In 2008 the stars were aligned for the Democrats. Amidst two unpopular wars, an economic downswing and the general discontentment that comes from 6-8 years of one-party rule, the Republicans got their clocks cleaned. A political outsider was swept into office with high praise and higher hopes. The media fawning was so ridiculous, talk radio starting referring to him as "The Messiah" and "The Anointed One." To be fair, liberals actually did create messianic icons of him. Note the unicorn in the background.
After a year in office, and being protested for not keeping his promises even in the friendly territory of a Barbara Boxer rally, Obama is on the defensive. Cindy Sheehan has even branded the President a "warmonger" and warned that people bought the "Obama hype." Even Obama girl, who had a viral Youtube video expressing her enthusiasm for Obama during the campaign has said that she has "fell out of love" with Obama. As hard as it is to believe that the liberals are eating their own when their own is the most liberal President since Woodrow Wilson, assisted by two Democrat-controlled Houses of Congress, some of the most strident opposition comes from the Tea Party.
A year ago, the Tea Party even as a concept sounded unlikely. Liberals march for anything but conservatives never seemed to have the desire to get involved in that forum. Liberals alternately praise and bash the Tea Party depending on their internal polling. Nancy Pelosi called the Tea Parties "Astro-turfing" mocking the grassroots base of the Tea Party and then turned around to say that she agreed with many aspects of the Tea Party.
If even the most hardcore liberal in one of the safest districts in the US is afraid to go after the Tea Party, we may actually be a force to be reckoned with in '10. I have zero illusions about Pelosi losing her seat but she will probably lose her Speakership.
Even Bush is making a comeback due to Obama's lackluster performance. Despite staying out of the spotlight with the exception of his Haiti fund, 46% of Americans would like to bring Bush back. Even Joe Biden now calls the war in Iraq a success. Although now that Joe Biden has said it I'm no longer sure...
To be sure Bush's compassionate conservatism did not resonate with his base. I opposed his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan as another unsustainable entitlement and I feel he opened the door for Obama with his bailout plan regardless of how "compassionate" it was. However after the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas bomber, one great thing about Bush does leap forward. He kept us safe. I don't trust Obama to keep the nation safe either economically or militarily. I am not alone, in '09 60% of our troops said they too were wary about Obama.
So the question becomes, if liberals are disenchanted with Obama and conservatives strongly oppose him, does the man who was swept into office on a wave of support and enthusiasm even have a constituency anymore?
Friday, April 30, 2010
1 down, 49 to go
Arizona is the first in the nation to pass a law making it a state offense as well as as a federal offense to be in the US illegally. Because of the high concentration of illegals in Arizona and the federal government failing to do its duty to defend the border, the taxes of legal Arizonans are skyrocketing. With the added costs of education; hospital treatment; bi-lingual government forms; crime; violence; social services; and drugs, Arizona is struggling to keep a balanced budget.
Illegal aliens drain money from government while contributing nothing back but they also depress wages in the private sector. Illegals who work construction or as farm labor for considerably less, undercut legitimate business due to circumvention of minimum wage laws and taxation. This leads to wages spiraling downward and unemployment spiraling upward. Do we really have to continue on this ruinous path even while unemployment is already hovering near 10%?
So does this mean that SWAT teams will surround the houses of illegals and drag them into the street using Gestapo-like tactics? Hardly. If someone is stopped because they have committed another crime, they can be questioned as to their immigration status. Even though being in the US illegally is a crime, an illegal will have to commit a second crime to even be asked the question. If someone is stopped for a second crime and cannot speak English or has no form of ID, they will probably be asked to prove their citizenship.
Libertarians oppose the Arizona law but in doing so they are forgetting their core values. Not only do illegals compete with government granted advantage, that being a blind eye being turned to their income in terms of taxation, but Ayn Rand reminds us that no country can exist with open borders and a welfare state. Certainly today more than ever we cannot exist with open borders, a welfare state and a President who is determined to make all those here illegally into citizens with full rights to the cornucopia of social programs.
Despite consistent negative coverage, 64% of Arizonans support the new law. 51% of Americans overall support the bill with only 39% opposed according to Gallup.
Under our Federalist system, states can impose laws as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. The dissenters can then vote with their feet (read: move) if they cannot stand the law. Many illegals say that they will leave the state due to the restrictive law. The only question now is will the bordering states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico pass similar laws if the waves of illegal immigrants come to their door?
Illegal aliens drain money from government while contributing nothing back but they also depress wages in the private sector. Illegals who work construction or as farm labor for considerably less, undercut legitimate business due to circumvention of minimum wage laws and taxation. This leads to wages spiraling downward and unemployment spiraling upward. Do we really have to continue on this ruinous path even while unemployment is already hovering near 10%?
So does this mean that SWAT teams will surround the houses of illegals and drag them into the street using Gestapo-like tactics? Hardly. If someone is stopped because they have committed another crime, they can be questioned as to their immigration status. Even though being in the US illegally is a crime, an illegal will have to commit a second crime to even be asked the question. If someone is stopped for a second crime and cannot speak English or has no form of ID, they will probably be asked to prove their citizenship.
Libertarians oppose the Arizona law but in doing so they are forgetting their core values. Not only do illegals compete with government granted advantage, that being a blind eye being turned to their income in terms of taxation, but Ayn Rand reminds us that no country can exist with open borders and a welfare state. Certainly today more than ever we cannot exist with open borders, a welfare state and a President who is determined to make all those here illegally into citizens with full rights to the cornucopia of social programs.
Despite consistent negative coverage, 64% of Arizonans support the new law. 51% of Americans overall support the bill with only 39% opposed according to Gallup.
Under our Federalist system, states can impose laws as long as they do not contradict the Constitution. The dissenters can then vote with their feet (read: move) if they cannot stand the law. Many illegals say that they will leave the state due to the restrictive law. The only question now is will the bordering states of California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico pass similar laws if the waves of illegal immigrants come to their door?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Girl Don't Go Away Mad, Girl Just Go Away
I posted a column when Sarah Palin resigned from the governorship in Alaska. Although it was favorably commented on by a plethora of conservative bloggers, I could not understand her reasoning, much less her speech. I said as much in that column. Now Sarah Palin is a commentator for Fox News and will be hosting a Real American Stories piece for them. Although I was skeptical about Palin, I was ready to give her another chance. She blew it before the show aired.
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
The show lifted interviews previously from the Fox archives and made it seem as though Palin was the interviewer. She was not. LL Cool J protested so vehemently that his piece was dropped from the show. Toby Keith, who got the same treatment, also complained. Palin has the reputation, rightly or wrongly, of not being able to hold her own in an interview. I was willing to give her a chance but the special seems the indicate that this characterization was correct. Either as interviewer or interviewee, Palin is a dud.
There is a group of people who feel the need to prop Palin up because of her life story and frankly because of her gender. Why bother when we have great conservative women in the party like Michelle Bachmann? Why even fall into the trap that we have to have a front-and-center conservative woman? Many women are conservative and those who are, are in it for the ideals the party stands for not because they are falling for some Democratesque identity politics. Smaller government, getting to keep more of what you earn and a strong foreign policy does not affect women less than it affects men. To assume so is inherently sexist.
While talk radio props up Sarah Palin, she fails them again and again. Can she operate as a commentator? The market will decide. Can she successfully run for President? I severely doubt it. If we must have a woman in the running to show we are inclusive, let's shift the focus to Michelle Bachmann who is better able to articulate conservatism to a wide audience.
Sarah Palin is a great woman who truly reformed Alaska in many ways against all odds and did so with a smile. She deserves our gratitude for what she has done up to this point but she was plucked before her time and has become an object of derision. She is incapable of being a viable candidate on a national level and for substantive reasons.
Should she announce that she will not seek the Presidency and allow the primary to occur between the major candidates? In her words, "You betcha."
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Book Review: Sean Hannity's Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda
Conservatives continue to ask themselves "What next?" even as Obama is moving on from his victory over the American people in pushing his healthcare reform bill. Liberals answer to "What next?" is cap-and-trade, amnesty, financial regulation overhauls, and imposing a VAT tax. Fortunately, Sean Hannity's book could not have come at a better time. In his new book, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda, Hannity lays out just what we need to do to stop the march towards socialism.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Hannity starts by describing Obama's past and present associates. From Jeremiah Wright to Van Jones, Hannity shows that Obama feels most comfortable with radical leftists and indeed surrounds himself with them. Guilt by association is a weak charge but the list of Obama's radical friends are too numerous to be anything but a conscious effort to surround himself with like-minded socialists. People like Marilyn Katz, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Mark Lloyd, Cass Sunstein, Ron Bloom, Anita Dunn, Kevin Jennings, Harry Knox, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Kathleen Sebelius, Harold Koh, and Dawn Johnson only mirror Obama's own ideaology. From animals being protected by the Consitution to forced sterilization there is no cockamamie liberal idea too ridiculous for these Obama appointees.
Hannity then turns his attention to when conservatives have done right by America. The Contract with America, welfare reform and middle class tax cuts that occurred under New Gingrich's House show that Republicans really are worthy to be America's true conservative party. Hannity understands the frustrations that people have with the party, most recently in the example of DeeDee Scozafava, but urges conservatives to work within the party to revitalize it. As Regan asked "Is it a third party we need or a revitalized second party?" While the Tea Party is a great grassroots organization, Tea Party candidates would split the vote and squander the chance that Obama's unpopular policies have created. As a libertarian I agree with this characterization. Although the Republican party stands for some things I disagree with, I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we get another McCainesque candidate in '12, I will vote Libertarian but if we can get a good conservative candidate, I will vote against Obama and for the Republican.
Lastly, Hannity lays out a plan for victory. It can be concisely stated as the same as Dick Morris's plan which I laid out in the last post. Defund the healthcare reform bill and repeal it before America gets addicted to yet another impossibly unwieldy entitlement program. Obama was not a sleeper or a Manchurian candidate as some claim, he told us exactly what he was going to do and he is following through on his promises. If amnesty passes, Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democrat rule could become a reality. It is crucial that we stop his progress in '10 and remove him in '12.
Hannity's book clearly lays out Obama's radicalism, points to when Republicans truly kept their promises with the Contract, and shows us what we must do to once again have a conservative Republican party. With the current climate in America, it is not merely a pipe dream to imagine that this can happen again. As long as this center-right country stays engaged we can halt the leftward drift of America and indeed the Republican party. It is always darkest before the dawn and we could truly have Morning in America once again.
Despite my previous reviews, I've never really had a rating system before. A 5-star system seems appropriate (even though if I take the time to write about it, it will probably be rated 5 stars!). I give Sean Hannity's book 5 stars. This book along with Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny should be required reading for any conservative revolutionary looking to put the current crisis in perspective and how to find a way out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
