The Conservative Reader

DJ Durant August 12th, 2008

There seems to be a ton of news lately, and for a change, not all of it bad.  First, we have the Beijing Olympiad and the Chinese display of cultural prowess.  Fortunately for us, we have the best athletes in the world.

But in case you haven’t noticed, the Russians and Vladimir Putin have invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia.  There are a number of reasons why:  1)  They want oil, 2)  They know we’re distracted by Iraq and Afghanistan and can ill afford a third front, 3)  They perceive G.W. Bush to be a lame-duck president, incapable of exercising military and moral authority in their sphere.  This, coupled with the fact that the Democrats are running a popular, but empty candidate named William Jennings Bryan, I mean, Barack Obama would suggest that we’re unable to respond.

Here’s where it gets interesting.  John McCain is perceived by many to be strong on foreign policy.  His off-the-cuff comments on domestic issues quite frankly scare me, but he usually knows what he’s talking about when speaking about foreign affairs.  This Georgia thing is a much bigger deal than people realize and, after the Olympics are over and our collective national attention returns to real issues, will clearly make Senator McCain the stronger candidate in November.  Once again, Senator Obama is too inexperienced to lead.

As far as the economy is concerned, sure the markets are bouncing around.  Oil appears to be in free fall, thankfully, closing today a hair above $113.  The price of oil and its byproduct, gasoline, has acted like a tax on the American economy.  Most people have to make choices.  Lately, the choices have been:  Do I fill up my tank, so I can get to work, or do I go out to dinner, buy clothes, pay my mortgage (which has also repriced substantially), my credit cards, my car loan, etc.  A lower price of gasoline allows people to pay for things they have been letting slide.  Continued price easing will result in lower delinquency rates on all types of credit, higher consumption and as a result, lower unemployment as people begin to go back to work to make and sell all of the things people will be able to buy.  I’ve maintained for some that Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke should raise rates, thereby boosting the dollar and bursting the commodity bubble.  The slower European economy has accomplished this for him.  Keep an eye on inflation however.  An improving domestic economy and higher inflation will result in higher interest rates.  All of this also bodes well for Republicans in November.

Tags: Bernanke, Georgia, McCain, Obama, Oil, Putin

• 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Economy , Federal Reserve , Foreign Oil , George W. Bush , International Affairs , John McCain , Republican Party , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith June 17th, 2008

Speaking of disasters, California is 49th from the last state to allow homosexuals to marry. Lots of back and forth on this… listened to some interesting discussion on the radio this afternoon (Steve Deace on WHO-AM) regarding who’s at fault… the comments stating that the California Supreme Court was not only out of line, but acting against state constitutional restrictions, and that Arnie the Governator is complicit by enforcing the ruling instead of hauling the court up for impeachment.

Also, I managed to miss a number of things. I wanted so much to do something special for Flag Day Saturday, and missed the boat (no pun intended) completely with all the flooding news spinning around. I’ll have to wait for next year. But I will say, I’m thankful for the Flag, for the country it represents, the spirit it symbolizes, and the men and women who have risked and given their lives to defend it.

Lastly, Peggy Noonan’s “Declarations” column in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal was awesome. She hit the nail on the head with what’s bothering me and frustrating me about our country and the dramatic shift we’re seeing in people’s attitudes about patriotism, long-term thinking, priorities, and overall unity. It’s almost like we have to start all over again with a large portion of the electorate and explain to them why our country, our constitution, our rights, our sovereignty and our laws are so critical to maintaining the staying power of our great nation.

Peggy takes the time to contrast the differences between how McCain, and more importantly, most Conservatives / some Republicans (referenced as “Old America”), and Obama (referenced as “New America”) think… how they perceive the world of government, what they think America is all about. I particular liked the very first item in list:

In the Old America, love of country was natural. You breathed it in. You either loved it or knew you should.

In the New America, love of country is a decision. It’s one you make after weighing the pros and cons. What you breathe in is skepticism and a heightened appreciation of the global view.

I love that line about Old America: “You breathed it in.” That is a perfect word picture for how I see Patriotism. Frankly, if you need to “decide” (and I’m sure that’s Michelle Obama thinks about it), you should just decide “no” and go somewhere else. In my humble opinion. Why stay here if you’re not sure America is what you want?

I love America. Plain and simple. How about you?

Tags: American Flag, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Breath it in, California Supreme Court, Declarations, Flag Day, Governator, Government, Homosexual Marriage, laws, New America, Old America, Patriotism, Peggy Noonan, sovereignty, Steve Deace, Wall Street Journal, WHO-AM

• 2008 Presidential Election , Homosexual Marriage , Patriotism , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Bithead April 19th, 2008

Limbaugh likes to say on his radio program, that he IS balance for the liberal press. And in many ways, he’s quite right. So an interesting angle on this shows up today in an article by John Harris and Jim Vandiehei at The Politico:

My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.

Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?

Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.

That’s still a good response now that it is Obama partisans — some of whom are showing up in distressingly inappropriate places — who are doing the whining.

The shower of indignation on Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos over the last few days is the clearest evidence yet that the Clintonites are fundamentally correct in their complaint that she has been flying throughout this campaign into a headwind of media favoritism for Obama.

Yes, indeed. Of course when do they start complaining? As with complaints and hatred spewed at Limbaugh,their whining and hatred only shows up when actual balance happens.

There are many indications, both historical and current, that the press in general leans left. The polling of pressrooms around the county perhaps being of greater import than their output. But the complaints of those outside the press about the supposedly right-wing media, which are totally laughable at the off, take on a downright hilarious tenor when the complaints involve an argument between two Democrat candidates.

in the end, I tend to doubt that the overt bias being shown by the press in this case is going to affect the outcome of the Democratic nomination all that much. Let’s face it, the campaign that Hillary Clinton has been running isn’t worth much. If the organizational skill, and clearness of thought being put into this campaign is what a Hillary Clinton White House would look like, I fear for the nation should she ever attain that office.

As it stands, however, I rather doubt she’s going to…. but as the authors point out, that does not mean that it is not going to affect the general election. While I have serious doubts about whether or not the Democratic Party is going to be able to fall in behind one candidate or the other about there doesn’t seem to be a great deal of issue as to whether or not the press is going to be able fall in behind one candidate or the other. With the glaring exception of the other night, it has been nothing more than a cheerleading section For Obama, as regards the race between them and Hillary Clinton.

There are several indications of this, not least of which the idea that the press has been yawning, whenever the subject of Obama’s ‘warm’ relationships with William Ayers and Bernadette Dohm, and the not-so Reverand Wrght shows up.

And while it’s true that John McCain has been getting warm treatment from the liberal press, I fully expect that one treatment and once the Democrats barn dance in Denver is done. there has been much in the way of vindication. The last year or so that the relationship between John McCain and the liberal press is less than genuine and fairly brittle. my take is that the gloves are going to come off, following Denver. At which point I think I can fairly well guarantee that all the complaints about the media being biased against Barrack Obama, will be forgotten… the blance of left vs Right in the press being reset the way Liberals want it balanced… in their favor.

Tags: Clinton, Obama

• 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 22nd, 2008

My dad hates labels. We’ve had this conversation numerous times in the past regarding how bad it is to put a label on yourself or others as if that label defines who you are.

I understand where he’s coming from in many respects, and yet I also maintain a need to use short expressions clarify my position in areas that could take an hour to describe in depth, but can communicate much in two or three words, such as “constitutional constructionist”. Granted, expressions (or labels) like that can be broadly interpreted or useless to those without any context regarding what it means.

And so in this Presidential election year we struggle with what it means to be “conservative” or “Republican” or “liberal”, or “libertarian”, or whatever. We struggle with the definition, scope, breadth of what these terms mean to different people. Some say McCain is not a Conservative, or he’s a RINO (Republican In Name Only), and others that say he is more conservative than we know, and some who say Obama is really going to meet the needs of Conservatives. And the labels become ambiguous.

We have some number of “conservatives” who are unwilling to support McCain or the Republican Party because the Party (and/or McCain, or because of McCain’s nomination) is not conservative enough for them. The Party does not “meet their needs”. And some have suggested forming a new party to meet those needs.

That concerns me.

It’s tough building “bipartisan” consensus between Democrats and Republicans. Often, it requires either an issue that truly transcends what each party stands for to reach that kind of consensus, or an issue so critical to the country that one or both parties simply have to compromise to accomplish what is needed. But typically the two parties, or two ideologies (at least the core of them) are so divergent that there are strong philosophical and emotional conflicts that keep the two parties from working to reach a solution together.

It’s not quite as difficult (usually) to build consensus within a party because the positions within a party are usually not as divergent as they are between the parties. Within the Republican Party this year we seem to be entertaining much more divergence (some would say because the more moderate part of the party is swinging too far to the left). Now it’s unclear to some what the “Republican” label means.

I happen to think that bipartisanship is overrated. We will always have shouts of “bipartisan” when the party “in power” is not in power enough to truly control the government (like now). We could be at a standstill in this situation. Maybe that’s just too bad. Maybe the electorate need to do something about it.

If we expect voters to get serious, then the Republican Party needs to as well. And by serious, I mean we need to be the advocates for a better informed electorate. We need to make an intelligent case for what we stand for instead of using 15-second sound bites to coerce the public into believing Democrats are evil. People generally like to feel well-informed, and we should do what we can to ensure they really are.

But the Party also needs to be running on all cylinders, meaning the entire party needs to stand together, even when we have differences and a variety of opinions. We do not serve our country by simply giving up and letting it go to the Left, although we may serve ourselves (or so we think). As Patriots, as citizens, as Americans, as people that want to see our rights and our children’s freedoms maintained, I believe we must always push on and work together for what we believe in, even if we work together with others who don’t line up exactly with our beliefs.

And splitting into separate parties will be a painful solution. To do so at the level of difference I hear many espousing (and frankly, there is already one major party that could be included with Republicans… they are called Libertarians), we could end up with at least 5 different parties on the right: Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Conservative, and White Nationalist (and, I’m fine with the White Nationalists staying out of the Republican Party, thank you very much). I’m sure there would be others. And if Republicans did this to themselves, eventually the Democrats would too, and you could have a huge mess.

Why would this be bad, you may ask? Because if you think it’s hard to get anything done in Congress today, wait until you have to build coalitions between several different parties to pass any legislation. Just ask Belgium if they like the current situation there, where the new Prime Minister (Yves Leterme) has spent months building a coalition amongst 5 parties to ensure there was a majority to get someone (okay, him, but…) into the role of Prime Minister. His party is the “Flemish Christian Democratic Party”. We might have trouble with a name like that in US politics.

We’ve watched France, Germany, Isreal, Belgium, Pakistan, and nation upon nation struggle with building cross-party coalitions just to build a majority to get work done. Granted, our Congress sometimes looks as bad or worse in comparison, but the financial burden, the loss in time, and additional work associated with having more than 2 significantly influential parties is just an undesireable way for us to operate.

But even as I write this, I have to wonder, could it be good? Could a multi-party system serve our country? It seems disingenuous to postulate just the negatives, and in preparing these thoughts I’ve hit a statement (in Wikipedia, of all places) that causes me to pause. “A multi-party system is essential for representative democracies, because it prevents the leadership of a single party from setting policy without challenge.” That’s something to think about. And now I wonder, would a multi-party system lead to improvements in areas that both the Left and the Right agree on (or, at least, agree on by the public that is supposed to be represented) such as earmarks, term limits, true balanced budgets, enforceable laws, fair taxation? Could a multi-party system provide a better forum for each party to present its perspective and perhaps better inform and influence the electorate? I actually think this is worth further debate and pursuit.

But I am convinced that building and running a real multi-party system requires an overhaul of our system of government and politics, including restructuring the legislative body, and perhaps considering the election of the President by the legislature instead of the people (maybe give the office a different name as well… I think you get my drift). Honestly, I think for the multi-party concept to be successful here, we need a system that is ready to engage it, and our current system does not play well with the idea, unfortunately. But the more I think about it, the more I think it could help ensure people are better informed and are better at reaching well-reasoned opinions about government policy. And maybe the labels won’t be as important as what we discuss together.

But in the meantime, we need to make sure the two-party system can continue to be as effective as possible… there is too much at stake to treat it with contempt and walk away without using it to its full extent. We need to continue to petition the Party with our opinions, concerns, questions, and provide as much input and feedback as possible. We need to continue to dialog with our representatives and ensure our voices are heard, or we do a disservice to our country, imperfect as she may be.

In essence, the Republican and Democratic parties are both coalitions, and each will suffer if there is too much in-fighting. I strongly suggest we all do what we can to maintain these coalitions for the sake of our country.

Update: Fixing a link.

Tags: Coalition, Congress, Democrat, Labels, Leaders, Multi-party, Republican, Two-Party System

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Bipartisanship , Conservatism , Democratic Party , John McCain , Multi-Party System , Political Philosophy , Republican Party , Two-Party System , US Congress , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 4th, 2008

According to the AP, McCain now has enough delegates to be the Republican Nominee for President.

Now that we’re here, let’s focus on what we can do to make the party as effective as possible. We have a platform to deal with, we have House and Senate seats to win, we need to build the strongest case, now more than ever, for a more conservative platform.

Let’s also remember it’s not just about the President. It’s about the team he puts together… they do substantially more of the thinking than the President himself does. Let’s hope McCain plans on some smart choices in the Cabinet and White House staff.

Tags: House, John McCain, Platform, Presidential Election, Republican Party, Senate

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , John McCain , Republican Party , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 4th, 2008

This is the last time I will harp on the character issue in this election.  Okay, maybe not.

Clinton’s campaign hit yet another low after airing this political ad in Ohio:

“This is an election news update with a major news story reported by the AP. While Senator Obama has crisscrossed Ohio giving speeches attacking NAFTA, his top economic advisor was telling the Canadians that was all just political maneuvering. A newly released document from the Canadian government shows that Obama’s senior economic advisor met with the Canadian Consul General and made clear that Obama’s attack on NAFTA were just, quote, “political maneuvering,” not policy. Political maneuvering, not policy. In fact, the document shows that Obama’s advisor also assured the Canadians that these attacks against NAFTA would not continue. Obama would not want to be, quote, “fundamentally changing the agreement.” As Senator Obama was telling one story to Ohio, his campaign was telling a very different story to Canada. How will Ohioans decide whether they can believe Senator Obama’s words? We’ll find that out on election day. Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President.”

This is worse than mudslinging because most people who hear it will believe they are hearing a real news story, even if they hear the whole ad.  Radio provides a level of subliminal impact that can be extremely effective by just providing the words since so many people treat radio as background noise.

This is just plain manipulation, and provides more fodder than ever for increased controls on election campaign advertising.  But what else should we expect from this candidate… she’s desperate, and thankfully just about done with this campaign.

Hat Tip to Memeorandum and NewsDay/Spin Cycle.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, maninpulation, Ohio, Phony, Presidential Election, Radio Ad, subliminal, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , US Politics , international politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 2nd, 2008

I take it back… suddenly Obama is getting scary. I’m starting to have nervous flashbacks to the final season of The West Wing. Remember how the last two seasons were all about a non-white congressman (played by Jimmy Smits) running for President as a Democrat (with the early talks focused on Education, too!), against a not-so-conservative Republican (played by Alan Alda)? At the end of the series, I seem to recall the new Democratic president appointing Alan Alda’s character to Secretary of State (and in doing so, admitting his knowledge of foreign affairs was weak).

Now, there’s talk that Obama will appoint some Republicans to Cabinet positions:

As Barack Obama enters the final stages of the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, he is preparing to detach the core voters of John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, with the same ruthless determination with which he has peeled off Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

The scene is set for a tussle between the two candidates for the support of some of the sharpest and most independent minds in politics. Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee.

Senior advisers confirmed that Hagel, a highly decorated Vietnam war veteran and one of McCain’s closest friends in the Senate, was considered an ideal candidate for defence secretary. Some regard the outspoken Republican as a possible vice-presidential nominee although that might be regarded as a “stretch”.

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains. But after winning 11 primary contests in a row after Super Tuesday, he is ready to elbow Clinton off the stage.

As Michele McGinty at Reformed Chicks Blabbing comments, this should not motivate you to vote for Barack. But it certainly has the appearance that it could influence some. What is staggering to me is the possibility of people like Hagel or Lugar taking these positions instead of staying on in Congress where they can do the most good. As established Republicans in their seats, they should be cognizant of the criticality of their role there, especially if a Democrat is in the White House.

By the way, the Republican VP candidate in that last season of West Wing (Leo McGarry) died of a massive heart attack on election night… just something to think about.

Tags: Barack Obama, Presidential Election, Republicans, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , US Congress , US Politics
• Comments(0)

Art Smith March 1st, 2008

Eager to put appropriate cover on their actions so that they don’t jeopardize their reelections, House Democrats are proposing breaking up the Wire-tapping Bill into two pieces: one to provide the authorization to execute the program, and the other to provide protections for communications companies against lawsuits.

From what I’m hearing, it sounds like both bills would pass, but some legislators want the option to vote against one or the other.  From the LA Times story:

“The objective would be to pass something that is less controversial,” yet still allow Democrats to register their objections to the immunity provision, said one senior Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other party leaders have yet to reach a decision on the matter.

The proposal emerged Friday as a possible endgame in the drawn-out congressional debate over how to overhaul laws that govern when and how American spy agencies can intercept international e-mails and phone calls coming into the United States.

Republican officials said they likely would back the proposal to divide the bill into two pieces, as long as there was no delay in taking up the immunity provision. “We would be OK with that as long as the immunity provision [can] become law,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Officials from both sides acknowledged that there are probably enough votes in the House to pass the measure protecting telephone companies. But splitting the bill would give Democrats who oppose the immunity provision political cover for voting in favor of the broader legislation.

This is a bunch of stupid, wasteful posturing.  I can’t believe we pay these people to just argue day by day because they want to look good to their district  instead of just getting the work done, and done right, and done quickly.  As the character of John Adams said in the musical 1776: “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace; that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress!”

Hat tip to Memeorandum.

Tags: FISA, House of Representatives, John A. Boehner, John Adams, Nancy Pelosi, Politics, The Conservative Reader, US Congress, Wire-tapping

• Terrorism , US Congress , US Politics , Wire-tapping
• Comments(0)

Art Smith February 29th, 2008

 In response to Hillary’s ridiculous ad asking “Who do you want answering the Red Phone at 3:00 AM”,  Obama provides this beauty:

I will never see the threat of terrorism as a way to scare up votes, because it’s a threat that should rally the country around our common enemies. That is the judgment we need at 3:00 a.m., and that’s the judgment that I am running for as president of the United States of America.

Um, is it just me, or did that first sentence make no proper sense? If I read it right, he’s saying he doesn’t want to use terrorism to “scare” people into doing what he wants… and that’s sort of noble (but unrealistic), and in the next breath says that the threat of terrorism should cause us to rally around our enemies?  Doesn’t that term mean “support our enemies”?  Okay, I can accept that he meant “rally the country against our common enemies”, but how is that different than using the threat to “scare” the country to rally against our enemies?  I think he’s trying to say he’s not going to try to manipulate, but that just won’t wash, and in saying it, he can’t even really prove it to be true.

The fact is, I don’t want someone as commander-in-chief who doesn’t have the nerve to use the tools we’ve provided him as a country to protect us and our national interest.  You can argue all you want about whether Iraq was right or wrong, the fact is I don’t think Obama or Clinton have what it takes to do what needs to be done even if it’s abundantly clear what should be done.  I think that’s a big reason why Kennedy and Johnson failed so miserably with Cuba and Vietnam.

Obama scares me.  As does Clinton.

McCain makes me nervous, but I think he’d do the right thing when it comes to military action and foreign policy.  I don’t really care that he leans left on domestic policy since that’s the job of Congress.  If we can get control back in Congress that will make the difference.

Hat Tip to Memeorandum.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, memeorandum, Presidential Election, The Conservative Reader, US Congress

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Hillary Clinton , Iraq , John McCain , Military , Terrorism , US Congress , US Politics , WAR
• Comments(0)

Art Smith February 28th, 2008

Those of you that are seriously considering voting for Obama because he’s “more conservative” than McCain, take a look at this and tell me this is what you think we need.  Obama will hand our interests over to foreign nations before protecting our land.

Man, that gives me the chills.

Hat  Tip to Blue Crab Boulevard.

Tags: Barack Obama, Military

• 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Military , National Defense , US Politics
• Comments(0)