Plunging Towards Gomorrah
Posts tagged Conservative
Four Justices Oppose the Constitution
Jun 28th
Well, that should be the real headline of today’s Supreme Court ruling on gun control. It is possible to debate whether or not it’s a good idea for every American to have a firearm. The same could be said about the Freedom of Speech. What puzzles me is that four justices on the Supreme Court and many liberals believe it’s the court’s place to limit a right given by the United States Constitution.
If liberals wish to remove the right they should repeal the second amendment. A repeal isn’t likely to happen, but it’s shocking that progressives seem so cavalier about the Bill of Rights when it suits them.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens, in his final day on the bench after more than 34 years, said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally – to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”
It’s unclear which constitution Justice Stevens is referencing. I’ve often wondered if he had his own version. So I guess this ruling would be destructive to Stevens’ imaginary constitution. What these four Justices believe is that the ends justify the means. In other words, they’ve put their own ideology over the written law of the land. If there is no law, there is no truth. If there is no truth, there is only anarchy, which will be fantastic.
RE: Gerrymandered Census
Feb 26th
I mentioned House Rep. Mel Watt last week in my post about the Gerrymandered Census. As I stated before Watt is one of the most liberal members of the Congress and the only way he continues to get elected is because of gerrymandered districts.
The National Journal has posted the top 10 most liberal and conservative members of the Congress. It’s no surprise that Watt is tied for first. Is Watt really representing the average voter in the state of North Carolina?
The 10 Most Liberal House Dems 1. Rush Holt (D-NJ) 1. Gwen Moore (D-WI) 1. John Olver (D-MA) 1. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) 1. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) 1. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) 1. Mel Watt (D-NC) 1. Henry Waxman (D-CA) 9. Kathy Castor (D-FL) 10. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
the independent voter
Nov 5th
The fickle independent voters… They’re courted by politicians every election. Independent voters are growing in number. Much has been said about the number of self identified Republicans and Democrats. For whatever reason people are proud to be Democrats. This isn’t new phenomenon, and I’m sure a whole book could be dedicated to party loyalty. The number of independent voters is growing because people are disillusioned with the Republican party. Who can blame them? I had always been a registered Independent until last year’s presidential primary. Florida isn’t an open primary state, so I registered as a Republican to vote.
What is a disillusioned voter to do? This answer isn’t as simple as switching parties. Many voters are fed up with the size and power of the federal government. Ever since the New Deal the government has been spending more and more money. By 1980, the tax burden to pay for everything was killing the economy. Reagan wisely cut taxes to reinvigorate the economy, but Washington has lacked the political will to reduce spending. It’s easy to cut taxes, but it’s nearly impossible to rein in spending. That’s where we are today: twenty years of low taxes and high deficits. Liberals simply want to raise taxes, but doing so would cripple our economy.
americans: center-right
Oct 26th
One year after the 2008 election, one thing is certain: the average American voter is center-right. After Obama’s win, many pundits and bloggers opined about how America had moved left. In reality, Obama’s election was more about a rejection of eight years of Bush, not to mention the rejection of a boring, moderate McCain campaign. Now that the Democrats are in power their coalition is falling apart. The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg makes some good points about this phenomenon:
The Democratic Party’s leaders are a lot more liberal than their voters (the dynamic is even more true when it comes to committee chairs who are to the left of the average Democratic congressmen). The Democrats came into power in 2008 thinking they had a huge mandate for liberalism, when they really had a huge mandate for competence (for want of a better word). Obama and his coterie misunderstood this. They used a lot of “pragmatic” rhetoric, but they governed from the left, starting with the calamitous stimulus bill. Obama’s personal popularity is still sustaining him, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party missed an enormous opportunity. I don’t think they’re doomed or anything like that. But, they’ve managed to rebrand themselves as a very liberal party again, and that’s a problem when 80% of Americans don’t describe themselves as liberals.
Gallup released a new poll measuring ideological groups in America. There’s nothing really startling about the poll. It’s relatively unchanged over the last two decades. Liberals enjoyed a small jump toward the end of the Bush years, but have settled back to 20%. Goldberg is correct; Obama and the Democrats cannot maintain a winning coalition governing from the left. Obama will most certainly tack to the center at some point or risk a reelection nightmare.
Simply moving to the center will be more difficult for Obama than it was for Clinton. President Clinton campaigned for a few centrist ideas. The cornerstone issue for Clinton was welfare reform. When Clinton ran for reelection his most significant first-term achievement was something Republicans wanted. In 1996 the economy was doing better and Clinton has taken a valuable campaign issue from the Republicans. Obama doesn’t have any popular centrist plans. The President is unwilling to adopt any health care reform ideas from the right. Instead, Obama contrasts his opponents as having no ideas.
The President was able to run as a moderate in the last election because no one was willing to look at his record. Obama basically won by default against an old Republican who refused to differentiate himself in a winning year for Democrats. Even if the economy bounces back 2012 will not be a cake walk. Al Gore ran for president in 2000 when the economy was doing well and Clinton was still popular and lost. The economy was doing well in 2004, but Bush didn’t win handily against Kerry. The nation is still divided. Obama’s best hope is the rise of a third-party candidate to drain votes from the Republicans. Since the Republicans do not have a leader and there’s populist unrest within both parties a third-party candidate is becoming more likely. Who will it be?
american angst
Sep 21st
The past two months have been difficult for the Obama administration. The White House has learned that Americans still do not trust the government. Well, maybe “learned” is too strong. I’m not sure the White House gets it. However, the conventional wisdom about the 2008 election is starting to shift. Originally, the election was the “end of conservatism.” Bush’s unpopularity created an unfair perception that the United States had moved to the left. Liberals so blinded by partisanship didn’t realize that Bush wasn’t conservative.
Most of Bush’s domestic agenda was opposed by mainstream conservatives. The National Review opposed No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill, the creation of Department of Homeland Security, and the immigration amnesty bill. Conservatives have been appalled by the spending spree in Washington. Americans were appalled as well. The Democrats who won swing districts in 2006 ran as conservatives. They didn’t promise government health care. They promised to reduce the debt.
The growing angst in America comes from the fact that President Obama seems unconcerned about reducing our debt. Instead of tackling Medicare and Social Security the President wants to burden the nation with costly climate change and health care bills. After promising more transparency and less pork, the stimulus package the President signed is a perfect example of government waste.
Obama successful tapped into the American angst with Washington when he ran for President, but he’s been unwilling to reduce the size and scope of government. I’ve never seen so much angst with Washington. Obama had a tremendous opportunity to lead the nation toward real change, but instead he represents the problem. Obama is a more liberal version of Bush. Conservatives and independents didn’t like the first version and they’ll hate the second version.
Who can successfully represent America? The Republicans don’t have anyone that I see on the horizon. A lot can change over the next few years, but there’s a huge opportunity for a new leader to connect to Americans in a very dramatic way.
defending sarah palin, part 2
Jul 14th
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
-Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
“And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions.”
-Thomas Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
Ever since the publication of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, fellow travelers on the left, either consciously or unconsciously, have followed Alinsky’s roadmap to affect sweeping change to American society.
Two points regarding Rules for Radicals are pertinent to Sarah Palin’s story. First, it emphasizes the destruction of the individual to discredit the policy views and beliefs of that individual. Second, it seeks to distract and complete the personal destruction by levying accusations of wrongdoing, whether true or not (known euphemistically in Rules for Radicals as, “Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”)
Certainly, Palin has been victimized by the particular methods outlined, which, in part, contributed to her resignation from the governorship. Despite the fact that she had accomplished much in her short time as governor, her effectiveness was being sapped by any number of frivolous ethics complaints. It is no coincidence that these complaints coincided with Palin’s rise to prominence. Rules for Radicals anyone?
These distractions, which were costing the state and Palin millions of dollars, were launched in conjunction with a public campaign of personal destruction unprecedented in modern American politics. I won’t go into the litany of rumor, innuendo and outright lies disseminated about Palin; they’re already well documented.
The point is that she is a threat to the status quo, at least the status quo as envisioned by the progressive elites in politics and the media. Palin is a lightning rod for conservative values. She represents everything the elites hate: independence and freedom from government control.
Progressives seek to change the very fabric of our society, using the state as the mechanism to force conformity to their vision of Utopia. As has been mentioned here before, this particular Utopia requires the enslavement of the individual to the state, which is only possible through concerted attacks on the values of a functional society.
A dysfunctional society in which the family is useless and meaningless makes the individual ripe for state control. It is the breakup of the traditional family that was used as a control mechanism for the worst 20th Century tyrants. Palin, on the other hand, represents traditional American values, based on limited government and the supremacy of the family and the individual as the core drivers of society.
Thus she was targeted for destruction. The destruction was almost complete when Palin announced her resignation, or at least it seemed that way. It was apparent that the hits would just keep on coming, so Palin wisely announced that she would take the hits as a private citizen. This provides her the freedom and leeway to deal with those hits on her own terms, without having to fight off trumped up ethics charges that are so effective against a public official. She also has more time to support the causes she believes in.
Will she run for president in 2012? I doubt it, and believe it would be foolish to do so. She draws crowds and fires up the so-called “base” of the Republican Party wherever she goes, so she could be instrumental in turning the tide in 2010. I bet if she hones her speaking chops and policy positions between now and 2016 she could be a formidable force indeed in a presidential election, but not any sooner.
call someone else’s congressman
Jun 30th
Following the horrendous vote in the House of Representatives favoring the Cap and Trade bill, eight Republicans who voted for it have been identified (HT to Michelle Malkin). For those of you who see in this bill the erosion of our freedoms and the stifling of our economy in favor of a suffocating federal government, I suggest you call the following members of Congress who voted for it and let them know how you feel:
Mack, CA, 202-225-5330
Castle, DE, 202-225-4165
Kirk, IL, 202-225-4385
Lance, NJ, 202-225-5361
LoBiondo, NJ, 202-225-6572
McHugh, NY, 202-225-4611
Reichert, WA, 877-920-9208
Smith, NJ, 202-225-3765
Why pick on these particular eight representatives? As mentioned, they’re all Republicans, and the only Republicans who voted in favor of the Cap and Trade legislation. So-called “moderate” Republicans who vote on the side of bigger and more intrusive centralized government need to be put on notice that this is not acceptable.
Cap and Trade is an indicator of which side someone stands on. Either you stand with the Constitution and the decentralization of power to the states and the people, or you stand with those who believe in the power and supremacy of the state, and particularly the centralized federal state. The latter are typically called Democrats, and if you’re a Republican who votes for more federal control, please switch parties.
Cap and Trade is a watershed event in our nation’s history that defines the ever widening divide between conservative and progressive. The progressive believes there is nothing government can’t do (control the climate and save the planet!), whilst the conservative generally believes the government should be restricted to the duties enumerated in the Constitution.
Progressives are fascist, according to the classical definition of the term, and are unconcerned about personal freedom, unless the “freedom” in question has something to do with moral depravity, but that’s another topic for another time.
The point is that the Cap and Trade legislation that passed the House and is on its way to the Senate reveals the fascist agenda of the progressive movement in America. It is an agenda which seeks to control each individual’s behavior and restrict their consumption and mobility, all in the name of what is increasingly being proved as a myth of epic proportions.
The myth – climate change, global warming, global cooling, or whatever the hell is the most convenient term based on the current weather – is simply the mechanism or excuse whereby the fascist is able to exert control over his fellow citizens.
As mentioned in a previous post, the progressive fascist is typically insulated from the consequences of his pet policies. They’re either very wealthy, dependent on the government, work for the government or a union subsidized by government, or hipster dufuses (dufusi?) who follow the latest “cool” trend and blindly follow the pack (more on this voting bloc later).
So I understand why a Democrat would vote for the Cap and Trade bill. They have a defined constituency: the very wealthy, hipster dufusi (dufuses?), government dependents, government employees and union employees.
Republicans, on the other hand, are charged with representing the individual, and to put the individual’s freedom and liberty above the demands of the state and its special-interest constituents. Therefore, I have called all eight of those House Republicans who voted for Cap and Trade and left the following message:
Hi…
Just wanted to let you know that though I am a Republican and live in Colorado, I am going to do everything I can to ensure your defeat in the next election, including financial contributions to your opponents.
Your vote in favor of Cap and Trade displays scientific ignorance and a complete disregard for the liberty and freedom of average American citizens who will suffer under the further expansion of the federal government’s power.
I suggest you do two things before you vote on any more so-called climate change bills: re-read the Constitution and look up in the sky at the big burning orb that constitutes about 99 percent of the total mass of the solar system.
Thank you,
Club Soda
the more things change…
Jun 15th
There aren’t any earth shattering revelations in the new Gallup survey of American Ideological Groups. As I’ve stated before, the 2008 elections were not a sign of political realignment. Now that there’s a Democrat in the White House more people consider themselves conservative. I imagine the longer Obama is the president the number of self-professed liberals will decrease. The press might not notice there hasn’t been a major shift, but I’m sure the DNC is fully aware of the situation. Until the economy starts bouncing back the president is going to have a difficult time bringing change to health care.
american politics: the economist doesn’t understand
May 18th
What is more frustrating than a liberal political analyst on TV telling Republicans they need to move to the center? How about The Economist jumping on the bandwagon to extrapolate that the Republican Party’s problems are due to the perception it has gone too far to the right? The Economist is a great source for news on international economic affairs. Unfortunately, the magazine does not have a firm grip on politics in America.
Wow, I guess that wasn’t such a good idea after all.
Political analysis is full of sports hyperbole. In sports, teams play at least once a week. Fans and commentators make sweeping generalizations, only to be proven wrong time and again. Remember how the Tennessee Titans celebrated on the sidelines after defeating the Pittsburg Steelers at the end of the regular season? A couple of players even stomped on a Terrible Towel. What’s my point? Things change fast. A few games later, the Titans bowed out of the playoffs quickly and the Steelers won the Super Bowl. The Titans’ glorious day in December is an afterthought; a footnote in history.
The idea that Republicans need to move to the center, and that foundations of politics somehow miraculously changed last year is ridiculous. Based on two elections? Political elections are most often shaped by current events. Republicans picked up seats in 2002 because of the leadership of the President after 9/11. This carried over in 2004. After that election, we had two years of non-stop negative coverage of Katrina, Iraq, gas prices, and the economy. The only issue Bush had direct control over was Iraq. Iraq is no longer in the news because the success of General Petraeus and the surge. The business cycle created a perfect storm for Democrats in 2008. The campaign was about unspecific “change.” In other words it was about nothing.
Thanks Kirby for making a 12 year old boy cry himself to sleep.
Democrats did not win any kind of public debate about issues. There were no issues to debate. The Republicans didn’t run a right wing zealot; they ran a centrist, John McCain. In other words, the exact guy The Economist, Colin Powell, NBC News, and every other liberal wanted the Republicans to run. It’s a brilliant strategy for the left. It’s like telling the Atlanta Braves to pitch Charlie Liebrandt against Kirby Puckett in the World Series. The image of the ball going over the fence is scotched into my retina. Becoming a centrist party isn’t all that The Economist recommends; they go further…
They need to abandon their state of denial about global warming. And they need to recognise that gay marriage could well be their equivalent of the gun issue. The party’s opposition to gay marriage not only makes them look mean-spirited. It is also destroying any chance Republicans have of regaining the support of younger Americans. Gay marriage is becoming progressively more popular among young Americans at a time when another favourite conservative issue, abortion, is of less concern to them.
This is where The Economist misses the mark. Gay marriage and global warming are not major issues in the nation. Both issues get a lot of air time, but they’re not game changers. Young voters may care more about those two issues than the normal voter, but time changes everything. Young voters are less informed and make up only 17% of the electorate. The number one issue for young voters should be the fact the country is going bankrupt, but they’re too ignorant to care or to notice. They’re too busy reveling in the Perez Hilton/Miss California conflagration, the latest scandal du jour, and the most popular YouTube video.
If Republicans capitulate on global warming and gay marriage they accomplish nothing. If Democrats and their constituents are stupid enough to raise taxes to supposedly prevent an unproven theory, let them pay the political price for the economic consequences. Using the youth vote logic, let’s think back on how much those young voters in the 1960s changed things. They were against the Vietnam War, but here we are thirty years later carpet bombing Iraq for decades. They were into all kinds of experimental drugs and they’re still illegal. In other words, the youth vote is meaningless, but it makes for good copy I suppose.
Abortion looks like a losing proposition for Democrats if this trend continues.
The Economist even brings up abortion. So abortion is a losing issue for Republicans even though a majority of Americans consider themselves Pro-Life? How exactly does the writer of this article come to this conclusion? Since he doesn’t explain it, we’ll never know, but that’s par for the course when you’re advising someone to choose a losing strategy but presenting it as a winning strategy with no data or logic to back it up. If Republicans want to be a logical choice for voters they need to stand for something. Voters want representatives who are for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and economic freedom. Right now neither party will take a principled stand on those issues.
