'Tis the season to be Family,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa.
Drive we now across the country,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa.
Love we now our distant cousins,
fah-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-laa;
Spending time with our loved ones,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-laa-la-laaa!
Eating food and blowing diets,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa,
Taking pictures, posed and random,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-la-la-laa,
Holding babes and kissing Grandma,
fah-la-la, la-la-la, la-la-laa;
Getting home to peace and quiet,
fah-la-la-la-laa, la-laaa, la-laaaaaa!!!
Friday, July 17, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Look at what?!
There were two pix from President Obama's recent trip, and one seemed to be really smarmy, with him ogling a young lady's "Stimulus Package". After this brouhaha erupted, suddenly a new picture came out of him when he left the summit. To the right is the first picture. Obviously Nicholas Sarkozy is ogling, but then, he's a Frenchman, so we can understand his behavior. A quick review of the actual footage that this was taken from clears things up nicely, if one cares to get at the truth.
After this turned into an international joke, the person to whom it mattered most seemed to have directed or orchestrated another picture, another photo op, if you will. That person was the First lady, Michelle Obama. When was the last time you saw the first couple enter Air Force One next to each other? Most often, they are in single file, with one going in first, then the other, waves and smiles. But this time, they had to put this incident, shall we say, behind them? They had to let the world know where the President's heart, and hand in this case, was. Look at this next picture, and see for yourself.
This should clear things up. I doubt Obama is a player. This is one area where he gets it right: he is a family man, and seems to be a faithful father and husband. Kudos to him and to his wife, who protected their family image.Thursday, June 25, 2009
Health Care Debate
I watched the President dominate the ABC health care infomercial last night. It was predictable. He took some softball questions, and some that made him struggle to articulate the same answers into the query at hand, but there was no real debate about it. There were also the sob stories, and hypothetical questions that seemed chosen for effect, not to truly debate the issues.
But that is not the point of this post. My point is to ask the questions, and consider things I think real people will be really interested in hearing about. Here they are:
1. What about those who have no health care coverage by choice?
2. What about Tort Reform, in at least two aspects: limiting pain and suffering awards, and "loser pays"?
3. What about illegal aliens and making sure they are not a cost burden?
4. Why does Government intervention have to cost so much?
5. Will the Health care plan work any better than the Stimulus plan, and the natural follow up: why not wait to see how the stimulus plan works first?
That something needs to be done is not really a question. There needs to be some changes, but that does not mean that the program sought by the President and the Democrats is the only way to fix it. We also need to consider our budget as we go. I think that until the budget is balanced, we should not have a government program for health care that costs billions, and certainly not trillions of tax payer dollars. There are some simple things the government can do to dramatically improve the quality of health care, reduce cost, and increase coverage, which would cost relatively little. Before I get into that, however, let me acknowledge the points where the President and I agree. They are few.
1. Portability. We agree that a person's health care plan should be portable, meaning that if an employee leaves their job, they should be able to remain in their health insurance plan. This is something that the Congress can legislate into legality without spending even millions of dollars. With 56% of Americans in employer provided health insurance plans, this would be the single largest step to allowing them to keep their coverage. I have lost mine a few times after leaving an employer, and it was painful.
2. Pre-existing conditions: no exclusions for them. People will in many cases have pre-existing conditions, and that should not be a discriminator against allowing a person who joins a business or other pool to join a health care insurance plan.
3. Health care IT. To stream line storage and retrieval of records would greatly improve health care provided, though I think it would be good for the government to do studies on it, and give tax breaks for the transition to it, rather than for the government to run it. Other countries are using this type of system already, and if the results of their practical experience could be studied with government grant money, an optimal system for our country could be recommended and supported.
Here's what we could probably get passed this year with bi-partisan agreement, and with little cost to the government:
1. Tort reform to limit awards for "pain & suffering", at some reasonable level, such as $1 million. This is not to be confused with allowing suits to recover lost income, medical costs, and other impacts related to medical malpractice. Those types of awards will help keep doctors honest.
2. Tort reform to make the loser pay. In simple terms, this means if a frivolous lawsuit is brought, the loser pays the legal fees of the team that had to fight it (as well as their own). This would reduce lawsuits to those that have basis in fact.
3. Change the law to allow people to keep their health insurance when they leave their job.
4. Change the law to make health care insurance a deductible thing for individuals, and make employers give the total amount of money they would be paying for health care insurance to the employees. That would make the costs obvious, and the choice the consumer's.
5. Start studies on health care IT around the world, and the available technologies.
More later. I have to go earn my health care coverage.
But that is not the point of this post. My point is to ask the questions, and consider things I think real people will be really interested in hearing about. Here they are:
1. What about those who have no health care coverage by choice?
2. What about Tort Reform, in at least two aspects: limiting pain and suffering awards, and "loser pays"?
3. What about illegal aliens and making sure they are not a cost burden?
4. Why does Government intervention have to cost so much?
5. Will the Health care plan work any better than the Stimulus plan, and the natural follow up: why not wait to see how the stimulus plan works first?
That something needs to be done is not really a question. There needs to be some changes, but that does not mean that the program sought by the President and the Democrats is the only way to fix it. We also need to consider our budget as we go. I think that until the budget is balanced, we should not have a government program for health care that costs billions, and certainly not trillions of tax payer dollars. There are some simple things the government can do to dramatically improve the quality of health care, reduce cost, and increase coverage, which would cost relatively little. Before I get into that, however, let me acknowledge the points where the President and I agree. They are few.
1. Portability. We agree that a person's health care plan should be portable, meaning that if an employee leaves their job, they should be able to remain in their health insurance plan. This is something that the Congress can legislate into legality without spending even millions of dollars. With 56% of Americans in employer provided health insurance plans, this would be the single largest step to allowing them to keep their coverage. I have lost mine a few times after leaving an employer, and it was painful.
2. Pre-existing conditions: no exclusions for them. People will in many cases have pre-existing conditions, and that should not be a discriminator against allowing a person who joins a business or other pool to join a health care insurance plan.
3. Health care IT. To stream line storage and retrieval of records would greatly improve health care provided, though I think it would be good for the government to do studies on it, and give tax breaks for the transition to it, rather than for the government to run it. Other countries are using this type of system already, and if the results of their practical experience could be studied with government grant money, an optimal system for our country could be recommended and supported.
Here's what we could probably get passed this year with bi-partisan agreement, and with little cost to the government:
1. Tort reform to limit awards for "pain & suffering", at some reasonable level, such as $1 million. This is not to be confused with allowing suits to recover lost income, medical costs, and other impacts related to medical malpractice. Those types of awards will help keep doctors honest.
2. Tort reform to make the loser pay. In simple terms, this means if a frivolous lawsuit is brought, the loser pays the legal fees of the team that had to fight it (as well as their own). This would reduce lawsuits to those that have basis in fact.
3. Change the law to allow people to keep their health insurance when they leave their job.
4. Change the law to make health care insurance a deductible thing for individuals, and make employers give the total amount of money they would be paying for health care insurance to the employees. That would make the costs obvious, and the choice the consumer's.
5. Start studies on health care IT around the world, and the available technologies.
More later. I have to go earn my health care coverage.
Friday, May 8, 2009
TARP Too: Where do We go from Here?
As I saw the headlines about the banks needing to raise more capital, I started to cross-reference things in my mind.
FACT: many banks want to return TARP money.
FACT: some banks need more money, according to results of the Stress Tests that the government has just reported on.
FACT: The administration does not want banks to return the TARP money right now. Some may be allowed to start soon, but not yet.
FACT: The government arraigned a bankruptcy for Chrysler in which the first bond holders got about 30 cents on the dollar, while the UAW got $55billion worth of equity in the company, and the government got a significant stake in the company as well.
FACT: The First Bondholders who invested in Chrysler offered to take a 50% loss on their investment, but the Administration insisted on them taking a 70% loss.
FACT: the government wants the banks to raise private capital to be capable of passing the stress tests, or else they may need to pump more government money into those banks.
Now why do I mention Chrysler in context of the banks? Simple: the Administration is the entity in ultimate charge of the banks that need more money, and the banks may have a hard time convincing private companies that investing in those banks under control of the Government will not result in their bond contracts being overridden by the Administration in some future move that the Government thinks is best for the "rightful owners of the nation's wealth". Chrysler investors are no different than bank investors. When companies, people, hedge funds or whoever, decide to invest, they trade off return, risk, and other pertinent factors. There is a huge risk when this administration is in control of the banks that they will make some move that will negatively impact the investors who happen to not be the Government. If the banks do not raise all of the capital in six months, the Administration will take a voting stake, and then the investor who stuck their necks out now will be screwed. Never mind that most hedge funds are collections of ordinary citizens trying to provide for their retirement, trying to provide for themselves and their families' livelihood. Businesses try to raise capital to finance their growth, and if they are to be persuaded to invest in banks, they need to know that their rights will be protected. Confidence is the key to investment.
Sure, there are greedy investors who only want to be filthy rich. Who would not want to be rich? I don't begrudge them that, but those are not the majority of the investors the banks are seeking. I mean, if Warren Buffet were to invest his money, with the goal of being filthy rich, would the Administration have a problem with that? Oh, wait, they love him. So why is it bad for others to want to invest and become like Buffet? Oh yes, that's right. Warren Buffet must be one of the "Rightful Owners of the Nations Wealth", at least in President Obama's eyes. I take a simple approach: the "Rightful Owners" in the business world are those who bought the bonds, whose contracts specify that they have rights of ownership or first payment in a bankruptcy proceeding.
So where do we go from here? If a few of the banks (Citi, GMAC) need more capital, we need to approach it from a fiscally responsible perspective, and allow some banks that passed the "Stress Tests" to return TARP money, and the Administration needs to reinvest that money in the other banks that need it. We also need written assurance from the Obama administration that there will be no further interference in the banks which could result in the coveted investors losing their rights or property when they invest in American banks that have received TARP money.
Will this happen? as I sit here up at 2:30 AM on 8 May 2009, I seriously doubt it. But it would work, if done.
FACT: many banks want to return TARP money.
FACT: some banks need more money, according to results of the Stress Tests that the government has just reported on.
FACT: The administration does not want banks to return the TARP money right now. Some may be allowed to start soon, but not yet.
FACT: The government arraigned a bankruptcy for Chrysler in which the first bond holders got about 30 cents on the dollar, while the UAW got $55billion worth of equity in the company, and the government got a significant stake in the company as well.
FACT: The First Bondholders who invested in Chrysler offered to take a 50% loss on their investment, but the Administration insisted on them taking a 70% loss.
FACT: the government wants the banks to raise private capital to be capable of passing the stress tests, or else they may need to pump more government money into those banks.
Now why do I mention Chrysler in context of the banks? Simple: the Administration is the entity in ultimate charge of the banks that need more money, and the banks may have a hard time convincing private companies that investing in those banks under control of the Government will not result in their bond contracts being overridden by the Administration in some future move that the Government thinks is best for the "rightful owners of the nation's wealth". Chrysler investors are no different than bank investors. When companies, people, hedge funds or whoever, decide to invest, they trade off return, risk, and other pertinent factors. There is a huge risk when this administration is in control of the banks that they will make some move that will negatively impact the investors who happen to not be the Government. If the banks do not raise all of the capital in six months, the Administration will take a voting stake, and then the investor who stuck their necks out now will be screwed. Never mind that most hedge funds are collections of ordinary citizens trying to provide for their retirement, trying to provide for themselves and their families' livelihood. Businesses try to raise capital to finance their growth, and if they are to be persuaded to invest in banks, they need to know that their rights will be protected. Confidence is the key to investment.
Sure, there are greedy investors who only want to be filthy rich. Who would not want to be rich? I don't begrudge them that, but those are not the majority of the investors the banks are seeking. I mean, if Warren Buffet were to invest his money, with the goal of being filthy rich, would the Administration have a problem with that? Oh, wait, they love him. So why is it bad for others to want to invest and become like Buffet? Oh yes, that's right. Warren Buffet must be one of the "Rightful Owners of the Nations Wealth", at least in President Obama's eyes. I take a simple approach: the "Rightful Owners" in the business world are those who bought the bonds, whose contracts specify that they have rights of ownership or first payment in a bankruptcy proceeding.
So where do we go from here? If a few of the banks (Citi, GMAC) need more capital, we need to approach it from a fiscally responsible perspective, and allow some banks that passed the "Stress Tests" to return TARP money, and the Administration needs to reinvest that money in the other banks that need it. We also need written assurance from the Obama administration that there will be no further interference in the banks which could result in the coveted investors losing their rights or property when they invest in American banks that have received TARP money.
Will this happen? as I sit here up at 2:30 AM on 8 May 2009, I seriously doubt it. But it would work, if done.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The Truth from Arlen Spector
Thank you, Arlen Specter. We appreciate that you finally joined the party you seem most likely to support on key issues.
This is the continuing of the purifying of the Republican party, and while losing a seat in this time when the Democrats are close to a super majority is painful, I think it is the beginning of the rebuilding of a truly conservative party. Senator Specter has for years frustrated true conservatives like myself, and has kept more conservative people from winning the seat he has held for 28 years. I recall when he ran back in 2004, and I was frustrated the President Bush campaigned for him against Pat Toomey in the primary. Specter won the primary, obviously, then the rest of the party had to bite their tongues, hold their noses, and vote for him, as the local standard bearer for the GOP. I thought that was bad then, and wonder how far it really got the party, in the long run.
I guess Senator Specter didn't like being in the minority this late in his career, and was neither sure he would win the primary, nor that the GOP would regain the majority during his next term. He may be right, but nothing in politics is certain these days.
So what can we learn from this? From Senator Specter's own words, he intended to stay with the GOP as late as March 17, 2009. As with President Obama, watch his actions, not his words. That is lesson one. Also, the GOP should not interfere with primary battles, but rather let the local people make a local choice, without outside heavy hitters influencing outcomes. I bet Toomey would have won Specter's seat if he had won the primary, and held it now, rather than switching parties for personal political gain.
Lest it seem that I am disparaging Senator Specter, I am saying he is doing this for personal gain base on his own words, that there needed to be a balance, not just a one-party representation for the Northeast. When he was appearing to be a committed Republican, Specter said all the right words when asked, but voted for higher spending, bailouts, and other things that are not conservative. Which words represent the true Specter: those that he said as a Republican, or those that he said as he switched to be a Democrat? One set, take your pick, was said for pure personal political gain.
So, Senator Specter, thanks for the help, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Next?
This is the continuing of the purifying of the Republican party, and while losing a seat in this time when the Democrats are close to a super majority is painful, I think it is the beginning of the rebuilding of a truly conservative party. Senator Specter has for years frustrated true conservatives like myself, and has kept more conservative people from winning the seat he has held for 28 years. I recall when he ran back in 2004, and I was frustrated the President Bush campaigned for him against Pat Toomey in the primary. Specter won the primary, obviously, then the rest of the party had to bite their tongues, hold their noses, and vote for him, as the local standard bearer for the GOP. I thought that was bad then, and wonder how far it really got the party, in the long run.
I guess Senator Specter didn't like being in the minority this late in his career, and was neither sure he would win the primary, nor that the GOP would regain the majority during his next term. He may be right, but nothing in politics is certain these days.
So what can we learn from this? From Senator Specter's own words, he intended to stay with the GOP as late as March 17, 2009. As with President Obama, watch his actions, not his words. That is lesson one. Also, the GOP should not interfere with primary battles, but rather let the local people make a local choice, without outside heavy hitters influencing outcomes. I bet Toomey would have won Specter's seat if he had won the primary, and held it now, rather than switching parties for personal political gain.
Lest it seem that I am disparaging Senator Specter, I am saying he is doing this for personal gain base on his own words, that there needed to be a balance, not just a one-party representation for the Northeast. When he was appearing to be a committed Republican, Specter said all the right words when asked, but voted for higher spending, bailouts, and other things that are not conservative. Which words represent the true Specter: those that he said as a Republican, or those that he said as he switched to be a Democrat? One set, take your pick, was said for pure personal political gain.
So, Senator Specter, thanks for the help, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Next?
Friday, April 17, 2009
GOP in a Battle for its Direction
I read an article that typifies for me the battle that the GOP finds itself in. You can find it from the link at the title of this post. The lines are drawn, and the party future is on the line. The party is going to have to decide if it is the party that is Democrat-Lite or Strongly Conservative.
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Answer to a Polling Point Question
Polling Point asked me this question:
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)