Friday, January 9, 2009
More God, Guns and Less Government
Will the GOP ever return to its mainstream Eisenhower roots? Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker got flayed for calling Palin unqualified and betraying the religious/cultural base of the party, as did several other conservative thinkers. But it's what drives people like Morrison, Parkinson and Parker away. The Dems have figured out that you have to move center. Obama, as liberal as he might be, used a GOP principle — tax cuts — to help get elected. If the GOP would, say, call for universal health care — perhaps on moral grounds trumping the anti-government philosophy, at least in this case, it would probably rise again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Interesting article. I think the true problem solvers are Moderate Independents. That way you are open to all ideas.
My take on Morrison is he switched parties just to get elected and face Klein, which for a while I was thankful for until his other head took over his actions. Possibly the same with Parkinson switching as I doubt it really has that much to do with issues.
Obama is too liberal for me really, but I love his "yes we can" attitude. I used to really like McCain when he was a real "maverick" and not a "yes" man for Bush. Palin is/was unqualified, I see no way of saying she was. Biden is just an old policitician with a big mouth. State wise, I like what Sebelius stands for, but she does not seem to do much. Brownback and folks like him (Abrams, Klein) are too conservative.
Its easy to label yourself this or that and follow blindly, but looking at the issues and deciding what and who you believe in is the way to go.
I am interested in your take on Obama's new socialist climate czar. Every time we would talk about Obama's socialist leanings before the election you would shoot it down, but this pick seems to lend some credence to the idea that Obama is a socialist.
Any reaction from the Liberal side?
Do anti-Obama people know what Socialism is? It doesn't appear that they do...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/
Nice try at a dodge, but yes, we do know what Socialism is. Further more, it looks like the whole country is about to find out the hard way exactly what socialism looks like. Up close and personal.
I guess being on the commission of Socialist International doesn't qualify her as a socialist?
I guess it's time to start reworking your argument from "Obama is not a socialist" to "Socialism isn't that bad" huh?!
Some of you people are funny. From the Wonk Room:
The Washington Times made Browner’s “socialist ties” its headline story today. The Times was founded by the Unification Church’s Sung Myung Moon, a right-wing evangelical religious leader who blames Jews for the Holocaust. From the Times the headline leapt to the Drudge Report, where Matt Drudge juxtaposed the story with headlines about extreme cold weather. Tipped off by the John Locke Foundation’s Paul Chesser, the American Spectator calls the story “tremendously important” and “truly scary.” At the Heritage Foundation, Nick Loris (who previously equated the New Deal to Nazism) repeated Milloy’s bizarre mention of purges in Stalinist Russia. On his national radio show today, Glenn Beck used story to claim “almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist.”
So, you people believe that Browner is going to launch some sort of grand Socialist Scheme acting as global warming czar? How does she and Socialism take over Democracy from that post?
If a person has ties to the KKK and is appointed as Chief of staff to the President, does that mean that the entire Government will soon be KKK driven?
Wow!! Paranoia is getting the best of you. It may be time to turn off Glen Beck and live and think for yourself...
Most know little about Mr. Obama. Except those who want to know. Most people know more about "dancing with the stars" than they do about who will be their leader. Good thing we didn't trust the reporters & journalists to inform us. Most of them were too busy singing his praises to even try & find any facts. And the facts that were easily available were quickly dismissed as not "newsworthy", or "right-wing extremism", etc.
Well, they're about to find out what Mr. Obama is really like. As has been said here: quote @ 1:19 "Up close and personal."
That being said, I do wish him the best. I sincerely hope he works out well. I live here.
I agree on the socialism comments. We were created as a country to be a democracy. Socialism is taking over through the bailout process. I realize that our editor on this blog thinks he is over our heads, but that is just simplistic thinking on his part (it will also probably cause this comment to not get published). Anyway- to say that any business is too big to fail is foolish. By saying that I am shooting myself in the foot, as I work for the auto industry, but at some point you have to say where does it end? Does the airline industry go next? What about the farmers? Or the railroad? Choose any type of industry- do they deserve one two? What is the criteria for deciding a business is important enough for a bailout? What gives the government the right or the intelligence to say that this business can and will succeed with taxpayer help but because of the economy this one (a competitor) will fail because it is not big enough to save. How can we or our children ever pay this debt? And, who exactly do we owe it too? (China, among others) What happens when they call in their loans? What does that do to our bankrupt government? My personal opinion is that there is a serious abuse of power going on in the bailouts- all the pork barreling, etc. and that the guys in control are writing checks their butts can't cash- it is taxpayers who will pay those loans. When the government pays for everything (or in this case borrows money to takeover) they deserve the right to decide how the entity is run- just common sense there. A big brother society is what you are asking for when the government steps into the role of protecting a business from bankruptcy. It is socialism.
I would take issue with any President who put a KKK member in his cabinet, just as you should take issue with Obama putting a socialist in power as the climate czar.
@ byte daily January 13, 2009 2:02 PM
What is your point? Are you just trying to redirect the attention away from the fact that Obama hired a socialist? Just because one place that pointed out the socialist ties has ties to unsavory things does not make it any less true. She is on the commission for christ's sake... how can you argue that she's not a socialist? If a drug dealing pedophile yells fire in a crowded theater, and there really is a fire, are you going to care who said it first?
@ 1:52
My point is simple, consider the source.
Guess Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, all the members of the British and Israel Labor parties, are "socialist" too because of their affiliation with this environmental group. Guess Bill Clinton is socialist because he hired Browner as EPA chief.
This is red-meat name calling by the hard right (hard left does it too with words like "fascist" and "dictator")
Those $300 billion in tax cuts Obama is calling for must be a trojan horse socialist plot. Glen Beck, Limbaugh and the Washington Times are on the case.
So, let me understand you. You are saying that a leader of the group "Socialist International" is not a socialist, and it is all a vast right wing conspiracy?
Okay. Whatever you say. You are the source of our local news after all.
http://www.socialistinternational.org/about.cfm
To the easily misled people here:
Do you think we should eliminate all the "good socialist" practices in the US? Since we are a "democracy," should we just allow everyone to fend for themselves? What would be the ideal education system is this type of living environment?
Socialism is all about spreading the wealth. That wealth, for the most part, comes from people who have worked their A$$ off to get it, and it is given to the lazy couch dwellers who just want to live off the government tit. Are ALL socialistic ideas wrong, or bad for the country? No. But neither are ALL communist ideas. That doesn't mean I want a communist for a President.
How about more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, less god in government and schools, and less government period?!
Socialism is about taking care of those in need of help. The extreme of socialism may take "wealth" from all and evenly distribute it. That is not what is being talked about. Get a clue people, you being drawn in to a political game of name calling. A really old tactic by both sides...
I guess we'll all find out soon enough how far Obama is willing to go to "spread the wealth".
Post a Comment