Comments Posted By John E. Howard
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 10 Comments
A TIPPING POINT ON OBAMA IN SIGHT?
I don’t think altering the narrative will happen in one “Eureka!” moment but rather a gradual chipping away at the myths, the lies, the spin, and the sleight of hand Democrats will use to distract people
Thanks for your chipping, Rick. Keep it up.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 7.03.2009 @ 18:34
“many on the left spent the last 6 years celebrating casualties”
How about Markos "Kos" discussing the 4 US contractors who were killed and mutilated in Falujah? Kos' summary -- "Fuck them." I've read this sentiment frequently from progs during the Iraq War. Dick Durbin likened American soldiers to Nazi storm troopers, etc, etc, etc. And I'd bet money that you progs commenting here secretly share the belief that America is an arrogant giant full of little Republican Eichmanns which needs its nose punched in the form of a bloody defeat. Disingenous BDS adled pricks.
Yes, the megomanical Rush can get "ugly," but it seems to me he's doing what will be absolutely necessary if hard(er) times come -- draw a bright, separating line in the sand which gives voters a clear, clear choice.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 3.03.2009 @ 05:37
Limbaugh, the Iconoclast vs. Gingrich the Conceptualizer.
As said above, we need both. But right now we're in a vicious intellectual war with progs who hate. Rally the troops first and inspirit them. Give them hope and raise that flag they're fighting for, or all the conceptualizing in the world won't matter.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 3.03.2009 @ 13:09
CPAC AGENDA SHOWS CONSERVATIVES STILL IN DENIAL
Define “limited government.” And be specific please. What departments-agencies would you eliminate? What would be the effect of eliminating them?
Heh, big question considering that at this moment I'm with a relative who only has bad dial-up (and I've already lost the connection once while typing this), but for starters let's eliminate the Dept. of Education. It's nothing but a massive administrative black hole. The effect of eliminating it would be to place more emphasis on local control of education. Monetary disparities between school systems can be handled in more cost-effective ways.
Remember, we are talking about a $3 trillion budget with literally thousands of agencies and dozens of departments. What about the ordinary citizens who would be affected by the elimination of those departments and agencies?
I'm sorry some people's lives might be affected, but none of us has a right to live out of our countrymen's pockets (I believe it was James Madison who wrote, "The Constitution does not contain the word 'charity.'") What you wrote implies that no government program can ever be cut.
Eliminate or modify regulations? Absolutely. Which ones? What would be the effect of eliminating or modifying them? Which citizens and how many would be adversely affected?
Rick, I don't have access to the committees and data and staff to answer this. Hopefully, you are just pointing out to me that eliminating departments have consequences. Fine. Otherwise, you're just telling me my opinion doesn't matter because I'm just a little guy who doesn't understand the specific consequences of down-sizing government. That's fine too, if it's true. LIke I said, I'd rather re-read the classics, hang with my family, hike, etc. I hated political activism. I did it as a duty. Maybe I should just let the experts handle things.
Do you think the argument “We are doing this for your own good” will resonate politically? Or what other argument would you make?
I think you are right that the present climate of dependence and fear weakens this argument somewhat, but I also think Americans still value individual liberty and distrust government control. That's how I'd frame the argument if I were the GOP.
I also think this will be a very good argument in years to come when inflation and entitlement payments are gutting the earnings of young people. This is where I'd put my energies -- educating young people in the basic principles that underlie American freedom. And small government is one of them.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 17.02.2009 @ 12:32
Rick -- If you are addressing the issue of tactics necessary to bring about an era of Reaganite limited-government and Liberty, I am interested in this discussion. But I have better and more fun things to do with my remaining years (I'm your age) than merely helping move America to European-style socialism. I'm not accusing you of suggesting that, just saying I'm not sure what ultimate goal you have in mind for the "conservative" movement. I am tired of Ann Coulter's hysterics, yes, but I also disagree with David Brooks' writing that we need to accept big government forever.
Activists don't want to follow an uncertain trumpet. And I say that as someone who was once a GOP county exec board member and activist.
Define "limited government." And be specific please. What departments-agencies would you eliminate? What would be the effect of eliminating them? Remember, we are talking about a $3 trillion budget with literally thousands of agencies and dozens of departments. What about the ordinary citizens who would be affected by the elimination of those departments and agencies? There are 300 million American citzens with an incredibly diverse set of needs - and yes, desires when it comes to what they want out of goverment.
Eliminate or modify regulations? Absolutely. Which ones? What would be the effect of eliminating or modifying them? Which citizens and how many would be adversely affected?
Do you think the argument "We are doing this for your own good" will resonate politically? Or what other argument would you make?
It's not as simple as many conservatives make it out to be, is it?ed.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 17.02.2009 @ 07:26
HATE TO RUIN YOUR WEEKEND, BUT...
Michael;
When will your points not include reference to George Bush?Never, because he can't defend what his side is doing. He's lost the capacity. Just watch. People like him will blame every failure over the next four years on Bush.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 14.02.2009 @ 16:53
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OBAMA'S 'WELL OILED MACHINE?'
Obama’s woeful inexperience...
I can't imagine anyone I admire competently administering this country if they began with as little experience as Obama. Even if you're the greatest athlete in the world, you don't pick up a tennis racket for the first time and play at Wimbleton. America is going to get it's ass kicked for the next four years.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 4.02.2009 @ 18:14
GINGRICH SEES THE PROBLEMS BUT WHERE ARE THE SOLUTIONS?
So far, neither Obama or Gingrich has set forth any convincing solutions to the problems they both have so brilliantly defined.
I agreed with your thoughts completely, but that last sentence threw me. Maybe you could follow with a post examining which problems Obama brilliantly defined? It might enlighten some of us who were blind to his allure.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 3.02.2009 @ 05:45
WHAT MIDDLE AMERICA THINKS OF THE ELECTION
I'm just a little fish, but one thing I know for sure -- you're not going to reverse the tide of Leftism and bring the Great Middle over to your side by calling them morons. Start right there. Baby steps.
Amen brother. Sing it. Liberals do the exact same thing all the time.
Who are we to tell someone else what criteria to base their vote on? It smacks of elitism in its purest form - "I know what's best for you so shut up and vote as I tell you."
The whole point of the post was trying to show that freedom and our constitutional protections allow each American citizen to pay as much attention to politics and the issues as they feel they must. It isn't life and death - no one is going to be thrown into prison for voting the wrong way. People take their vote very seriously for the most part and they have their own ways of determining which candidate they, and they alone, prefer. To denigrate their thought processes is the heighth of idiocy in my book and makes one out to be a snob.
If they make the wrong choice? Guess what - they learn from their mistakes just like we all do. And even though I think an Obama presidency would be bad for America if my friends and neighbors think otherwise and vote for him, that choice must be respected as being the best decision they can make consistent with their own thought processes and beliefs.
ed.
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 2.11.2008 @ 09:47
...a way to tap the enormous potential of the rightosphere and turn its energies toward creating a network of conservatives that can challenge the left at every digital turn.
Assuming right-wing bloggers are serious when they say an Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate will be disastrous for America, maybe they should start by aiming their fire at the enemy and not each other.
Or maybe they aren't serious. I keep wondering where Rush has put his money -- stocks or Treasury bonds?
Comment Posted By John E. Howard On 30.10.2008 @ 14:50
