Comments Posted By Sal
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 22 Comments
DEBUNKING MYTHS ABOUT MODERATES: 1) MODERATES HAVE NO PRINCIPLES
The problem I have is that the Democrats do NOT want to compromise. Where we end up is more towards their way of thinking because we DO try to compromise and work together. For example, I am unabashedly pro-life. I would be happy to have the abortion question decided by the states, or to have some reasonable restrictions, but Democrats want unrestricted access to abortion, no questions asked. Where is the compromise from their end? If you compromise with those who have shown the consistent unwillingness to compromise, then all you do is slowly move the country in their direction.
The funny thing is that much of this talk of "there's no room for moderates in the GOP" comes from the Specter flap. Specter is neither a moderate or a pragmatist, he is an opportunist. He voted for the stimulus because he thought it would work out for him, but couldn't even answer basic questions about the bill when pressed. Now that the vote has caused him trouble in his primary (and what's wrong with that, if the Republicans in PA don't want his representation any more? Why do we have elections, then?) he switches parties for no other reason than he wants to get re-elected.
Comment Posted By Sal On 6.05.2009 @ 16:01
IF REAGAN TOLERATED MODERATES, WHY CAN'T TODAY'S CONSERVATIVES?
This blog should be renamed "Slightly right-of-center-wing Nut House"
Comment Posted By Sal On 6.05.2009 @ 18:45
WHY DO CONSERVATIVES SEE RED WHEN OBAMA TALKS GREEN?
I've always felt that there was a difference between being a Conservationist and being an Environmentalist. I consider myself the former, and have disdain for the latter. A Conservationist loves nature, wants to preserve it, and ensure that we all are able to live with clean air and water for the purpose of a better life for humanity. An environmentalist looks at nature and sees it as superior to human beings, not at the service of human beings. An environmentalist sees human beings as corrupting nature and as the problem, and sees humanity as being in the service of nature.
Nature needs to be preserved so that we can lead better lives and ensure that our posterity has the same benefits that we do today. Rick, you make some good points about Conservatives recoil to "going green", but I have to disagree with your assessment on Carbon. The science just isn't convincing enough for me to see Carbon as a problem. Carbon is the source of life and is naturally produced. There is little evidence to show that increases in carbon will cause any sort of problems. As far as energy independence, I think that in and of itself is a goal, but again for the purpose of serving humanity, not subjugate it. Conserving where we can for the purpose of getting energy independent is a noble goal -- I do it when I can for selfish reasons, to save money. But to "go green" with non-proven technologies that have no appreciable cost benefit and actually are more expensive in the long run (e.g. ethanol) is foolish.
Conservatives need to show that they care about nature, but should do it in a way so as to not fall in the trap of environmentalism.
Comment Posted By Sal On 22.04.2009 @ 05:49
Why can't we elect Republican Leaders with brains?
Comment Posted By Sal On 27.03.2009 @ 09:18
IS OUR NATIONAL WILL 'WILTING AWAY?'
Breitbart is not correct, but what he says does contain a grain of truth. For the first time in the history of this nation, we are approaching a point where 50% of the contry is on the public dole. In that sense, we have lost our will, our American spirit, the grit and drive that have propelled us to becoming the world's sole superpower, both militarily and economically.
Liberalism does threaten our American will, but not in the sense that Breitbart suggests. Your example of the debate on the method of fighting terrorism misses a larger point. While there are some who legitimately believe the best way to fight terrorism is via a law enforcement method, the majority of the left (not the majority of Americans or even the majority of Democrats) believes that America is to blame for Islamic terrorism. The lack of will refuses to identify what the nature of the threat is (a radical religious ideology hell-bent on subjugation or annihilation of all other ideologies foreign to it) and instead couches the threat in euphemisms.
The threat is both a loss of will by those who are on the public dole, and as you point out, a failure of our elites. Events in the last 20 years have caused the American spirit to dampen, but I think it is starting to reawaken.
Comment Posted By Sal On 23.03.2009 @ 12:33
Wow, re-reading the piece more carefully a second time and I see the sarcasm. Sorry, Rick, for missing it the first time.
Brilliant, just brilliant.
Comment Posted By Sal On 17.03.2009 @ 12:57
The bonuses were actually written into law by Sen. Dodd. The outrage over bonuses given by a private company to private employees is none of our business -- except for the fact that they received government money, which they never should have received.
Comment Posted By Sal On 17.03.2009 @ 10:32
IDEOLOGY vs PRINCIPLES? SCHWARZENEGGER HIDES UNDER THE BUS
...rather than doing what is best for all, he is doing what is best for himself.Huh… I thought this was the very definition of Republican.
Nope that's what the liberal elites do. They propose raising taxes on everyone else, but then don't pay their own taxes (Geithner, Daschle, etc.).
Comment Posted By Sal On 23.02.2009 @ 16:31
Rick, you sell Limbaugh short, which leads me to believe that you really have no idea what he stands for or what his show is about. Limbaugh is probably one of the few on talk radio that does convey what Conservative principles are, of limited government, the role of the relationship between man and the state, American Exceptionalism and Optimism, and the principles of Liberty. I think you and others who attack talk radio do a disservice to the Conservative movement. The average Joe is far more likely to listen to Rush Limbaugh than to read Russel Kirk. Limbaugh has been one of the leading causes of the Conservative Movement's success since 1988, bringing the thoughts of Kirk, Buckley, and Reagan to the masses in a way never before done, while at the same time ending the main stream media monopoly.
As far as the idea of Big-Tent Republicanism, what exactly does that mean to you? Is it simply "abortion" or is there more to it?
Comment Posted By Sal On 23.02.2009 @ 11:24
WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OBAMA'S 'WELL OILED MACHINE?'
I think you are underestimating how potentially damaging all of this is to Obama. He ran as the Messiah, of hope an change, of shaking up Washington and bringing ethics back. Now, not just one, two, or even three, but four appointees are now tainted.
This is obviously anecdotal, but working in one of the bluest of blue states, Rhode Island, I have been hearing people all day talk about how disappointed they are with the Obama administration. The idea of Washington elites not paying their taxes and getting away with it, along with a tax cheat running the IRS, resonates with people, even many who voted for HopeChange. The stimulus bill continues to plummit in popularity, and as you mentioned, the tension with the joint chiefs is troubling.
Just what gives us the impression that Obama will succeed? The Presidency is a difficult job, and Obama has never been successful at running anything. While I agree that we are not seeing the wholesale collapse of the Obama administration, the latest trends should show some fall in his popular support in the near future.
Comment Posted By Sal On 4.02.2009 @ 14:28
