For some of us, the memory of Sept. 11, 2001 is becoming more distant with each passing year, each passing day. Soon, it may well be regarded as little more than a page in history that can be safely turned.
Sadly, fewer people today care to be reminded of the horrors experienced on that pleasant, otherwise ordinary late summer morning. Due to the natural courses of time, generations and mortality, there were more people six years ago who remembered the terrorist attacks than there were five years ago, four years ago, three, two, one and so forth until, decades later, there will be no one left to personally relate what was seen on the televisions and heard over the radio waves that day, because we the living today will eventually die and cease to exist. And unless we pause to remember those who perished on 9/11/01 at least once a year, the memory of what happened and what was at stake will fade much sooner than you or I will.
A cold, indifferent news media doesn’t see fit to show the images of the terrorist attacks, claiming that it doesn’t want to stir up old vices against Muslims, or remind us of the bitter memories of our losses. And yet, it has no problem showing footage of terror attacks in other countries, the bombing of Pearl Harbor, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, storming the beaches at Normandy, the assault on Iwo Jima, and various engagements in Vietnam, Korea and the current War on Terror. These images are no less disturbing than those from 9/11/01.
But, alas, the images have been put into storage, never to be reopened again for the benefit of current and succeeding generations.
Out of the shadows of this event have come sinister voices trying to persuade us that what actually happened on 9/11/01 wasn’t really true. Some of these voices are propagating bold-faced lies that Israel and the Jews were responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Others claim that the U.S. government—the White House, in particular—was the mastermind behind the carnage. Filmmaker Michael Moore and his controversial film, “Fahrenheit 911” is a perfect example of these sinister voices.
Now, if we eventually forget what we saw, forget what we heard, and forget the experience of Sept. 11, 2001 altogether, imagine what succeeding generations will come to learn about this event if the sinister voices prevail. Do you want your children’s children’s children to believe what you know to be lies?
Don’t think that will ever happen? Think again.
Already, there are sinister voices undermining history by claiming that the Holocaust did not really happen. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already said so. Fortunately, there are still people alive today who lived through that time and can tell us what really happened. But their numbers are shrinking. And once they are gone, who is to stop another Ahmadinejad from making the same claim? Who will be able to refute the lies if we, too, have forgotten the truth?
The surest way to keep the truth alive is to never forget it—and never let it die with us.
Just as the generations before us have done to preserve the truth of the Holocaust, so must we do to keep the truth of Sept. 11, 2001 from passing away into obscurity and leaving it open for interpretation by those who want others to believe a lie.
The memories may be unpleasant, even painful, but we must do this for the sake of future generations who will have no first-hand knowledge of the attacks and what they mean for the survival of the western world.
So, may I please ask, have you forgotten? More to the point, have you chosen to forget? God help us all if you have.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Republicans need Doctor Laura, not Doctor Phil
In the aftermath of the November 4 general election results, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty was interviewed and asked what the Republican Party ought to do now after losing not only the White House, but both Houses of Congresses by even wider margins to essentially make them irrelevant for the next two years.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
The governor mused that his party was in need of a “Dr. Phil moment” to reflect on itself.
But I’ll take this a step further and say that the Republican Party doesn’t need Dr. Phil.
It needs Dr. Laura.
The party’s “Dr. Phil moment” should have come after the disastrous 2006 elections, which awarded both Houses of Congress to the Democrats. That loss and the events that precipitated it should have been a wake-up call to Republicans. But instead of waking up, the party simply turned off the alarm and went back to sleep.
At that point, the party’s conservative base had thrown up its hands and declared, “No more Mr. Nice Guy.” Dr. Phil had his moment, but the advice and warnings from conservatives went unheeded. Proof of this was in the presidential nomination of moderate/liberal republican “rhino” Sen. John McCain.
As such, what the Republicans need and deserve now is not a good cry, but rather a punch in the nose.
The Grand Old Party needs someone to get in its face and tell it like it is. Republicans need a “Dr. Laura moment.” Whether conservative republicans have the gumption to hold their party accountable for its losses and responsible for ignoring them is a question that lingers on my mind.
By and large, conservatives have had a habit in the past of shrinking into their shells and politicking from the closet. The emergence and subsequent boon of conservative talk radio was the only effective antidote for getting the right to come out of its shell and out of the closet, so to speak. Because conservatives finally felt they had a voice in the political arena—and especially through the national media—they were emboldened in 1994 when the Republican Revolution and the “Contract with America” took Congress by storm.
And yet, in spite of the conservative tidal wave that swept the Democrats from power for the first time in four decades, the Republican Party still didn’t get it. Within two election cycles, the number of conservative Republicans in the House and Senate had shrunk significantly and were replaced by more moderate—i.e., liberal—party officials. By the time President George W. Bush had taken office, Congress was being run by neo-conservatives, which is really just a kinder, gentler term for “liberal.”
Now we get why the deficit ballooned under the Bush Administration. It wasn’t merely the “War on Terror,” but rather the liberal spending of moderate, neo-con legislative and executive branches. If either one or both had regarded traditional conservatism that won Washington, D.C., back for the Republicans in 1994, we wouldn’t have a deficit in the trillions of dollars and I doubt the democrats would have regained control of Congress in 2006—not to mention 2008.
Alas, a lot of the same conservatives who were emboldened in 1994 have felt betrayed, cheated, forgotten and ignored by the party that is supposed to support, promote and defend the principles of conservatism. Consequently, some have retreated back into the shadows of their closets or shells. Many more simply refuse to vote for the Republican ticket because they have felt let down again by the GOP, preferring instead to let the opposition prevail and take us down the road to ruin where the party might then see the errors of its ways.
But nothing short of a good, old-fashioned butt-kicking will get the Republican Party back on track toward and back in line with its core conservative principles. The greater challenge will be restoring the trust and confidence that conservative voters once had in the Republican Party. With all that has happened in the past decade, though, this seems so far gone that the only way the party can win its core supporters back is to swallow its pride and seek forgiveness, which won’t come right away. The only antidote to heal wounds as deep as these is time.
As Dr. Laura would probably say, eat your humble pie and do the right thing.
Time will tell if the Republican Party has simply strayed from conservatism or is gone for good.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Lobbyists: Love them, hate them, deal with them
I'll be the first to admit that I really despise the tactics of Washington lobbyists in general. Money has corrupted the federal government right down to the core. Most lobbying groups wave money in the face of politicians, hoping they'll bite like a fish to a hook. And the vast majority of them do.
To say that our elected leaders are bought and paid for would be an understatement. They are wined, dined, and lavished upon by the lobbyists whose only purpose is to secure support for their cause and/or guarantee a vote on a bill. It is about scratching backs and kissing backsides. Lobbyists do the latter as well as politicians do kissing babies.
But, seriously, what should be done about all this schmoozing? Indeed, what can be done, if anything? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But the answer is not regulation, no matter what the McCains and Feingolds have to say about it. What legislation of lobbying really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them.
The surest way to get a politician to act on your behalf is to promise your vote, in much the same way he or she makes promises to get your vote. And the way to do that in Washington, D.C., is through lobbyists and interest groups. This is especially true between elections, when politicians are less likely to take the time to listen to individual grievances.
Lobbyists promise to secure voters for the politician by the next election in exchange for legislative action on behalf of their constituents. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress in bill form.
Love them or hate them, lobbyists and lobbying groups serve a purpose to our republican democracy. They act as a voice for people on issues that might not otherwise be heard by our elected representatives. They represent us in person when we are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., ourselves. And, honestly, how many of us can realistically do that every time an issue comes up on which we want our voices heard? This happens every day, and the lobbyists are there every day, advocating for their issues and their constituents.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
To say that our elected leaders are bought and paid for would be an understatement. They are wined, dined, and lavished upon by the lobbyists whose only purpose is to secure support for their cause and/or guarantee a vote on a bill. It is about scratching backs and kissing backsides. Lobbyists do the latter as well as politicians do kissing babies.
But, seriously, what should be done about all this schmoozing? Indeed, what can be done, if anything? I mean, after all, there are a lot of corrupt interest groups who selfishly pursue their own agendas in Washington, D.C. That’s common knowledge, and it frosts us to no end.
But the answer is not regulation, no matter what the McCains and Feingolds have to say about it. What legislation of lobbying really amounts to is the suppression of free speech, which is the people’s right to speak and be heard by their government. It is about Congress not passing laws that abridge our freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances, which, by the way, is a clause in Article I of the Constitution.
What this means is that lobbies like the National Rifle Association could be prevented from being heard in the halls of Congress. The NRA, which is the foremost advocate of Second Amendment rights in the country, could be silenced. And if we don’t have a group like the NRA standing up for us in Washington, D.C., reminding our lawmakers of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, then what is to stop the government from making changes to the Constitution altogether?
What I am talking about is censorship. As much as I do not like many of the special interest groups and lobbyists prowling around my representative’s office, they have that right by virtue of the U.S. Constitution. Their form of “speech” is money, and we may not like that. But the fact is that people like you and me give money to these groups to advocate for them.
The surest way to get a politician to act on your behalf is to promise your vote, in much the same way he or she makes promises to get your vote. And the way to do that in Washington, D.C., is through lobbyists and interest groups. This is especially true between elections, when politicians are less likely to take the time to listen to individual grievances.
Lobbyists promise to secure voters for the politician by the next election in exchange for legislative action on behalf of their constituents. They are a voice for people seeking a redress of grievances. Without lobbyists, Congress could essentially ignore the many different grievances people have.
Well, isn’t that what our elected representatives are for, to advocate on our behalf? Yes, in theory. But as large and complex as the federal government has become—a gargantuan public corporation, of sorts—budget matters, bills and committees seem to take up a great deal of legislators’ time. If we let them alone, then they would be more than happy not to legislate, but to rule.
Two examples of where our voices were heard through lobbies: Illegal immigration and the Fairness Doctrine.
If it hadn’t been for lobbyists and interest groups opposing illegal immigration, then the infamous Amnesty Bill of 2007 would have become law, granting legal status to millions of people who are living in our country illegally. Wait a minute, you say: Didn’t the amnesty bill get voted down because legislators were flooded with calls from their constituents? Yes, absolutely. But who alerted the people to the dangers of this bill and inspired millions of us to jam the Congressional phone lines? Lobbyists and interest groups, including conservative talk radio, internet bloggers and more.
Talk radio and conservative think-tanks helped to shoot down the proposed Fairness Doctrine before it could be presented before Congress in bill form.
Love them or hate them, lobbyists and lobbying groups serve a purpose to our republican democracy. They act as a voice for people on issues that might not otherwise be heard by our elected representatives. They represent us in person when we are unable to travel to Washington, D.C., ourselves. And, honestly, how many of us can realistically do that every time an issue comes up on which we want our voices heard? This happens every day, and the lobbyists are there every day, advocating for their issues and their constituents.
So, you see, lobbyists and interest groups have their place, even if we don’t like them.
The more things change…
…the more they stay the same.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Chalk up the President-elect’s first election promise broken.
From the very beginning, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington, D.C. Of course, he never really defined what his brand of change was. But many people believed that part of this promise was to end the cycle of career politicians keeping things the same as they’ve always been in our nation’s capital. And the soon-to-be former junior-senator from Illinois let people believe this by promising to bring fresh, new ideas and faces to the table to foster real, substantive policy reform.
The reality is that President-elect Barack Obama is filling cabinet positions with Beltway veterans who know how the game is played in Washington, D.C., and who are themselves career politicians.
From the attorney general nominee, Eric Holder, who pardoned Clinton Administration political backer Mark Rich, and was involved in the Monica Lewinsky White House probe, and played a key role in the controversial Elian Gonzales deportation; to the next Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, herself a current senior senator and Beltway power-broker; to former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle, D-SD, as the next Secretary of Health and Human Services; to former Clinton Administration staffer and Illinois Congressman Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff; former Clinton Administration Energy Secretary and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as the probable next Secretary of Commerce; current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who is expected to keep his post through at least Obama's first year; and even Vice-President-elect and current Sen. Joseph Biden, D-DE, who has carved a comfortable niche for himself in our nation’s capital with 30+ years in the senate and is arguably one of the most powerful and influential politicians in the country.
Exactly where is the change here, Mr. Obama? You are surrounding yourself with people who have made a living dancing the Potomac Two-Step, working the system, and playing the game as it has always been played. If you are not willing to think outside of the box with regard to your cabinet and administrative staff, why should we believe that you will actually change the ways of Washington for the better, as you promised to do early on in your campaign?
In my opinion, the first step toward bringing about real change is not to give the same old Washington, D.C., more power. By Obama's appointments thus far, he is endorsing the exact opposite of change. He is siding with the status quo.
Sounds to me like Obama is more interested in being the party man than the bipartisan agent of change he sold a lot of us on.
So, what else is new? Obama will simply be doing what many other career-minded politicians have done: Changing addresses, but not directions.
I think he’ll fit right in at 1600 Pennsylvania.
Just give the man a chance
How often have you heard this from people in the weeks after Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been hearing it ad nauseam.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Rules of Engagement are for war, not politics
After nearly two years of politics and prognostication, the presidential election is over. I, for one, am relieved, in spite of the fact that the guy I voted for did not win.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Admittedly, I don't have much to say about the results, except that I told you so.
I wrote very early on in the primary season, when it looked as though Sen. John McCain was well on his way to wrapping up the Republican presidential nomination, that the senior lawmaker from Arizona would not win the general election.
I said he was too moderate, too much of a compromiser, and evidently more interested in reaching across the aisle to liberal Democrats than standing up for and defending the conservative principles upon which his own party is based. Furthermore, he has had a history of alienating and polarizing the conservative base of the Republican Party.
This election year was no different.
His decision to name Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, although seen as a positive move by conservatives, was politically driven and motivated. Sen. McCain didn't pick Palin because he agreed with her conservative views. He chose her because he understood who the base of his party was and, more importantly, how to court their votes. He recognized that without conservatives he would most assuredly lose the election.
He was right.
Unfortunately for Sen. McCain, he had no intention at all of standing up for and defending conservatives. His concession speech, which was filled with a lot of rhetoric about getting along, cooperating and moving on, is proof enough of this. There was nothing in his speech that really gave conservatives hope, like keeping up the good fight on issues important to them. It was all about McCain trying to maintain his appearance as the good soldier, the voice of reason, the maverick who puts principles above party politics. The senator's entire political career has been built upon this very reputation. What's more, the conservative base of the Republican Party has been acutely aware of this for years, and is the chief reason why so many were understandably upset over his nomination. In fact, enough conservatives likely did not vote the republican ticket in the general election simply because of McCain.
Conservatives wanted someone who would stand up for them and their values, just as Obama was doing for his party's liberal base. They wanted a fighter, not a politician and a compromiser. They wanted someone who would represent them and not the liberal moderates who have infected the Republican Party over the past decade.
What they got was John McCain, who they felt had let them down in the past and would likely do it again.
And they were also right.
Ergo, one major reason why John McCain lost.
In the aftermath of the election, many in the McCain campaign have been quick to point the finger of blame at Gov. Palin rather than at their man. Why? Because Palin is conservative and not the moderate neo-con that McCain has prided himself as being. Palin wasn't willing to play by the campaign's rules of engagement and insisted on doing what she does best: Speak from the heart.
Nonetheless, the McCain campaign has thrown Palin under the bus, and along with her, the conservatives who forced themselves to vote McCain, if for no other reason than because the Alaska governor was on the ticket.
The sad reality is that McCain's loss is neither the fault of Palin nor conservatives, but rather the man himself.
His chivalry, while personally admirable, was destructive to his own campaign.
The first mistake he made was pledging to only use public money for his campaign and then challenging his opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, to do the same. Obama, though, recognized that money wins elections and ultimately decided against the public financing pledge...that is, after he had agreed to it. As a result, Obama outspent McCain by an enormous margin. His message reached millions more, and more often, than McCain did because he had the money to spread the word. McCain handcuffed himself with his own McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform measure.
But money aside, McCain had plenty of chances to go on the attack and just plain failed to do so out of a gentlemen's agreement he bound himself to. Unfortunately, he merely assumed and did not insist on the same from Obama, whose campaign set the tone, the agenda and pretty much made the rules that McCain dutifully followed, being the good soldier, the honorable gent and the chivalrous knight that he is.
McCain had plenty of opportunities to jump all over his opponent for backing down at the challenge of a series of unconventional town hall debates, going back on his word to use only public financing for his campaign, inferring that his running mate was a pig with lipstick, and flip-flopping on his view of the troop surge in the Iraq War, among others.
But again, McCain's desire to be seen as the good guy, the nice guy, prevailed and he did not go on the attack. Furthermore, he muzzled Gov. Palin and placed her on a short leash. He did not release the hounds, so to speak, and as a result, the fox got away. Too far away, in fact, for McCain to have any hope of catching him.
The bottom line is that John McCain insisted on playing hardball with a softball. He kept the gloves on and pulled his punches in the name of decency and respect.
He thought that people would vote for him because they would see through Obama's rhetoric, his beguiling speeches and his toothy, photogenic smile. He thought the American people were smart enough to realize that he was the most reasonable, most sensible, and most honorable of the two candidates.
But John McCain thought wrong. He underestimated today's average American voter, who clearly does not vote for honor any more, but rather for results and those who promise them.
Somebody forgot to remind Sen. McCain where nice guys tend to finish...especially in an election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
