Comments Posted By Bob C
Displaying 11 To 18 Of 18 Comments
HATE TO RUIN YOUR WEEKEND, BUT...
Oops. Doesn't this Roman orgy of spending reflect the 'hopes and dreams' that conservatives are supposed to come to terms with? Isn't this the government that the people have chosen, and doesn't opposition...unflinching opposition...to it reflect the stone age thinking of Rush Limbaugh acolytes?
Or, more properly, does it merely reflect the fact that if conservatives continue to allow liberals to define the issue, that the typical, distracted, non-political junkie is more likely seduced by the promise of government largesse than they are by being told they have the wherewithal to make their own way.
If this is the 'government as it is, not as we wish it to be', that conservatives are supposed to come to terms with, yeah, Sara, it most assuredly is scary.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 17.02.2009 @ 08:43
ARE THE RIGHTROOTS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN REPUBLICAN?
still liberal replies:
"Conservatives have tried and failed to downsize government at least since Reagan, and likely before. If it could be done, it would be done by now."
I beg to differ...conservatives have talked about downsizing government and failed to act as boldly as they might have. I completely agree...once bought with taxpayers' dollars, votes to cut those dollars off is a monumental task. IMO, one of the biggest problems (on the political side) Republicans have is defining the issues. As a result of their hegemony in the national media, the message is the Democrat/liberal message. The examples are legion: Reps didn't shut down the government in '95, Bill Clinton did via his veto pen. Protecting the borders becomes xenophobia. Trimming the Dep't of Education becomes cutting off funds from students.Maybe if, for example, conservatives unified their message that Dep.of Ed funding can be block granted back to the states, as a first step in it's dismantling. Funds would not disappear, they'd be applied directly to the schools by the states. Or that conservatives welcome immigration; after all, we are nearly all the product of that process, we just would like to see immigrants sign the guestbook when they come to the party. Say it loudly and often. Challenge those in the media when they say otherwise.
Let's try something; sure, one man's waste is another man's useful spending. So let's go to an objective source when we define what the federal government should and should not be spending money on. The Constitution. Fair?
Comment Posted By Bob C On 28.11.2008 @ 07:38
still liberal replied to my post:
"Everything must be on the table for any party to succeed and change as needed."Perhaps you misunderstand my post. I was not arguing for some kind of ideological purity; balancing prinicple with the practical requiremets of politics isn't impossible. It has taken, for example, some 70 years to get to where we are today vis a vis government. Much as I'd like to see it, there are few if any places where any congressman could get elected on a platform of 'government strictly by the Constitution' (a sad commentary, that). What took 70 years to build...a burgeoning nanny state fed by citizens' hard earned dollars...may well take longer to dismantle. New Dealers and '60s radicals have been patiently building the kind of federal government they want; the latter's loud and revolutionary blather was simply for public consumption; they recognized, then and now, that incrementalism was the key, and they have been spectacularly successful.
I disagree, too, that government can never again be small or limited. If a conservative congress quietly shut down the REA, for example, the public at large would not notice. Ditto the TVA, and any of the hundreds of archaic wasteful gaggle of federal drones who produce nothing of value for the tax dollars they consume. All at once? No. It was built one brick at a time, and can be similarly dismantled.
Deficits are caused by spending too much, not a dearth of citizens' revenues. Again; baby steps. Start with idiocies like the REA, and move on to larger idiocies like the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, piece by piece, wasted dollar by wasted dollar. I, for one, am willing to wait.
As for what kind of defense we want...one that provides for the security of the citizens. Is there room for an eye on cost? Of course. But without it, the rest of the above is moot.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 26.11.2008 @ 06:44
Is it necessarily an 'either-or' proposition? Party reform OR rightroots activism? Maybe the Dems moved away from Kos moonbats in their search for candidates to support, but the fact is that they now have a majority, and it will most certainly govern from the left. It matters little to them that Heath Schuler isn't ideologically pure; he's a Dem, and majorities get to dominate committees, name chairmen, and get legislation passed.
The straw men are marching into the debate by the dozen: Reps didn't lose this and the '06 elections because of snake handling, tongue-speaking Christianists. They lost because they simply haven't governed in the manner in which they campaigned and won. There are very simple, nearly universal conservative concepts that should drive both the party and the rightroots: strong national defense, limited government, secure borders, low taxes. Of course there is room for pro-lifers, anti-gay marriagers, and religion. But if you believe that these social conservatives have cost the party elections, you're walking around blind without a cane. Had Reps resisted...loudly and firmly...the 'lend money to anyone who passes the mirror test' plans of the Dems (and, unfortunately, the president) in the same manner they did 'comprehensive immigration reform', Obama wouldn't be in the WH, Reps would still be a majority in the Congress, and we wouldn't be tossing and turning at night fearing the judges the Obamanation will be nominating to the federal courts.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 25.11.2008 @ 16:23
Well, the article does a cracking job of assembling straw men, then mowing them down with pinpoint accuracy. Obama is a creation of media and white liberal guilt. He is a standard issue product of the corrupt Chicago political machine, whose cynical use of those around him...his grandmother, his 'Auntie', his pastor, his political patrons (Ayers)...is obvious to those who wish to see it. "Inspire"? Well, history is full of inspirational politicians. The question is simply 'what is it that inspires them'? Promises of wealth spreading, of 'bringing us together' (now there's a line we've not heard before)? Reagan inspired, but behind it were two very specific principles, as George Will memorably put it, that 'the American people were taxed too much, and the Soviet Union was getting away with murder'. What are the principles behind Obama's rhetoric? That the Constitution 'constrains' the activist impulses of community organizers? That government needs to force the 'rich' to 'share their wealth'? That a 'right to health care' can and should be found in the Constitution?
Certainly, the Founders recognized that their document wasn't perfect, and knew they were flawed men. That's why they placed in the Constitution the means by which it can be changed, updated, added to and taken from. What if those tens of millions of his 'inspired' agree with his desire to create new 'rights' via amendment...to income, to health care, to jobs...how would you intend to 'smack them down'? He almost certainly will use his presidency and his majorities in Congress to seek a new national health care entitlement...and we all know that what DC creates never, ever goes away.
I'm sure he is, in the gym playing 3 on 3, a terrific guy. A great husband and father. But he wasn't elected to play hoops, or as Father of the United States. The hope that he somehow will moderate his ideology developed over the years, steeped in Alinsky, Wright, and Ayers, is based either in willful ignorance or naivety. They have their champion in the WH now, and we ignore that at our peril.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 6.11.2008 @ 07:14
Anyone, including Ross Douthit, who is disappointed in George Bush's brand of "conservatism" wasn't paying attention in 2000. He governed exactly as he campaigned...what do you think "compassionate conservatism" was, little yellow smiley face stickers on his lapel? There was, and isn't, anything conservative about No Child Left Behind, or a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Most of the commenters here do a pretty good job of not conflating party with ideology. Republicans are losing because of one, single, overarching mistake: they haven't governed in the manner in which they campaigned, and won, in 1994. They can no longer claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and small government. Reagan is invoked, but his legacy has been abandoned. His brilliance was that although he recognized that social and religious issues (like it or not) were important to his base, his two major issues, taxes and the SU (strong defense) would resonate well beyond the party. This has not changed; the party has. I voted for Bush twice and McCain once simply because they were preferable to the alternatives. Never again.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 5.11.2008 @ 19:31
There is much conflation here between being Republican and being conservative. I am the latter, not the former. The conservatism that peaked in 1994 was a very simple ideology; limited government, low taxation, accountable governance, strong national defense, free markets. There was nothing in the Contract With America about abortion, about gay marriage, about religion...and there is a good reason why. None of these issues are, or should be, viewed as those with which the federal government ought deal. The nation's owner's manual, the Constitution, is pretty clear on that.
I find it amusing that the debate on the direction of the Republican party seems to on one hand complain about social conservatism 'taking over', while at the same time other strains...libertarianism for example...wish it excluded. Perhaps one of the reasons Republicans have difficulty maintaining power in government is that the tent is TOO big; it would be difficult to argue that Democrats are more diverse; they are more willing to march in lockstep for the purpose of winning elections.
Put simply; there are overarching issues that Republicans of most stripes agree upon, which have been listed above. Reagan knew that. Gingrich knew that. Is it impossible for the party to rally round them when Novembers roll around? It seems so, doesn't it.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 31.10.2008 @ 06:01
You say this:
"Questioning the conservative bona fides of Peggy Noonan or David Brooks – two conservatives who have done more to promote conservative ideas than all of their critics combined – doesn’t make sense in any other context except as an indication that many on the right prefer purges to debate and the guillotine to reasoned discussion."The above would carry much greater weight were Noonan's or Brooks' arguments against Palin based in anything substantive; they were not. Noonan made the astonishing comment that after several weeks, she 'still doesn't know what Palin stands for'..well, Peggy, you haven't been listening. Further, as Palin herself points out, it might have been a good idea perhaps to take a moment out and call Palin to ask the question. Not one of the conservative pundits...C. Buckley, Noonan, Parker, Brooks, Adelman...has made anything close to a cogent argument in their criticism of Palin, or McCain for choosing her. Parker has gone so far as to opine that McCain was dazzled by Palins physical beauty...as steaming a pantload as I've seen yet. What these people have shown is merely that their loyalty to their perceived intellectual superiority exceeds their loyalty to conservative principles.
Comment Posted By Bob C On 30.10.2008 @ 13:25
