Howard Fudge says he is confused. He says: "I voted for Obama, and this is more or less what I expected to get. Pragmatism."
Now I am confused. If Obama had waged a "Pragmatism" campaign wouldn't he have scooped up a landslide?
I am not sure how one morphs amorphous "hope" and "change" into "pragmatism."
Tell me again about KOS and move-on and Michael Moore and George Soros pragmatism. Tell me again how Obama out-pragmatized Hillary. Tell me again how ACORN honed in on voters who were looking for pragmatism. Tell me again why voters in high tax states that are high in unemployment and deep in debt are pragmatists. Tell me again how the Freddie Mac mortgages that sunk people who could not qualify for such debt burden was pragmatism. Remind me of the pragmatic plan Obama put forth for saving social security, medicare, prescription drugs along with enacting national health care.
I consider myself to be a bit pragmatic, as well. Please edumacate me. I missed the part where the pragmatic Obama and hope and change Obama merged.
Shall I sit by the mailbox and await my tax cut? Shall I count on "wisdom" and "diplomacy" to clear up Mumbai, North Korea, Israel, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, Dafur, Somalia and global warming?
Or, will the "pragmatic" Obama morph more and more into a clone of George W. Bush? Oh, I know! The pragmatic Obama will turn it all over to the intergalactic union of eunuchs known as the United Nations. Now there is change we can be relieved by.
You voted for Obama and you are getting something far closer to Bush. Happy?Comment Posted By David On 4.12.2008 @ 10:06
Don't bite on the bridge or the beachfront property in Nebraska. I have a connection in Nigeria that needs your small investment to help release a huge fortune and you will receive half. Let me know ASAP. If you reply in the next half hour, I will throw in a free week in a five star resort in exchange for a short financial meeting that will change your life. Change, I tell you. Hope and change. Just what you have been dreaming of.Comment Posted By David On 3.12.2008 @ 22:07
I hate to be reductionistic, but it's too tempting to resist. I think I'm with those conservatives that believe not that we were too conservative or put RINOs up as candidates, but rather because we failed to translate conservative ideas into real policy proposals.
Reagan did this, the Contract with America did it (though in a ham-handing less sophisticated way). In both of these cases we said affirmatively, "This is what it means to be conservative." That's a stark contrast to some quarters comfortability with conservative simply meaning we are less-liberal than the democrats or "if you keep voting for us we'll eventually get around to getting Roe v Wade off the books."
Buckley might have sound-bited perfectly with "standing athwart history crying stop." But we've started to see ourselves as simply leaving the parking brake on. We're just a drag on the march of modernism (which is essentially a concession that modernism has already won). A check and balance so the best modernistic ideas will rise to the top.
We have to reclaim, refocus and retool. We need to educate ourselves on our anthropology, our history and our shared interpretation of virtue. Take a quick trip to the library to read the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, Plato's Republic, some Aquinas, Luther, Adam Smith, etc and then look at the world around us and say, "If Constantine, Charlemagne and Queen Elizabeth were in the room how would they advise us." In fact, they ARE in the room.
Out of such an exploration come such ideas as Gingrich's silly, but at least rhetorically useful "Let's get rid of adolescence" article. That's an impossibility, but it could inform many useful reforms in how America manages it's unmanageable youth. It might also mean deliberately staying out of power for the purpose of focusing not on "getting elected" but "educating the electorate".
Rovian permanent majority was a farce because it focused on a short-term strategy (in fact, how could it have succeeded?). We need a multi-generational approach to this problem. You don't turn an aircraft carrier around on a dime.
Personally, I think we will ultimately fail, not because of any tactical error or failure of ideas or being wrong, but because a fundamental aspect of being conservative is living life. True conservatives are too busy with real life to take the time necessary to wield the ship of state. But I'd like to see us at least try.
"...because we failed to translate conservative ideas into real policy proposals."
Couldn't agree more. My point was that there is a lack of specific policy proposals - the result of a disconnect between conservative principles and an ideal of conservative governance.
ed.Comment Posted By David On 22.11.2008 @ 12:51
I do believe that "the evangelicals and the rest of the base want litmus tests in order to excommunicate those who disagree with them." That "litmus test" is code for Roe v. Wade. It is not referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic or illegal immigration or national defense or capitalism.
"Oogedy boogedism" is a big topic with wild eyed leftists. They tell tales of Sarah Palin and her congregation channeling God in a group cell phone trance reminiscent of snake handlers. They claim that Sarah Palin believes that man and dinosaurs existed simultaneously and that she does not believe in evolution. So, "oogedy boogedism" ranges from "intelligent design" to buying into the whole God "charade." "Oogedy boogedism" is code for driving your particular beef with religion from the public square. That could be Huckabee, Romney or going back to rejecting a Catholic because of the "cult of Mary." In truth, "oogedy boogedism" is an all inclusive term which says that you many practice religion in the privacy of your lives, but you may not speak it in politics.
Barry Goldwater famously trashed the religious right. Ronald Reagan won the presidency without membership in a Christian church or even attending church, but referenced God constantly. George Bush (43) is known to be a devout Christian. But unlike Clinton toting his 40 pound Bible for press-op visits to church, Bush (43) has kept his faith and worship at a very low key.
"Oogedy boogedism" is an attack on all people of religion. The fact that any on the right would use it is proof that they would join in the games of name-calling and deceit in order to gain power. Clinton took an "atonement tour" with Jesse Jackson as spiritual guide, Joe Leiberman had to explain Saturdays off, Obama had an amazing religious mentor, Jimmy Carter ran and served as an evangelical and they were all tolerated and supported.
The leftists need to be cornered and made to explain their concerns whenever they attack a person's religion. In other words, the right needs to be more like John F. Kennedy when he went to West Virginia and defended his faith and showed the voters that the Pope was not running.
The Reverand Wright did not sink Obama. There is no reason that a Republican candidate should slink away from his or her religion either.
If the Republican Party has anything to clear up it is the abortion issue. Steve Forbes once campaigned with the statement that he opposed abortion as birth control and he wanted to make abortion as rare as possible. While that leaves the camel's nose under abortion tent, it does neutralize the rabid pro-choice crowd. It allows them to be painted pro-abortion which puts them on the defensive. They need to explain what they mean when they use their bogus catchall "health of the mother" phrase.
Conservatism and the religious right did not get smacked for their beliefs. We lost because we didn't stand up for our beliefs. We need more Rick Warren type questioning and candidates who have a can of retorts to "gottcha" questions by the MSM.
This is no time to poll around for a new set of core beliefs.Comment Posted By David On 20.11.2008 @ 12:22
I think this is more than simply an "agree to disagree" issue. You made a comment about Obama supporters and I'm taking issue with that. If I call you an idiot, you might be offended (rightly so).
So who's advocating for socialized medicine? Certainly not the senator from Illinois. He's trying to find a way to cover more people. Pray tell, what's wrong with that?
What does "socialized medicine" mean anyway? Compare the US to Europe...we have lower life expectancy and spend roughly 33% more. Based on the outcomes, how is their model any worse?Comment Posted By David On 16.10.2008 @ 15:00
@Finrod: That's out and out nonsense. It's policy that has me convinced. Try comparing McCain's healthcare plan to Obama's. Please. There's no contest.Comment Posted By David On 16.10.2008 @ 14:12
If Obama being elected is "...surrendering the Constitution to a socialist regime..." then you are all nuts. You may not like him or his policies, but you should have a better idea of what he stands for than that. The ranters who believe that Obama is the second coming of the liberal antichrist better think again. And I thought that conservatives were the self-styled, steely-eyed realists. More likely legends in their own mind. Using that kind of half-baked hyperbole is foolish, believing it is worse.Comment Posted By David On 16.10.2008 @ 14:03
Wramblin' Wreck what you say, I'm sure is true.
However, the far right-wing of America also includes the neo-nazi, skin head, white separatist/supremest types that do not feel as you do.Comment Posted By David On 10.10.2008 @ 15:05
ourComment Posted By David On 10.10.2008 @ 14:45
The right-wing of America also includes the skinheads and the white seperatist KKK types.
Palin/McSame are firing up their Brownshirts now, that's what's going on.
I fear for Obama's safety, but I know owr Secret Service agents are the best in the world.
I would believe your idiocy if you had expressed one ounce of outrage when liberals burned Bush in effigy.
ed.Comment Posted By David On 10.10.2008 @ 14:39