The battle plan starting tomorrow for conservatives to retake congress and ultimately the White House.
The day the Obama tinfoil hat fanatics have been waiting for finally came. The inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama happened at 12:03pm. Those that attended called it a great day for Americans. Maybe it's a great day for the sixty three million that voted for him, it's really just another day for the fifty seven million that didn't vote for him. I am among the fifty seven million or 47% that didn't vote for Obama. I can actually say that not voting for Obama was one of the best decisions I've ever made. Let me explain why. It hasn't come as a surprise to many of the people that didn't vote for Obama how mentally engulfed the Obama drones are for Obama. Most of us that didn't vote for Obama did so based on his ideology, his character and his policy intent. We didn't drink the Obama kool aid of "yes we can" or "change". As free thinkers, we aren't blinded by platitudes and catch phrases like the legion of functioning illiterate sheep that have lost any sense of rational thought. It didn't strike me and many others as odd that we knew more about Obama then his own fanatic supporters. What's done is done, and Mr. Change is officially in the White House. The wheels are already set in motion for him to fail on a catastrophic level. As I said before, Obama is merely the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Going forward, this is the blue print to defeating Barack Obama.
Obama's economic plan is going to be a disaster. I predict the full fallout will be felt by 2011 with the starting of the devaluation of the dollar. The battle plan for conservative is very straightforward. The Republican National Committee needs to pick a full blown conservative for it's chairman position. I really would like to see Ken Blackwell get the job. Many social and fiscal conservatives are working behind the scene to make it happen. Second, GOPAC is going to have to recruit a strong field of conservatives from the grassroots to run in 2010. Third, pressure is going to have to be put on the pathetically weak Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to grow some balls and stand up to Reid and Obama and don't comprise on anything. Fourth, liberal and moderate go along Republicans like Arlene Spector need to be marked for political assassination in when they run in their Republican Primaries in 2010. We need to flush out the remaining RINO'S in the primary cycle and replace them with fresh young hungry conservatives to run in their state general elections. This is the only way conservatives can "flush the system" in order to rebuild. Even though Bush is finally gone, his stench is going to last awhile. Republican conservative and even Republicans with some testicular fortitude are going to have to attack Obama on his "stimulus package", the use of "tarp" and spending in general. If Obama goes through with something that is destined to fail, Republicans should not go along with it at any cost. If they do, Obama and the Democrats can just say that the legislation was "bipartisan". They need to let Obama fail miserably on his own and not give him cover. Democrats have to deal with the financial crisis that they created in the first place. We know they can't fix the problem, because they don't understand and like capitalism to begin with. This is a really simple plan to completely humiliate and ultimately tactically take out Barack Obama and the Democrat controlled congress. Starting tomorrow its just a matter of execution and standing up on principal.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 10:02 PM
14 Comments:
You are SO RIGHT and I hope this will be accomplished. For the sake of our country.
today was a sad day. I hated the treatment of President Bush and I hated the way the tinfoil hat wearing, koolaid drinking buffoons acted towards him. He is a good man and does not deserve that treatment. he has more class in his pinky finger than the BIG 0 (zero) has in his whole body.
But he has a very nice car.
Tyrone, I remain concerned but "cautiously optimistic," so I have no such misgivings so far. In fact, I think it's wrong for us to overlook the undeniably historic nature of this event.
To this point, the incoming administration has done little to alienate Conservatives (primarily Holder, though some take issue with Lisa Jackson of the EPA) and much to make Conservatives smile (appointing a very market-oriented economics team, keeping Robert Gates on, appointing Janet Napolitano to Director of Homeland Security, ending all talk of ending the Bush tax cuts early, etc.)
In short, I won't complain until there is something to complain about.
Barack Obama won for two reasons (1) John McCain ran an incredibly inept campaign and (2) Obama himself is, along with Reagan and Clinton, among the most compelling and dynamic political figures in recent memory).
A lot of people seem to want to gloss over that second reason because they find it inconvenient.
In Obama, I see one of the few (VERY few) political and social figures willing to actively debate and make affirmative arguments for Liberalism.
Moreover, he is far MORE a political pragmatist than an ideological idealist. His choice of Rahm Emanuel, the architect of the Conservative Blue Dog uprising in 2006 and a Centrist pragmatist, as his Chief-of-Staff demonstrates that.
Again, that's something opponents underestimate or dismiss at their own peril.
Obama is not a Liberal dipshit, as Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry all are/were. To take him on as though he is, is political suicide.
Will the Obama administration disappoint Conservatives?
Yes, in many ways and without any doubt, BUT the Obama administration is already disappointing die-hard Liberals too. The Bush tax cuts do not appear in jeopardy, the WoT will continue to be prosecuted militarily - Iraq is won, "the war" ended with Saddam's capture in 12/03 and the insurgency was effectively ended by the surge and that government has already taken responsibilty for its own domestic security...U.S. troops there have been rebuilding and training Iraqi police and military personnel, so an 18 month pull-out is probably within reason, while the Obama administration has sought to "ratchet UP" the war in Afghanistan.
The ONLY reason that Conservatism triumphed over the past quarter century is because Conservatives (Edward O. Wilson, Russel Kirk, Milton Friedman and others) consistently won the battle of ideas.
Liberals once argued that "the root cause of violent crime is poverty."
Today, no one argues that.
Edward O. Wilson and Russel Kirk among others argued effectively that ALL violent crime is motivated by "the will to dominate others," which IS exacerbated by ignorance and social incompetence, but is NOT impacted by financial status in any significant way.
Bill Bratton and other public safety administrators applied those principles to public safety and the crime rates in those areas were substantially reduced.
In the early 1980s I was struck by Milton Friedman's ability to argue with ANYONE and clearly win - he shredded Phil Donahue (SEE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related) and was incredible in his 10 hour series Free To Choose (SEE: http://www.ideachannel.tv/). There has NEVER been a Liberal Milton Friedman and that's one of the reasons that Liberal ideas have not triumphed.
So, Conservatives should welcome yet another opportunity to challenge Liberal ideas.
What's important in doing that is KNOWING which ideas are Liberal and which ones aren't.
Liberal and Democrat are NOT synonymous.
Bill Clinton was MORE of a Supply Sider than either G W Bush or his father Bush-41. Likewise, Teddy Roosevelt expanded government, Herbert Hoover was the FIRST American President to apply the principles of Progressivism (the idea that every problem has a scientific solution, best applied by a large, benevolent government), so neither Conservatism nor Liberalism is the domain of either major Party.
When the Obama administration implements good ideas, we must applaud that. IDEAS matter.
When they apply bad ones then they must be criticized.
There is little doubt that Barack Obama is going to face the heaviest pressure from the far-Left and its supporters in Congress (Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Conyers, Waxman, Rangel and others) and they will probably have to work closer with the Blue Dog Democrats (who've cooperated with Conservative Republicans, most recently on approving the re-newed NSA surveillance Bill WITH the telecom companies immunity) to forge a workable agenda.
There are some commentators who are devout Republicans masquerading as "Conservatives." They'll assail a Democrat, even when that Democrat implements Conservative principles - THAT'S wrong and counterproductive.
I don't care about Party, I CARE about ideology and a Conservative Democrat is as good (maybe BETTER) in my eyes, than a Moderate Republican any day.
I'd rather see Conservatives save their energies for the major issues and not seek to demonize this guy right out of the box.
I see Barack Obama very much the way I see G W Bush - BOTH seem like genuinely nice guys, BOTH have some ideas that I strongly disagree with and some that I strongly agree with.
I'm POSITIVE that it's foolhardy to underestimate this administration. The weakest link in the incoming administration seems to be Joe (the gaffe machine) Biden.
I agree anonymous! I really want to take Obama down because his worshippers make me sick!
jmk "Tyrone, I remain concerned but "cautiously optimistic," so I have no such misgivings so far. In fact, I think it's wrong for us to overlook the undeniably historic nature of this event."
I understand perfectly what you're saying JMK. It's ok to acknowledge history, but it's another thing entirely to be "blinded" by it. I'm so focused on what Obama is planning, I practically like a concentrated laser beam. I don't believe we should look the other way just because of who Obama is regarding to race jmk. I don't think we are overlooking it jmk, we aren't "obsessing" over it like everybody else is.
jmk "To this point, the incoming administration has done little to alienate Conservatives (primarily Holder, though some take issue with Lisa Jackson of the EPA) and much to make Conservatives smile (appointing a very market-oriented economics team, keeping Robert Gates on, appointing Janet Napolitano to Director of Homeland Security, ending all talk of ending the Bush tax cuts early, etc.)"
Today Obama announced he is closing Gitto. He is going to repeal "Don't ask Don't Tell", he is pushing for a massive government growth bill that will either have an adverse impact on the economy. These issues I highlighted jmk aren't exactly "conservative friendly" in nature. Barack Obama is a pure socialist, and I will not cut him any slack for one nano second. Just because Obama appoints what appears to be a"market oriented economic team", that doesn't mean that Obama is going to listen to him. In Obama's economic "stimulus package", can you tell me jmk what exactly in his package that promotes economic growth in the private sector? Where is the second half of the $350 billion in tarp money going to go jmk? Obama said out of his own mouth that "the government is the only solution out of this economic problem". Obama CLEARLY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND how the economy works. No conservative would support Obama trying to replicate the New Deal v2.0. Keeping Gates on for a year is a token give away gesture jmk and nothing more. I'm not going to smile until our nation debt is addressed, the hoax of "global fooling" is exposed, the military not being used as a social experiment and the government finally staying the hell out of the private sector and much more. I will smile when Obama is kicked to the curb in 2012. That will be change that I will be more then glad to believe in.
jmk "In short, I won't complain until there is something to complain about."
Ok jmk, but do me a huge favor. Just don't say "hope and change" lol lol
jmk "Barack Obama won for two reasons (1) John McCain ran an incredibly inept campaign and (2) Obama himself is, along with Reagan and Clinton, among the most compelling and dynamic political figures in recent memory)."
What is happening to you jmk?!!!Let's start from the beginning. John McCain lost not because of how his campaign was run. He lost because he wasn't a conservative, and he alienated conservatives from voting for him. I don't see what is "compelling or dynamic" about Barack Obama. Reagan was dynamic and compelling, because of his ability to relate to the average person. Obama is "appealing" primarily due to the reason why he is "historic". Just remember the what Joe Biden said about Obama during the Democrat Primary's. Maybe I'm apart of the extreme minority. I seem to be one of the few that has an Obama B.S filter activated.
jmk "In Obama, I see one of the few (VERY few) political and social figures willing to actively debate and make affirmative arguments for Liberalism."
Notice that they're weren't a conservative running on the Republican ticket to debate him. I could have systematiacally destroyed Obama in a national debate. I'm not bragging jmk, it's just a fact. It has nothing to do with me actually. Conservatism is basically using common sense to address a problem or situation. The blueprint to destroying Obama in a debate is to attack him through is weakness in support and growth of government. Reagan destroyed Carter and Mondall easily for a reason jmk. He was great at taking conservatism and communicating it to the average citizen so they could relate to it in their lives. McCain didn't do anything close to that. When conservatism is on the
ballot, it wins.
anon" today was a sad day. I hated the treatment of President Bush and I hated the way the tinfoil hat wearing, koolaid drinking buffoons acted towards him. He is a good man and does not deserve that treatment. he has more class in his pinky finger than the BIG 0 (zero) has in his whole body."
Most liberals are vile, immoral, repugnant people. They act like troll, so it shouldn't come as a surprise how they treated Bush. I wrote a story and made a video on you tube about how these vermon treated Sarah Palin. This is their nature, it's in their blood. It is to be expected. I had my problems with Bush, but I won't have disrespected him.
Chilerkle "I agree anonymous! I really want to take Obama down because his worshippers make me sick!"
We are all on the same page 100000% Chilerkle. These same people that cry "give obama a chance", are the same people that treated Bush, Cheney, Palin and others like pure crap. They hypocrisy makes me ill beyond WORDS!! Yet this mentally warped gutter rats expect us to bow down and kiss Obama's platitude recycling socialist butt like they do. It will be a cold day in hell before I take leave of my senses like they have.
lIBERALS SAY POVERTY CAUSES VIOLENCE. DURING SLAVERY THE SLAVES WERE POOR AND THE MASTERS WERE RICH AND THEY WERE THE BAD GUYS.
Wow! JMK... suddenly a voice of reason? I must say, that for the most part, I agree with what you've said. (barring the idea that Bratton's methods helped bring down crime rates)
For the past few months Tyrone's posts have displayed quite a morbid tone. It seems he desires (or "requires") the opportunity to bask in "open schadenfreude" if the Obama administration is unable to straighten out the mess Bush left for them. Delighting in others misfortune, in my opinion, shows a lack of "self-esteem"...
Contrary to what some might believe, I am a "pragmatist" moreso than a "optimist". I know that it's going to be a tough road to hoe to get this country back on track economically. Obama has got his work cut out for him.
The pragmatist in me, makes me look for ideas. Ideas that turn into reality, put to use, measured for effectiveness, using what works, discarding what doesn't, and then GROWTH! Grow the results! That's what I "desire and require" from the Obama administration! That's what I see in President Obama...
CB,
I'd like to get your take on my article about the inauguration.
Tyrone, my point is that while it appears that the Left-wing villification of G W Bush succeeded, that's NOT what did in Bush or lost the race for John McCain.
The recent economic meltdown created havoc throughout the country and while people are rightly angry with the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and the Pelosi-Reid Congress (whose approval rating is in the single digits), they also saw (and rightly so, I might add) that the Bush administration (1) played a very strong part in this bi-partisan fiasco and (2) seemed to care little about the ramifications of that administration's overspending AND the complete lack of oversight by its SEC.
McCain came across as unfocused on the economy, his "my friends" line made him appear like an aging vaulvillian and the ultimate irony was a plumber from Ohio making his economic case for him, better than he himself could.
While I revile liberalism as much as you do, I do not necessarily see either Barack Obama or, especially Rahm Emanuel as far-Left liberals.
I know Obama has a lot of questionable associations and some rather radical roots, but he ran a centrist suburban-oriented campaign - supporting the NSA surveillance program, supporting gun rights (post-Heller), calling for tax cuts, etc.
What I'm saying is that I don't want to Conservatives go down the road that the far-Left did.
RESULTS are ALL that matter.
The current unemployment rate is 7.5%, the inflation rate is 2.6% and interest rates remain below 6% on long term loans (mortgages), with a prime rate is 3.25% Under Carter we had a STAGFLATION: double digit unemployment, inflation and interest rates and a record high Misery Index (the inflation and unemployment rate added together) of 21.9! Today, 2009's is barely 10.1 for the year.
Right now, government greatly expanded under Republican rule post-Gingrich (the ONLY Congress to cut the federal budget over the past 100 years was the Gingrich Congress), so the public has now put Democrats in control of both Houses and the Executive Branch.
Do income tax rate INCREASES actually DECREASE income tax revenues?
They have virtually EVERY TIME so far.
Does government expansion harm the private sector and ultimately result in fewer jobs and less prosperity all around?
Again, it has every time in the past.
Should Conservatives oppose increases in the EITC and other kinds of welfare payments?
ABSOLUTELY! Including the current tax rebates, which are ultimately a massive social spending Bill.
But the bottomline is RESULTS.
Maggie Thatcher rightly said, "Reality is Conservative." What she meant is that economic realities are like gravity, they can only be ignored at our own peril and that's what liberalism seeks to do.
IF by Januray 2010 those numbers are markedly WORSE the emphasis and blame MUST be focused on the Democratic Congress that has overspent since 2007 and the current administration....the public ALWAYS blames the current occupant in the WH...yes, despite the fact that Congress controls the spending and has a greater impact on the economy than the Executive Branch and that the other Party almost always "politicizes" each issue, often in an arttempt to blatantly undermine the other Party....none of that matters to the public, as those things all come down to "excuses."
The ONLY real bottomline, is where will our economy stand by January 2010?
If it stays the same, or improves that's going to be acceptable to good for the current administration. If those markers are markedly worse, than that will be to the bad.
If they are markedly worse, I'd expect to see a GOP Congress come to power in January of 2011.
If those numbers DON'T get worse that'll almost certainly indicate that the Obama administration has warred mightily with the liberal-wing of his own Party, probably alligning itself with the Blue Dog coalition and some Republicans.
I deplored BDS and I won't engage in ODS. I refuse to villify Obama, who, like Bush, seems a truly decent man. The far-Left (the likes of Moore, Gore, Soros, Franken, Olbermann, etc) irreparably soiled themselves with their BDS....Conservatives would do well to avoid doing that, in my view.
As I said, I see BOTH G W Bush and Barack Obama as fundamentally good men, who mean well, whether I always agree or not.
But, RESULTS are the bottomline.
G W Bush did ONLY two Supply Side things (the across-the-board income tax rate cuts and the Capital Gains rate cut) and they were incredibly stimulating to the economy, so much so, that they covered up the ill-effects of a LOT of subsequent reckless overspending.
Bush moved back to his and his Dad's Keynesian roots over the past six years and that's been a disaster.
Now we'll see how this next administration moves.
I ONLY care about results.
IF they move to the center and embrace the policies that Clinton-Gingrich did, policies that delivered a very strong economy in the late 1990s, that'll be GREAT, in my view.
IF they move back toward those failed Carter policies, excesive social spending as "investing in people," and expanding the size and scope of government, raising taxes, etc. than that will almost certainly deliver the same Carter-styled results...and they will fail as badly as Carter did.
“I agree with what you've said. (barring the idea that Bratton's methods helped bring down crime rates)” (PAA)
<
<
Actually, I’m always reasonable PAA. I’m a pragmatist, both politically and economically.
I majored in physiological psychology in College, precisely because it seemed to offer hope for REAL crime control. That study, advanced by men like Saul Balagura, who ablated the hypothalamuses of rats and was able to have some rats starve themselves in the presence of all the food they’d need and others overeat themselves to death, literally.
The idea was that one day we’d be able to track tendencies common to violent criminals at a very young age and either implant electrodes or ablate certain portions of their brains to render such people harmless.
That was back when I believe in rehabilitation.
In fact, most criminal behaviors can’t be “rehabilitated” out of an individual any more than stupidity can be “rehabilitated.”
There’s a HUGE chasm between ignorance (lack of information) and stupidity (the inability to process information), and while about 20% of any given population is chronically ignorant, only about 5% of that population are chronically stupid/incompetent.
Stupid/incompetent people are NOT “mildly retarded.” They suffer poor impulse control, the inability to focus, the inability to delay gratification or plan for future events.
The vast majority of violent criminals are, in fact, stupid. They are reckless, irresponsible, with poor impulse control and prone to substance abuse and they are, sadly, irredeemable.
That’s what Bill Bratton acknowledged. In fact, the Dinkins years and the Giuliani years were a contrast between the two most prominent approaches to criminality. Dinkins erroneously saw what criminologists call “random violent crime” as “rooted in a labyrinth of social, economic, even ethnic/racial causes, that are best addressed via social programs, education and more economic opportunities for inner city youths.”
Bratton, and by extension, Giuliani, on the other hand saw crime as “opportunistic aggression” that is best punished, repeat offenders warehoused, etc.
Bratton closed off streets in random drug and gun sweeps, had groups of teens randomly “stopped and frisked,” went after “quality of life” crimes like public urination and turnstile jumping and found that a large number of these folks had outstanding wants and warrants for more serious crimes and instituted a “three strikes” law – in NYS it became “3 violent crimes and you’re imprisoned for life.”
Again ONLY results matter.
The results of the Dinkins approach was a murder rate of OVER 2,000/year during his tenure. The results of the Bratton approach was that the murder rate in NYC dropped to under 500/year within two years!
Bratton’s success enabled Giuliani to rightly boast, “My administration has saved over 12,000 minority lives over the last eight years, given that the victims of those homicides were over 85% black and Hispanic.
I really don’t care about any of that...who is most helped, etc.
What I DO care about is results. Dinkins’ liberal “root causes” approach only exacerbated (made worse) violent crime, while Bill Bratton’s enlightened humane approach (treating reckless, irresponsible, impulsive people as though they were self-responsible individuals, which they ARE, whether they like that or not) WORKED.
The murder rate (dropped by 400%), and the across the board drop in criminal acts attested to the fact that Bratton’s enlightened, scientific approach to crime control has been a huge success.
jmk "Tyrone, my point is that while it appears that the Left-wing villification of G W Bush succeeded, that's NOT what did in Bush or lost the race for John McCain."
I have to disagree jmk. The economic crisis did play a part. I'm not denying that,but McCain said before the impact was felt that "the economy really isn't my strong suit" or something along those lines. McCain also did not have an energetic base. The sole reason most people voted for McCain was that "he was anyone but Obama". I can couldn't find anyone that voted for McCain because they actually like him and what he stood for. He didn't have a core message. McCain was all over the map on issues. The guy was a mess. When 20% of conservatives stay home and don't vote, it's not because there is a conservative running in the election jmk. I believe independents voted for Obama because of the economy and the ineptness of McCain. Bush may have also played a "part" in McCain's lose, but Obama voted for the original $750 billion dollar waste pushed by Paulson. So his drones had to have known that he supported it jmk.
jmk "McCain came across as unfocused on the economy, his "my friends" line made him appear like an aging vaulvillian and the ultimate irony was a plumber from Ohio making his economic case for him, better than he himself could."
Obama didn't come across any more focused then McCain, it was McCain's words that came back to destroy him. Obama didn't address the economic meltdown, he just BLAMED wall street and greed. That was it jmk. He said nothing special or showed that he had a grasp of the situation. If Romney was in the place of McCain,I believe the outcome would have been completely different. Romney was just a polished as Obama and he had a clear understanding of business and economics which Obama didn't have. I agree with McCain's "my friends" line. He reminded my a lot of the character tatoo on the old television show fantasy island. THE PLANE THE PLANE THE PLANE!!!LOL I hope McCain loses in the Republican primary next year. I really do.
jmk "I know Obama has a lot of questionable associations and some rather radical roots, but he ran a centrist suburban-oriented campaign - supporting the NSA surveillance program, supporting gun rights (post-Heller), calling for tax cuts, etc."
When Obama overturned the Mexico foreign aid abortion ban, any thoughts of him being a centrist went out the door. He overturned the ban within 72 hours of being sworn in. On top of him going to repeal Don't ask Don't tell, this guy is a flaming leftist socialist. Obama did doing a lot of things jmk for "appearances sake". Bush 41 and 43 both ran as "conservatives", but their governance was anything but "conservative. John McCain is a liberal Republican that tried to run as a conservative. People can portray an image jmk of being something that they are clearly not. It's always simply a matter of time before their true underlying colors come to the surface. Obama has already shown his, and it only took 72 hours for it to happen.
jmk "Right now, government greatly expanded under Republican rule post-Gingrich (the ONLY Congress to cut the federal budget over the past 100 years was the Gingrich Congress), so the public has now put Democrats in control of both Houses and the Executive Branch."
It expanded under Republican rule NOT "conservative rule" jmk. The Republican party unfortunately has it's share of liberals and moderates too. If a true conservative was in the white house and true conservatives controlled congress, the political landscape right now would be completely different. It will take some time for the aroma of Bush to dissipate from the Republican brand, but it will happen eventually. Democrats had to go through the exact same process with Jimmy Carter. The case why conservatism is needs to be injected into the Republican brand is more apparent now more so then ever.
jmk "IF by Januray 2010 those numbers are markedly WORSE the emphasis and blame MUST be focused on the Democratic Congress that has overspent since 2007 and the current administration....the public ALWAYS blames the current occupant in the WH...yes, despite the fact that Congress controls the spending and has a greater impact on the economy than the Executive Branch and that the other Party almost always "politicizes" each issue, often in an arttempt to blatantly undermine the other Party....none of that matters to the public, as those things all come down to "excuses."
The problem is that as long as dopey star strucked Republicans go along with Obama on his doomed to fail FDR v2.0 "stimulus", they are setting themselves up to be Obama's "bi partisan" shield when it does indeed blowup in their faces. At some point, Democrats are going to have to take responsibility for their actions as the majority jmk. They will have been in power for six years come 2010. The whole "go along to get along" mindset of Republicans is extremely self defeating and those that follow Obama, Reid and Pelosi deserve to lose next year.
jmk "As I said, I see BOTH G W Bush and Barack Obama as fundamentally good men, who mean well, whether I always agree or not."
Did you see the video I posted two months ago of Obama secretly flipping off Hillary Clinton jmk? Me and you are going to differ on this topic. I don't believe for one minute that Obama is a good man. Good men don't hang around racists hate mongers and radicals for 20 years. Good men normally have moral character. I have yet to see that from Obama, actually all I've seen jmk was the complete opposite. When Obama told Republicans that "he won, I'm the president"those aren't the words of a good man, those are the words of an "arrogant man". As for Bush, he called people that care about securing our borders a bunch of "nativists and racists." With that being said,I still have more respect for him then I ever will Obama.
jmk "IF they move back toward those failed Carter policies, excesive social spending as "investing in people," and expanding the size and scope of government, raising taxes, etc. than that will almost certainly deliver the same Carter-styled results...and they will fail as badly as Carter did."
For Obama to pay for this massive waste aka stimulus, more money is going to have to be printed, because raising taxes is off the board. This will only devalue the dollar and the inverse of inflation will rise. In other words jmk, the titanic is on the path of the iceberg again. History does repeat itself.
Tyrone, Conservatism faces a HUGE problem (so does Liberalism, but I'm not at all concerned about that) right now and that's that the GOP is a very flawed vehicle for Conservatism.
The Moderate ("Country Club") Republicans (the Doles, McCains, Whitmans, Bush's, etc.) are largely socially Liberal and fiscally Keynesian and THEY control both the purse strings and the actual direction of that Party.
George Bush Sr derided the Ronald Reagan-Milton Friedman economic plan that DECREASED the Misery Index every year he was in office as "Voodoo Economics," AND the "Moderate Republicans" forced him on Reagan (who wanted Paul Laxalt or Gerry Ford) as VP.
Apparently "economics wasn't Bush Sr.'s strong suit" either.
The problem with the GOP is that while its base is about 80% or more Conservative, it's monied interests are about 80% Liberal.
That's a problem and will be UNTIL or UNLESS that part of the GOP is chased out OR chastened back into the fold by Liberal Democratic excesses.
As to the personal stuff on Obama, like I said I reviled and revile those who engaged in BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome), so I refuse to be drawn into ODS.
Yes, I disagree with much of what's proposed (the tax rebate, instead of a rate cut) which amounts to a SPENDING program, rather than a tax cut, and I agree with some others, like Obama supporting the NSA wiretaps and going to court to urge a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched eavesdropping case that is weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.
The SAME position the Bush administration took on that case.
I don't see the Republicans in Congress "going along" with the Democrats. They'll challenge them, when possible....actually they always challenge, BUT without Blue Dog support, they'll be overwhelmed in BOTH chambers every time.
That's NOT the worst position for them to be in politically. They get to obstruct and undermine (that's politics) and let the Democrats take the blame for the whole package down the road.
But if the economy gets worse by mid-2010 and the American people sweep in a GOP Congress it won't mean a thing unless they have another Gingrich at the helm. It was the Gingrich Congress that was the ONLY Congress in a century to actually CUT the federal budget and in the process deliver some of the best economic times and some hefty surpluses in the late 1990s.
Post a Comment
<< Home