youth especially are much more modern than the those who run their country. Their values, while not exactly like ours, are modern.
Afghanistan is free and Iraq is free, I hope Iran is soon to follow.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8
In a 6-1 decision the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. At the same time they ruled that the 18,000 marriages of same-sex couples will not be voided.
This was the right call. The people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning it would be declaring a part of the state constitution unconstitutional. It would have been a dangerous court precedent and a new low for judicial activists. Fortunately they made the right decision.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have already started collecting signatures for their own ballot proposition to repeal prop 8. I wish them luck. Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and this was with the backlash of judicial activism, I think it stands a decent chance of passing.
This was the right call. The people passed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning it would be declaring a part of the state constitution unconstitutional. It would have been a dangerous court precedent and a new low for judicial activists. Fortunately they made the right decision.
Proponents of same-sex marriage have already started collecting signatures for their own ballot proposition to repeal prop 8. I wish them luck. Prop 8 only passed with 52% of the vote, and this was with the backlash of judicial activism, I think it stands a decent chance of passing.
Obama Picks Sotomayor for the Supreme Court
President Obama made his first pick for the Supreme Court today, judge Sonia Sotomayor. Like the Justice she replaces, David Souter, she is a liberal. Not only is she a liberal, but she is a judical activist who thinks the courts are there to make policy.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.
Conservatives must make a case to oppose her. Although it is likely hopeless, conservative must make an active effort to inform the people of her record and her philosophy as a judicial activist. This can be used to boost Republican turnout in the 2010 congressional elections, and help conservatives prepare for the judicial pick, which could well be a replacement for a conservative Justice.
The left's arguments to Conservative opposition are predicable:
1. Republicans are the party of no.
This is easy to rebut, liberals oppose practically every conservative appointed to the supreme court, and many to the lower courts. Why is opposition to a supreme court pick wrong when liberals do it every time to a conservative? Hypocrisy? I think so.
2. But she was appointed by a Republican, the first President Bush.
This is true, but it doesn't matter. Her voting record and public statements are those of a liberal judicial activist.
3. The 3rd argument will be a base and despicable attempt to paint Republicans as racists and/or sexists for opposing a Hispanic woman.
Liberals opposed Janice Rogers Brown's appointment to a lower court, stalling her appointment for years. She is a black woman. Were the liberals who opposed her racist or sexist? If the answer by a liberal you ask is no, then why are Conservative who oppose Sotomayor racist and/or sexist? The answer is they are not.
These arguments need to be shot down before they are made. The left knows that if they repeat a lie enough times it will stick, and that is precisely what they hope to do.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Who Best Represents The GOP? Rush Limbaugh or Colin Powell?
The media has been propping-up Colin Powell as some kind of 'moderate Republican.' Powell himself said the party has drifted too far to the right and we need to moderate. With all due respect to Powell's service to this country, he has no credibility when it comes to his advice on the party's direction.
John McCain had reached out to the other party far more often than Obama ever did. He is way closer to the center than Obama, and we have never heard Powell say the Democrats need to move to the center, and the Democrats have let the far-left dominate the leadership of their party. Where is Powell's concerns about the Democrats now, or ever?
Republicans nominated a candidate that reached out to the other party, in fact McCain has reached out to Democrats so often it angered many in his own party. Obama nearly always reached across the aisle on issues where pretty much everyone agreed. He has embraced the most extreme elements of his party while speaking in a manner that makes him look moderate. Is Powell unaware of this? Or is he simply the liberal many conservatives had always thought he was. Either way he has no credibility to tell the Republican party what direction it needs to take.
Rush Limbaugh has often said things in jest that the left went gone nuts over, sometimes justifiably, usually not. I don't always agree with him, I disagree with him on church/state issues, same sex marriage, and a few others, but he is not an extremist. He exemplifies the opinions of tens of millions of Americans. He is a conservative and proud of it but not a radical. Obama has often associated with radicals and showed no discomfort with it until he ran for president. Where was Powell's outrage at that?
Rush was right when he said Powell should become a Democrat. He endorsed the Democratic nominee, not the Republican nominee when the Republican nominee was far closer to the center. In fact I think it is safe to say that Limbaugh, a proud conservative, is closer to the center than Obama.
John McCain had reached out to the other party far more often than Obama ever did. He is way closer to the center than Obama, and we have never heard Powell say the Democrats need to move to the center, and the Democrats have let the far-left dominate the leadership of their party. Where is Powell's concerns about the Democrats now, or ever?
Republicans nominated a candidate that reached out to the other party, in fact McCain has reached out to Democrats so often it angered many in his own party. Obama nearly always reached across the aisle on issues where pretty much everyone agreed. He has embraced the most extreme elements of his party while speaking in a manner that makes him look moderate. Is Powell unaware of this? Or is he simply the liberal many conservatives had always thought he was. Either way he has no credibility to tell the Republican party what direction it needs to take.
Rush Limbaugh has often said things in jest that the left went gone nuts over, sometimes justifiably, usually not. I don't always agree with him, I disagree with him on church/state issues, same sex marriage, and a few others, but he is not an extremist. He exemplifies the opinions of tens of millions of Americans. He is a conservative and proud of it but not a radical. Obama has often associated with radicals and showed no discomfort with it until he ran for president. Where was Powell's outrage at that?
Rush was right when he said Powell should become a Democrat. He endorsed the Democratic nominee, not the Republican nominee when the Republican nominee was far closer to the center. In fact I think it is safe to say that Limbaugh, a proud conservative, is closer to the center than Obama.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Answering a Liberal Strawman: Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?
Should Republicans move to the right or be more inclusive?
This question is a strawman posed by liberals who are insinuating that being
conservative is somehow the antithesis of being inclusive, but it does raise
interesting issues.
Should Republicans move to the right? Absolutely, Republicans have betrayed
economic conservatism since the late 90s and simply embraced a milder form of liberalism on economic issues than the Democrats. This is one of the reasons they are in the minority right now. Republicans need to stand firm on smaller government and lower taxes.
They also need to stand firm on the war on terror, the 2nd amendment and
securing the border. The people are with Republicans on these issues.
Now, should Republicans be inclusive? Republicans already are inclusive. The
media and entertainment industries have basically been peddling the left's
propaganda of the 'bigoted conservative' to push people into the Democratic
party because they know they can't win by selling a socialist agenda.
Conservatives are not anti-Hispanic, they are just opposed to illegal
immigration. They are not even anti-gay, it is just that most are opposed to
same-sex marriage, a position that the majority of Americans hold.
If you were to ask a gay conservative, who do you get more hostility from,
straight conservatives when they learn you are gay or gay liberals when they
learn you're conservative, the answer is almost always from gay liberals when
they learn you're conservative. It is the left that is intolerant.
Maybe we should ask the Democrats, if they want to continue to move to the left
or be more inclusive. They sure can't tolerate any dissent, judging by their
reactions to the tea parties, and the fact that many of them want to stifle free
speech under the guise of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Standing for smaller government and lower taxes is not being exclusionary. We let the left push us in their direction for their benefit and it has to stop. This does not mean we become as rigidly ideological and narrow-minded as they are, but it does mean acting on our principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. These are principles to proclaim proudly, sure we should allow a diversity of viewpoints into the party, but not to the point to where the party stands for nothing but itself and itself alone. Be bold. Be conservative. And don't apologize for it.
This question is a strawman posed by liberals who are insinuating that being
conservative is somehow the antithesis of being inclusive, but it does raise
interesting issues.
Should Republicans move to the right? Absolutely, Republicans have betrayed
economic conservatism since the late 90s and simply embraced a milder form of liberalism on economic issues than the Democrats. This is one of the reasons they are in the minority right now. Republicans need to stand firm on smaller government and lower taxes.
They also need to stand firm on the war on terror, the 2nd amendment and
securing the border. The people are with Republicans on these issues.
Now, should Republicans be inclusive? Republicans already are inclusive. The
media and entertainment industries have basically been peddling the left's
propaganda of the 'bigoted conservative' to push people into the Democratic
party because they know they can't win by selling a socialist agenda.
Conservatives are not anti-Hispanic, they are just opposed to illegal
immigration. They are not even anti-gay, it is just that most are opposed to
same-sex marriage, a position that the majority of Americans hold.
If you were to ask a gay conservative, who do you get more hostility from,
straight conservatives when they learn you are gay or gay liberals when they
learn you're conservative, the answer is almost always from gay liberals when
they learn you're conservative. It is the left that is intolerant.
Maybe we should ask the Democrats, if they want to continue to move to the left
or be more inclusive. They sure can't tolerate any dissent, judging by their
reactions to the tea parties, and the fact that many of them want to stifle free
speech under the guise of the 'Fairness Doctrine.'
Standing for smaller government and lower taxes is not being exclusionary. We let the left push us in their direction for their benefit and it has to stop. This does not mean we become as rigidly ideological and narrow-minded as they are, but it does mean acting on our principles. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom. These are principles to proclaim proudly, sure we should allow a diversity of viewpoints into the party, but not to the point to where the party stands for nothing but itself and itself alone. Be bold. Be conservative. And don't apologize for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)