President Bush, who has weathered every storm thrown at him and managed to come out looking better, is set to do it again. He has picked his second nominee for the Supreme Court, and it is suspected he will have the opportunity to pick a third, or even fourth.
I don’t know Harriet Miers. I suspect she’ll be great on the court. I don’t have a problem with President Bush picking her over anyone else. I don’t even have a problem with the fact that a conservative icon was not picked. I’d love to see the showdown that finally nukes the left, but even that can wait. I don’t mind the slow meltdown they’re in now (especially as they can’t see it).
Here’s what I have a problem with, and it was mentioned on more than one blog, radio show, and article. I believe, even if President Bush felt Miers was his first pick, there were a lot of candidates that withdrew, or that he didn’t consider, because the candidates nor the President wanted to go to war with this senate as their army.
The Republicans have a majority in the senate. It’s 55-44-1 (the independent always votes with the democrats, so it is basically 55-45). However, they constantly waffle, they constantly give in, they don’t have the will or strength in them to challenge their opponents. They cave in at the least hint of nasty news, and even turn on their fellows when they sniff blood in the water.
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to rely on this senate for anything, even though I like my two senators. If President Bush approached me to sit on the Supreme Court (pretending, for a moment, that I was a somewhat known public figure with a history of conservatism) I would look at what has gone on and say “no thanks”. Not because I don’t trust our President, but because I have NO faith in the Republicans in the Senate to stand up for me.
Thank the Senate for this current predicament. I am not concerned in the least about our ideological movement, or our current hold on government (which I see dominating for the next 30 years at least). I only hope that people realize every election matters, not just the President. Pay attention to who represents you. They affect more than you realize.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Friday, September 30, 2005
Corruption? Yeah. But what do I *really* want?
In a perfect world, a utopia come true, there would be no “corruption” in government. But then, we wouldn’t have to work hard, we would have all the time and pleasures we wanted, and we wouldn’t affect the environment doing it.
We live in a practical, pragmatic world. There has been a lot of talk about corruption in our government. I believe it is corrupt. I don’t believe all politicians are corrupt, but I do believe congress has passed out pet projects (called pork) to their constituents. Money that didn’t absolutely need to be spent is still pulled from taxes and given to local projects.
This is a fact of politics. It’s stupid, because those people who think they are benefiting because their senator or representative brought a lucrative project to their area are still paying taxes for all the other projects going to all the other areas. If it’s not their turn this year, it will be next, to pay the bill for someone else’s project. However, it’s a fact of politics. If you want people to vote for you, you have to be ready to use your influence to “help” them. If you don’t help your constituents, they are not going to elect you again.
I am not asking for an end to corruption. What I am asking for is strength of leadership, of backbone and integrity. Don’t bother denying what you are doing, don’t try to hide it, but don’t roll over and slink away when someone who is every bit as corrupt as you points a finger and starts to yell. I am sick and tired of my elected leaders (all of whom are from my party) letting the media and the so-called “opposition” party win every petty round of mud-slinging scream-fests.
Let’s see how corrupt it USED to be! Let’s see how many pork projects and misdirected millions can be found in the bills when the “opposition” party was in power! Fire back damn you! We own the arena of ideas. We own the right ideas. We don’t have to let THEM own the ability to label us and manipulate the media.
I don’t need an end to all corruption, I need a start of leadership! Play “hard-ball” you wimps!
We live in a practical, pragmatic world. There has been a lot of talk about corruption in our government. I believe it is corrupt. I don’t believe all politicians are corrupt, but I do believe congress has passed out pet projects (called pork) to their constituents. Money that didn’t absolutely need to be spent is still pulled from taxes and given to local projects.
This is a fact of politics. It’s stupid, because those people who think they are benefiting because their senator or representative brought a lucrative project to their area are still paying taxes for all the other projects going to all the other areas. If it’s not their turn this year, it will be next, to pay the bill for someone else’s project. However, it’s a fact of politics. If you want people to vote for you, you have to be ready to use your influence to “help” them. If you don’t help your constituents, they are not going to elect you again.
I am not asking for an end to corruption. What I am asking for is strength of leadership, of backbone and integrity. Don’t bother denying what you are doing, don’t try to hide it, but don’t roll over and slink away when someone who is every bit as corrupt as you points a finger and starts to yell. I am sick and tired of my elected leaders (all of whom are from my party) letting the media and the so-called “opposition” party win every petty round of mud-slinging scream-fests.
Let’s see how corrupt it USED to be! Let’s see how many pork projects and misdirected millions can be found in the bills when the “opposition” party was in power! Fire back damn you! We own the arena of ideas. We own the right ideas. We don’t have to let THEM own the ability to label us and manipulate the media.
I don’t need an end to all corruption, I need a start of leadership! Play “hard-ball” you wimps!
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Commitment and Majorities
I am obviously biased. I am conservative. If you read my blog you know this. I have been wrestling with my concepts of liberalism, trying to figure out just why it is that we contradict each other: the very things I would say about a liberal, they could say about me. We would both be right in our own minds because we would be looking at each others behavior, seeing what we felt were inconsistencies.
How do we reconcile those inconsistencies for ourselves? I know that I prefer law and government in certain circumstances, and not in others. It is almost exactly opposite to when a liberal prefers law and government. I believe each branch of the government has certain duties, responsibilities, and certain powers it should not exercise. Those are almost exactly opposite to what a liberal expects.
I live my life being cautious in certain places, adhering to certain traditions, discarding others. I commit to certain things, I avoid commitment to others.
How do my choices make me conservative instead of liberal?
Liberals commit themselves only to the temporary. Commitment is good, but how committed are you if you know you can abort what you’ve started any time you want? It feels like a refusal to believe a part of you might be meant to serve others. Sometimes you must carry something through despite the fact that it is going to take from you and seems to give nothing back. The value may be for someone else, and you may not always be capable of discerning that value.
From what I can tell, liberals believe in mob rules, not majority rules. Mob rules are much more centralized. The loud voice, surrounded by angry people, focused on a mutual target that is often not only innocent of the charges levied upon it, but may be exactly what the larger majority wants. But the mob is not capable of understanding that. Instead of converting more to its cause, it tries to subvert.
How do we reconcile those inconsistencies for ourselves? I know that I prefer law and government in certain circumstances, and not in others. It is almost exactly opposite to when a liberal prefers law and government. I believe each branch of the government has certain duties, responsibilities, and certain powers it should not exercise. Those are almost exactly opposite to what a liberal expects.
I live my life being cautious in certain places, adhering to certain traditions, discarding others. I commit to certain things, I avoid commitment to others.
How do my choices make me conservative instead of liberal?
Liberals commit themselves only to the temporary. Commitment is good, but how committed are you if you know you can abort what you’ve started any time you want? It feels like a refusal to believe a part of you might be meant to serve others. Sometimes you must carry something through despite the fact that it is going to take from you and seems to give nothing back. The value may be for someone else, and you may not always be capable of discerning that value.
From what I can tell, liberals believe in mob rules, not majority rules. Mob rules are much more centralized. The loud voice, surrounded by angry people, focused on a mutual target that is often not only innocent of the charges levied upon it, but may be exactly what the larger majority wants. But the mob is not capable of understanding that. Instead of converting more to its cause, it tries to subvert.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Who can best defeat…
Articles ran rampant during the 2004 election season, especially as the Democrats zeroed in on their candidate (which happened very fast). It was all about “who could beat Bush?” There were two huge challenges that beset the Democrats. First, they didn’t have much of a selection. It’s just the kind of thing that happens. Some years your candidates are stronger than the other side, sometimes the other side is stronger. Democrats underestimated President Bush and overestimated Senator Kerry. It was probably their best choice, but it was just not enough. How many times did we hear that Democrats were not excited about their candidate? I would venture to guess that the vast majority of elections go to the party that is more excited about their candidate. If your “guy” is boring, you’re going to lose. If he’s boring and trying to fake being excited, you’re still going to lose.
The second issue is something that is really going to come into play in the next election. There is a candidate on the Democrats’ side that excites them. Hillary Clinton. She’s far from boring. The challenge will be for the Republicans to be excited about their candidate. Most of the names being floated are simply not exciting. Except Condoleezza Rice. She excites Republicans. She’s the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. She’s strong, smart, female, and has a political resume that has not only seen her in the Oval Office, but could put her behind the desk.
Therefore, the issue is going to be broad appeal. We have seen Senator Clinton making great strides to try to appeal nationwide. She’s moved far center of her typical position, presumably to set herself up to represent the whole nation rather than just her party. The question is, will it work? Both candidates, especially if it comes down to these two, are going to have to answer that one.
The second issue boils down to this: will your candidate actually inspire the other side to come out in opposition? Certainly there was a lot of that in the 2004 election. So you’ve got the positive, neutral, and negative takes on the two issues: Excitement for your candidate and determination to defeat the opposition.
My opinion (since this is my blog) is that in a Clinton/Rice race, Democrats will be excited about their candidate, but not enough of them determined to defeat Rice (in fact they will have to worry about her broad appeal taking away one of their big voting blocks), but Republicans will be both excited about their candidate and determined to defeat Clinton. Not a HUGE win, but at least four more years in the White House. I think many Democrats have figured this out. While according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Rice has a 59% favorable rating nationwide, and Clinton only polled 40% among Democrats for the candidacy in ’08. There’s a LONG way to go, but I believe it’s something to watch.
For the Democrats it’s no longer just about getting your people to the poll. Not only in this same poll do 56% of the people in this nation (all parties) approve of the Republican party, but only 46% approve of the Democrats (47% disapprove), but there are more registered Republicans than Democrats now. They also have to find a way to keep the Republicans from going to the polls.
Good luck…
The second issue is something that is really going to come into play in the next election. There is a candidate on the Democrats’ side that excites them. Hillary Clinton. She’s far from boring. The challenge will be for the Republicans to be excited about their candidate. Most of the names being floated are simply not exciting. Except Condoleezza Rice. She excites Republicans. She’s the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. She’s strong, smart, female, and has a political resume that has not only seen her in the Oval Office, but could put her behind the desk.
Therefore, the issue is going to be broad appeal. We have seen Senator Clinton making great strides to try to appeal nationwide. She’s moved far center of her typical position, presumably to set herself up to represent the whole nation rather than just her party. The question is, will it work? Both candidates, especially if it comes down to these two, are going to have to answer that one.
The second issue boils down to this: will your candidate actually inspire the other side to come out in opposition? Certainly there was a lot of that in the 2004 election. So you’ve got the positive, neutral, and negative takes on the two issues: Excitement for your candidate and determination to defeat the opposition.
My opinion (since this is my blog) is that in a Clinton/Rice race, Democrats will be excited about their candidate, but not enough of them determined to defeat Rice (in fact they will have to worry about her broad appeal taking away one of their big voting blocks), but Republicans will be both excited about their candidate and determined to defeat Clinton. Not a HUGE win, but at least four more years in the White House. I think many Democrats have figured this out. While according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Rice has a 59% favorable rating nationwide, and Clinton only polled 40% among Democrats for the candidacy in ’08. There’s a LONG way to go, but I believe it’s something to watch.
For the Democrats it’s no longer just about getting your people to the poll. Not only in this same poll do 56% of the people in this nation (all parties) approve of the Republican party, but only 46% approve of the Democrats (47% disapprove), but there are more registered Republicans than Democrats now. They also have to find a way to keep the Republicans from going to the polls.
Good luck…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)