The Battle for the Soul of Conservatism
| Sat May. 30, 2009 8:28 AM PDT
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court raises a question: Who will win the battle for the conservative soul? In the red corner, we have the insane wingnuts:
Newt Gingrich: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." Rush Limbaugh: "How can a party get behind such a candidate? That's what would be asked if somebody were foolish enough to nominate David Duke or pick somebody even less offensive." Tom Tancredo: "She’s a member! She’s a member of La Raza!" Matthew J. Franck: "Is she still, and how much of La Raza's politics does she make her own?" Michael Goldfarb: "Does anyone dispute that Sotomayor has been the recipient of preferential treatment for most of her life?" Bill Bennett: "Did she get into Princeton on affirmative action, one wonders." G. Gordon Liddy: "Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate."
And in the other red corner, we have an improbable band of rebels trying to urge conservatives to act like grownups:
Peggy Noonan: "Newt Gingrich twitters that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Does anyone believe that? He should rest his dancing thumbs, stop trying to position himself as the choice and voice of the base in 2012, and think." Jon Cornyn: "This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent." Julian Sanchez: "What we’re seeing here [] is people clinging to the belief that Sotomayor has to be some mediocrity who struck the ethnic jackpot, that whatever benefit she got from affirmative action must be vastly more significant than her own qualities, that she’s got to be a harpy boiling with hatred for whitey, however overwhelming the evidence against all these propositions is. This is really profoundly ugly." Michael Steele: "I know that a lot of folks want to do the knee jerk you know let's start slammin' and rammin', but I think we really need to take a step back from this." Charles Krauthammer: "What should a principled conservative do?....Nothing ad hominem. The argument should be elevated, respectful and entirely about judicial philosophy."
Who will win? I guess we won't know until Sarah Palin weighs in, will we?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
What??
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 8:43 AM PDT.
Who decided that the Republican Party has anything to do with conservatism? The closest to a conservative the Repuiblicans have chosen was Reagan and he was clearly a moderate centrist. The demise of the Republican Party is precisely because it is not conservative - it is a weak "me too" version of the socialist Democrat Party. The least conservative nominee in recent elections was the weak kneed McCain - how did that work out???
Lost cause
Submitted by Capn Phealy on Sat May. 30, 2009 11:22 AM PDT.
When Noonan, Steele, Krauthammer, and Cornyn count as the responsible, adult side of a party...that party has lost the plot entirely. Seriously, Our Lady of the Dolphins is gonna lecture people on being grownups? Give it up, folks.
One obvious Limbaugh
Submitted by Off Colfax (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 11:30 AM PDT.
One obvious Limbaugh response in the works:
Of COURSE someone named Sanchez would tell me I'm wrong about Sotomajor. So I have to ask you, my loyal dittoheads, when Julian Sanchez was a member of La Raza?
When you can't fight them on issues, fight them on principle.
When you can't fight them on principle, fight them in the gutter.
There is no winning in the GOP.
Submitted by Trippp on Sat May. 30, 2009 11:44 AM PDT.
The looney fringe will not back down, so the question is whether the rest of the GOP will get in line behind them. My hunch is that no, the less wacky won't back the completely wacky.
I also guess that the less wacky keep the Republican name, and have a much smaller party, and have a long uphill climb to rebuild something.
I have no idea if my guesses will come true, and I don't care. I am absolutely loving the show! Crazy people can be entertaining when they don't have power.
I. am. Loving. it!
Tripp
La Raza and “la raza”
Submitted by Keith M Ellis (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 11:54 AM PDT.
I think it's revealing that conservatives confuse the National Council of La Raza with MEChA because the words la raza appear in MEChA's motto, “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada”. And, of course, that Liddy refers to this as being the language of “illegal alien”.
It would be sad if it weren't so ugly.
Who will win?
Submitted by EL (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 12:07 PM PDT.
"Who will win? " Let's see. Who's paid $40 million a year? Who was the featured speaker at CPAC? It's not even close.
As always with modern
Submitted by jrw on Sat May. 30, 2009 12:15 PM PDT.
As always with modern Republicans, I wonder if they really believe what they are saying, or if they simply think this is what the should/need to say. I mean, does Tom Tancredo really think La Raza is like the Klan? Either way, they're vile, stupid, sickening, and wrong, so maybe it doesn't matter, but you gotta wonder what, if any, thought process goes on in their heads.
You mean Tom...
Submitted by Godless Heathen on Sun May. 31, 2009 11:12 AM PDT.
Tom "Miami is a 3rd world country" Tancredo? No, no way he thinks La Raza is equivalent to a violent hate group. I bet he saw the History Channel special about MS13 and now thinks that La Raza is the same thing.
The GOP was only ever in the
Submitted by steve s (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 1:11 PM PDT.
The GOP was only ever in the ballgame because they had enough moderates. And they only had moderates because moderate people in the media shaped the debate. Once wingnut conservatives like Limbaugh and FoxNews got the power to shape the debate and symbolize the GOP, the GOP's fortunes went down the tubes. Where it will remain, until another moderate centrist can take over the GOP and appeal to a lot of non-conservatives. Which won't be any time soon, as sensible people want nothing to do with that party these days.
Liddy's comments about a 54
Submitted by Hedley Lamarr (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 2:31 PM PDT.
Liddy's comments about a 54 year old woman's ovuatory ability says a lot about his knowledge of that sex.
that's a new one on me
Submitted by junebug on Sat May. 30, 2009 3:07 PM PDT.
Color me astonished that conservatism has a soul to be fought over in the first place. Reaganomics was nothing but "me first"-ism at the expense of people who needed it the most. Oh, and a shopping holiday for the Defense Department. And those were their Halcion days. Now it's just unrestrained id.
As a thoughtful conservative
Submitted by John Hansen (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 3:28 PM PDT.
As a thoughtful conservative who comes to this site, I would like to express my frustration with listening to liberals discuss statements by Republicans. You don't hear what Republicans are saying, you don't think about it. You just dismiss it. Then you go discuss it amongst yourselves and congratulate yourselves for being so progressive. What immaturity.
Please try and listen to the opposition without a knee jerk reaction. Conservatism has long stood for the principle that men and women should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. All that Newt and Rush are doing is pointing out the absurdity that is the modern liberalism. Liberalism seems to be trying to eliminate race as a factor ( moving toward a truly color blind society ) by emphasizing the importance of race. I think that is nutty. Rush and Newt just point out the hypocrisy of liberalism by calling it what it is. To insist that a Latina is better at being a judge because she is Latina is clearly racist. Now you may wish for a world where race does not play a factor in decisions, a world that fits the dream of MLK, but you won't get there by continually playing the race card. It must hurt when Newt and Rush point this out, otherwise you would not be so compelled to label them as wingnuts. You would understand that they are making social commentary on the immaturity of modern liberal thought.
Give us a break.
Submitted by jrw on Sat May. 30, 2009 3:53 PM PDT.
Conservatism has long stood for the principle that men and women should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character
That's absolutely hysterical. Can you point to any evidence whatsoever that your statement is true? If 20th & 21st century conservatives had had their way, we would still have segregation, poll taxes, literacy tests, and miscegenation laws. Conservatives have fought racial equality every step of the way and are still fighting. Have you studied any history whatsoever?
Jesus, if you are a thoughtful conservative, it's now wonder you guys are down to the raving lunatics.
Oh yeah. All those
Submitted by Impeach Jay Bybee (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 7:27 PM PDT.
Oh yeah.
All those Republicans in the South. They were really IN TO not judging a person by the color of their skin.
LOL.
Lie down with the racists, rise up with a tendency to see racism is everyone but yourself and your ilk (ie white people).
Let's face it. There WERE no qualified women before Sandra Day O'Connor, were there?
Oh, and Clarence Thomas wasn't nominated for the color of his skin. No, he was the MOST QUALIFIED PERSON for the job? Right?
Also, John
Submitted by nepeta on Sat May. 30, 2009 6:50 PM PDT.
"To insist that a Latina is better at being a judge because she is Latina is clearly racist."
No one ever said the above, most certainly not Sotomayor. Sotomayor, to paraphrase, said that as a 'wise' Latina woman with her experiences growing up in public housing in the Bronx, etc. brings a non-mainstream perspective to the court what a white male on the court simply is incapable of having. She believes that such a perspective will make her a better judge. I personally have no argument with her POV, considering the fact that the SC has traditionally been predominantly white, male and upper class.
Here's her actual quote:
"“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.
The sniff test for racism is very simply.
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Sun May. 31, 2009 7:43 AM PDT.
The sniff test for racism is very simple. Let's just change a few words and attribute it to, well take your pick of Conservatives. My hunch is that it is racist but let's see:
"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience of private education would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a minority who hasn't lived that life."
Yup. It's racist. And the silly thing about it is that had Robert's said it Schumer and Leahey and the rest of the lap dog media would be apoplectic right about now arguing exactly the opposite of what they -and you- are doing.
sniff this
Submitted by junebug on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:35 AM PDT.
That's the best you can do? Really? Because, you know, if you're serious about calling out racism when it comes to the Supreme Court, you'll have a field day with former Chief Justice Rehnquist. As Alan Dershowitz noted in a column at the Huffington Post:
As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.
And here's a treasure trove, in the form of FBI memos, documenting Rehnquist's history of harassment of minorities. Clearly, Sotomayor has her work cut out for it she expects to be Chief Justice someday. Time to burn some crosses.
Sorry but I don't see how
Submitted by Caspian of the Lake on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:45 AM PDT.
Sorry but I don't see how this negates Sotomayor's remarks. Clearly the Rehnquist court was considered moderate towards race, voting neither extreme left or right. And certainly is it not out of the realm of possibility that he might have changed his view on race and equality from a 1952 opinion he wrote for Jackson. Just ask former clan member and longest serving US Senator.
slowly, so you can follow along
Submitted by junebug on Sun May. 31, 2009 11:49 AM PDT.
Sorry but I don't see how this negates Sotomayor's remarks.
It doesn't. It negates *your* remarks. You've demonstrated yourself to be disingenuous about the issue, because you feign outrage about the issue of racism (and alleged racism, at that) only when you perceive it to be directed towards your kind. You're indifferent on the subject when it pertains to Republican Chief Justices (plural).
Clearly the Rehnquist court was considered moderate towards race, voting neither extreme left or right.
This is simply false. The Rehnquist Court steamrolled both affirmative action and job discrimination claims, and it repealed the right of appeal for prisoners, actions which specifically targeted minority communities. One of the results of the latter of these, repealing rights of appeal, is that the US now has the highest proportion of its citizens imprisoned of any country in the world, and minorities comprise numbers of the imprisoned in wildly disproportionate numbers to their numbers in the general population.
And certainly is it not out of the realm of possibility that he might have changed his view on race and equality from a 1952 opinion he wrote for Jackson. Just ask former clan member and longest serving US Senator.
No, that's not outside the realm of possibility. Nor is the prospect of a unipolar world dominated by Lichtenstein, but since Rehnquist never indicated any change in his views on race (and privately reaffirmed them to associates), he remains an unreconstructed racist, and therefore stands in stark contrast to a former Klan member & long-serving US senator who's acknowledged the odiousness of his formerly held views, and has apologized for them.
Here . . . Let Me Help
Submitted by No_Civil_War (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:15 AM PDT.
For those attempting to make a point about Sotomayor based on an out-of-context assertion, you might want to educate yourselves as to why she said it and what point she intended to make. In short, she was responding to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's statement that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." Sotomayor references O'Connor's words ("wise Latina woman") in refuting the statement. In context, Sotomayor says that she will make decisions that may differ from those who haven't lived her life based on who she is, and she will believe those decisions to be wise.
As for the popular squawking point on the libertarian-influenced premise of America's being color-blind and gender-neutral, do some research (or just use some common sense) on the status of women and minorities in top institutions being groomed for specialized positions of power during the 60's and 70's. When the law affirmed color-blind, gender-neutral access and protection a little over 40 years ago, 200 years of decisions by "wise old" white men had shaped the playing field to accomodate particular tastes, preferences, and worldviews. Just as President Obama's election is a significant milestone in the necessary (and likely inevitable) reshaping of the playing field, so Sotomayor's eventual confirmation will add its own mark.
But it's safe to say that 200 years of exclusivity in defining America and its institutions by one gender (male) and one "ethnicity" (white) established a fairly overwhelming legacy of racism and sexism -- much of it so subtle that a white American male could almost be forgiven for not seeing it, since he never had to experience it.
So when those who have experienced the increasingly petty but ubiquitous impact of these legacies challenge them as part of the effort to reshape the playing field, calling their actions "racist" is unforgivably ignorant and shows an incredible lack of empathy for others (a pretty strong indication of one's own racism).
In short, quit calling Sotomayor a racist (or sexist). It makes you look stupid.
Tancredo really needs to
Submitted by Sarah Barracuda (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 7:21 PM PDT.
Tancredo really needs to watch out. HIS name sounds Hispanic.
"Affirmative action" it is to LOL.
She graduated SECOND in her class at Princeton. Do they think she got good grades by being Latina? She must have majored in basket weaving, according to them.
Julian Sanchez in the red corner?
Submitted by Mike (not verified) on Sat May. 30, 2009 7:30 PM PDT.
C'mon, Kevin, calling Julian Sanchez a conservative is a stretch. He's pretty solidly in the libertarian corner.
The whole country will
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 7:18 AM PDT.
The whole country will eventually be conservative or it wil fail.
Right now your choice is between Democrats (the Republicans) and Socialists (the Democrats). Both are leading to the path of a massive government that is rapidly smothering the economy for a population that no longer believes in responsibility and wants the government to baby them.
Conservatives believe in balanced budgets, strengthening marriages and families, hard work, and personal responsibility. That this country is going bankrupt, single-motherhood is sitting at 40%, and that our entitled population wants to be on the take even if it is killing the country is because conservatives haven't gotten a say in government.
After all of you witness the destruction your nanny state causes, you will all be conservatives or this country will continue to fail.
You had me
Submitted by Art Eclectic on Sun May. 31, 2009 6:24 PM PDT.
You had me until you started with the "strengthening marriages" part ....conservative code for "hang the gays." The last people on the planet with a claim to respecting marriage are conservatives. How many wives have Gingrich and Limbaugh had between them?
Leadership
Submitted by John (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 7:28 AM PDT.
Conservatism has no center at the moment. For that matter the fringes are not well defined either. For the past 25 years the GOP has been dominated by the policies of a loosely defined coalition of punch drunk religious zealots who pushed down isuues of homeschooling, abolishing abortion and other ultra orthadox isuues on a public that really couldn't care less or didn't agree, but needed these nuts to hold the democrats at bay. It should be obvious by to even the most casual observer that America as a whole couldn't care less about these issues, and the sooner the Republican party comes to realize this fact the sooner they have a chance at resuming leadership. Assuming of course that they can lead, which at this point in time is questionable.
What is needed for the GOP or some new Conservative movement (or party) to wrest control of the Marxists presently running this government, is for the electorate to somehow force a return to a policy limited Federal Government, true conservative fiscal responsibility, get our noses out of everyone elses problems and stop policing the world. I cannot name one elected official in Washington today, or one on the horizon that comes close to meeting this interpretation.
Like it or not the American people don't know what they want, so therefore its up to leadership to lead the sheep out of harms way. Like it or not thats the current state of the electorate. Uninformed, uncaring and uninvolved.
there ought to be a corollary to Godwin's Law
Submitted by junebug on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:19 AM PDT.
What is needed for the GOP or some new Conservative movement (or party) to wrest control of the Marxists presently running this government...
More proof, if you needed it, as to why it's impossible to take Republicans seriously anymore. You might avoid embarrassing yourself like this by cracking a book & familiarizing yourself with the words & concepts you like to throw around.
Conservatism
Submitted by John (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:36 AM PDT.
I don't need to "crack a book" to know what I see. Yours is a typical liberal response; to throw up their supposed 'superior intellect' and elitist the leftist viewpoint to justify their own flawed concept of what a Republic is all about. I suggest that you spend more time in the workforce and not in the classroom. Until then your viewpoint makes you look stupid.
we're all ears
Submitted by junebug on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:48 AM PDT.
By all means, tell us what you see. You have the floor here. Show us all the specifically Marxist roots of Democratic policy since Obama came to office -- or even, if you prefer, since Democrats became the majority in Congress. Tell us all about how dialectical materialism & the means of production are driving their legislation. Which passages from the Manifesto factor into which elements of the Democratic platform? Are Democrats more like structural Marxists or neo-Marxists -- or are they more along the lines of the Frankfurt School thinkers? Obviously, you've given this a lot of thought, because you identified the Democrats as Marxists, rather than Trotskyists, Leninists, Marxist-Leninists, Korschists or Gramsci-ists. Share your insights with the rest of us. Or is it elitist of me to expect that you'd be able to explain yourself?
Parallel history...
Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Sun May. 31, 2009 8:22 AM PDT.
...What is needed for the GOP or some new Conservative movement (or party) to wrest control of the Marxists presently running this government
Because for as long as I can remember, the Democratic Party platform has begun with the stirring words " The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles...", and Ben Nelson's bumper stickers ran "Property is Theft. Nelson '06".
First of all, if you've got
Submitted by SFsFinest on Sun May. 31, 2009 8:27 AM PDT.
First of all, if you've got even one shred of independant thought going through your mind, you don't wait for a political party to tell you what conservative or liberal is all about. The system is out of whack if it's come to that; it should be the other way around.
I guess John had to go to work
Submitted by Nana (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 3:15 PM PDT.
Here is your response. Even the Russians see what you cannot. Of course this was the goal anyway was it not?
American capitalism gone with a whimper
27.04.2009 Source: Pravda.Ru URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-american_capitalism-0
It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.
Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.
First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.
Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.
The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.
These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?
These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.
Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.
So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.
Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.
The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.
The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.
Hey, we are working!
Submitted by jrw on Sun May. 31, 2009 4:38 PM PDT.
We're all working overtime to enslave free Americans. And boy, it's tough work! But in the end, we will triumph, through peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids.
The unsupported assertion was made by the original poster...
Submitted by Davis X. Machina on Sun May. 31, 2009 9:27 AM PDT.
...that the present government was being run by Marxists. I maintain the contrary.
First of all, if you've got even one shred of independent thought going through your mind...
Independent enough to spot silly unsupported assertions....
The death of America
Submitted by John (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:02 AM PDT.
The democrats do not have a iron fist on this government. If I remember my statistics correctly Obama was swept into power with only 43% of the vote. If my number is incorrect the point remains. They can be defeated as easily as the Republicans were in the last couple of elections - and as they should have been.
Republicans lost track of their own conservative focus about the time that Newt Gingrich was still in office. The power of the GOP was was dependant on a Falwellian electorate that believes the Earth is 7,000 years old, which in and of itself is scary given solid scientific evidence to the contrary. This is and never should be a theocracy and that is what the Republican party has been beholding to.
I contend that somewhere out there in America there is a new leader that will redefine what it means to be conservative. Whatever party he happens to belong to is of no consequence to we conservatives, but it needs to happen fairly quickly. The dire Obamnomics that are being shoved down our throats is not sustainable nor is it practical. It is however designed make more and more peope beholding to a centralized Federal government. It didn't work in Russia. It didn't work in China and it damned sure is not going to work here. That is not going to stop these social democrats from trying. It is bankrupting us all.
math isn't one of your strengths, either
Submitted by junebug on Sun May. 31, 2009 11:10 AM PDT.
If I remember my statistics correctly Obama was swept into power with only 43% of the vote.
You don't. But what's the difference of 10 percentage points between friends? It was only the largest margin of victory in a Presidential election since 1988.
If my number is incorrect the point remains. They can be defeated as easily as the Republicans were in the last couple of elections...
Um, okay, but only if voters in the crucial middle are buying what Republicans are selling. And if you & your talk about Marxism (to say nothing of your comparisons to totalitarian regimes) is any indication of what you think they're in the mood to buy, then you're in for a long trek in the wilderness.
John, re "the death of America"
Submitted by zackfabish (not verified) on Sun May. 31, 2009 11:24 AM PDT.
John,
First things first, Obama received 53% of the popular vote, not 43%. You are on the internet; there's no excuse for failing to check basic facts like that.
Second, "Obamnomics" isn't being "shoved down our throats." The president's economic policies are being enacted by congress and carried out by the agencies just as all presidential economic policies are, with ample opportunity for elected officials to critique, alter, and amend (which they have). If you don't like the substance of the economic plans, by all means, write letters to the editor, march on washington, contact your congressperson. But don't pretend that the collective decision-making system is all of the sudden unfair.
Third, "Obamnomics" isn't "designed to make more and more people beholding [sic] to a centralized Federal government." It's designed to increase public sector demand at a time when private sector demand has plummeted, to avoid a deflationary crisis that would turn a bad recession into a gawdawful depression, and to address public infrastructure needs that have been languishing for decades at a time when materials, labor, and energy are at bargain prices. It's not marxist, it's certainly nothing like a soviet or CPP economic system.
Maybe somewhere out there is a magical conservative, waiting in the wings to show how wonderful it is to wear the vague mantle of "conservative leader," which he or she will finally define for us all. But, until this messianic figure emerges, I think it's best if we all stick to debating policies based on research and outcome, and avoid using ignorant, hyperbolic labels about how one thing or another is causing "the death of America."
Obama is only a novelty
Submitted by SFsFinest on Sun May. 31, 2009 4:13 PM PDT.
He was elected because he managed to convince a small majority that he was the one who could change things, and since he was "not Bush" Americans shouldn't be concerned with his lack of qualifications. As if it's the Presidents' job to change things that citizens themselves should be changing, but thats the siren song of the democratic party; "it's not your fault you're in the mess you in because you didn't use your own brains", "let us take control of the government and we'll take care of you, and punish those evil corporations and republicans".
Obama was nominated by the democratic machine because he's a yes man, and got liberals giddy over his ethnicity rather than qualifications to lead a highly polarized nation.
And he's still a yes man. Yes to Goldman Sachs et al, who now own him and are the recipients of corporate welfare programs that dwarf anything the republicans have done.
Yes to Pelosi and the democratic machine who have used him as their media puppet, whilst continuing the same disfunctional partisan politics that have gotten us into this mess in the first place.
It won't be too much longer before the discussion swings back to the battle for the soul of liberalism, and the democratic party because Americans are painfully waking up to the fact that they've once again been deceived, this time by the self-serving democratic party. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
Americans need to wake up the the reality that if they really want change, they need to start with themselves and not give that power away to any political party.
BINGO! Call it Communism
Submitted by wbinmd on Sun May. 31, 2009 7:16 PM PDT.
In response to the argument above:
The link tally's Obama's policy's versus the CPUSA's platform. Or you can read on.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/bingo_call_it_communism_1.html
The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) provides its platform on its website . Find "Election 2008" and go to "Click here to download PDF." I saved you the trouble, though, and listed the CPUSA's platform in a nice outline, below.
(Just for you anti-conspiracy buffs, note that I am not dredging up Marx himself, or something written by an anti-communist decades ago. I am citing the exact words of the Communist Party of the USA itself, as it exists right now. I encourage you to visit the CPUSA's web site. Obama's presidency is animating for them; the excitement vibrates through almost every article. The National Chair calls it a "new era." I'm not making this up.)
1. Immediate Relief
1.1 A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions.
1.2 Reset mortgages so payments are affordable.
1.3 No bailouts for banks.
1.4 Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility.
1.5 Increase food stamps, WIC, children's health ins., low income energy assistance.
1.6 Assist state and local governments.
1.7 Fund "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects.
2. A Peacetime, Green Jobs Economy for All
2.1 Enact massive public works.
2.2 Make existing buildings energy efficient.
2.3 Construct new schools, affordable housing, mass transit and bridges.
2.4 Major clean, affordable energy dvpt project for solar, wind, and biomass.
2.5 Program to cut greenhouse gas emissions, environmental cleanup.
2.6 Restore energy regulation and public ownership of utilities.
2.7 Enact the Employee Free Choice Act.
2.8 Enact HR 676, US National Health Insurance Act, single payer.
2.9 Fund public education, pre-school through higher and technical.
2.10 No privatization of Social Security or Medicare.
2.11 Expand and improve SS & Medicare benefits.
3. Restore Civil Rights, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers
3.1 Restore Civil Rights Act enforcement, affirmative action.
3.2 Outlaw hate crimes.
3.3 Preserve Roe v Wade.
3.4 Immigration reform with path to citizenship, no militarization of borders.
3.5 No exploitative guest worker programs.
3.6 No human being is illegal.
3.7 Repeal the Patriot Act.
3.8 Investigate and prosecute Bush administration violations.
3.9 Expand voting rights.
3.10 Enact publicly financed elections.
3.11 Same-day registration.
3.12 Voting rights for ex-felons.
3.13 Restore Fairness Doctrine in media.
4. Strength through Peace
4.1 Withdraw US troops from Iraq with no bases or US corporations left behind.
4.2 Full care for returning veterans.
4.3 No war on Iran.
4.4 No expansion of troops in Afghanistan.
4.5 Assistance to Iraq to rebuild Iraq.
4.6 New foreign policy of diplomacy, respect for all nations.
4.7 Renew commitment to UN.
4.8 End trade policies that enrich corporations and destroy jobs.
4.9 Ratify Kyoto Treaty and other climate change agreements.
4.10 Enforce nuclear non-proliferation.
4.11 Work to abolish nuclear weapons.
4.12 Cut Pentagon spending in half.
4.13 Close down US bases around the world.
Just seeing this list should open your eyes. It is exactly what is happening. Much of it is like reading a description of Obama's stimulus package. Name three things on that list that any Democratic Senator would not applaud. But let's go through the list anyway, and see how we're doing.
(Another note to you anti-conspiracy buffs. You might think you could find, say, a neo-Nazi list that looks like the Republican agenda. I'll bet you can't. I went to the American Nazi party's web site to see what they have. They have no list. They want you to send them $5 just to see their "Info Pack." I wasn't that curious.)
Work on items 1.1 (A moratorium on foreclosures and evictions) and 1.2 (Reset mortgages so payments are affordable) had already started before Obama even got in office. The government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last September. Fannie and Freddie enacted a foreclosure moratorium and announced it in November. They encouraged lenders to "reduce interest rates, delay back payments and penalties, stretch the length of the loan or deferring payments."
So far, at least CitiGroup and JPMorgan have done as they were "encouraged."
But President Obama has much bolder plans, approximately $275B worth -- for now. According to the Washington Times,
"The plan seeks to lower monthly mortgage payments for delinquent homeowners through various incentives ranging from helping to make interest payments to rewarding lenders and borrowers with stipends of $1,000 to $1,500 for staying current on the loans. For homeowners with unaffordable loans, the goal would be to lower payments to less than a third of their pretax income."
Check the first two items off the list.
The $787B stimulus package signed into law February 13 by President Obama took care of several items on the list:
1.4 Extend unemployment compensation, increase payments and eligibility.
1.5 Increase food stamps, WIC, children's health ins., low income energy assistance.
1.6 Assist state and local governments.
1.7 Fund "ready-to-go" infrastructure projects.
2.1 Enact massive public works.
2.2 Make existing buildings energy efficient.
2.3 Construct new schools, affordable housing, mass transit and bridges.
2.4 Major clean, affordable energy dvpt project for solar, wind, and biomass.
2.5 Program to cut greenhouse gas emissions, environmental cleanup.
Whoever wrote the stimulus bill with his right hand almost seems to have had the CPUSA's list in his left hand. Check. Check. And checkmate.
Several items on CPUSA's list are already law or policy, or simply amount to not undoing something. I'm not sure why they are on the list, other than to say they should be strengthened or spending on them should be increased. Here are the ones I think are already taken care of.
2.9 Fund public education, pre-school through higher and technical.
2.10 No privatization of Social Security or Medicare.
2.11 Expand and improve SS & Medicare benefits.
3.1 Restore Civil Rights Act enforcement, affirmative action.
3.2 Outlaw hate crimes.
3.3 Preserve Roe v Wade.
3.10 Enact publicly financed elections.
4.2 Full care for returning veterans.
4.3 No war on Iran.
About 90% of K-12 education is already government run. But President Obama wants to extend it. It's not enough that the indoctrination starts at age five; Obama wants it to start at birth. "Cradle to cubicle", Charles Krauthammer calls it. Someone also made sure that no part of the $66B of the stimulus going to education would go to private schools.
"No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." As quoted in the Wall Street Journal .
Roe v Wade has been intact and indeed expanded and strengthened since 1973. President Obama just issued a Presidential Memorandum to reinstate the "Mexico Policy," which allows US government funds to be used "to pay for the performance of abortions ... or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions" anywhere in the world. And now he plans to coerce doctors to provide abortions right here in the US .
On the foreign policy front, I think we can say President Obama has a "new foreign policy of diplomacy, respect for all nations." He sent a badminton team to Iran. He congratulated Hugo Chavez on his move to become President-for-life, he's easing tensions with Syria, etc. President Obama also raised the status of UN Ambassador to Cabinet level. I think we can check items 4.6 and 4.7 off the list.
We're making good progress. Here are the remaining items.
1.3 No bailouts for banks.
2.6 Restore energy regulation and public ownership of utilities.
2.7 Enact the Employee Free Choice Act.
2.8 Enact HR 676, US National Health Insurance Act, single payer.
3.4 Immigration reform with path to citizenship, no militarization of borders.
3.5 No exploitative guest worker programs.
3.6 No human being is illegal.
3.7 Repeal the Patriot Act.
3.8 Investigate and prosecute Bush administration violations.
3.9 Expand voting rights.
3.11 Same-day registration.
3.12 Voting rights for ex-felons.
3.13 Restore Fairness Doctrine in media.
4.1 Withdraw US troops from Iraq with no bases or US corporations left behind.
4.4 No expansion of troops in Afghanistan.
4.5 Assistance to Iraq to rebuild Iraq.
4.8 End trade policies that enrich corporations and destroy jobs.
4.9 Ratify Kyoto Treaty and other climate change agreements.
4.10 Enforce nuclear non-proliferation.
4.11 Work to abolish nuclear weapons.
4.12 Cut Pentagon spending in half.
4.13 Close down US bases around the world.
In almost all the remaining items, President Obama or Democrats in the various states are busy doing what they can (e.g., same-day registration, letting felons vote). President Obama has already asked for a 10% cut in Pentagon spending and Barney Frank asked for 25%. Give it time; we'll get there.
(Space limits a full discussion of each line item and how it is being implemented. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.)
Only two items on the whole list appear to be contradicted.
1.3 No bailouts for banks.
4.4 No expansion of troops in Afghanistan.
Frankly, I'm suspicious about the bailout of banks. Sure, they're being "bailed out," if you call becoming an indentured servant being bailed out of bankruptcy jail. The banks are now being told how to run their businesses, how much they can make in bonuses, where to have their meetings (e.g., not Las Vegas), and how to get there (not private jets).
In fact, many are, or will be, nationalized. I think we can, effectively, scratch item 1.3 off our list.
So what's the score? Of 44 items on the CPUSA's list,
* 22 are already enacted.
* 21 are in work.
* 1 is being violated.
Halfway there gets me my Bingo. Pretty good for being in office just one month. Heck, at this pace, the CPUSA will have to come up with another list by summer.
Only one item out of 44 is being violated: Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan. He's adding 17,000 on top of the 30,000 already there .
Funny, that's the only thing Bill Ayers, Mr. "Small ‘c' communist" and terrorist bomber, could find fault with in President Obama term of office so far.
What's up with that? I guess the easy explanation is that Obama doesn't want to go against his generals' wishes right out of the chute. There is a war going on, you know. Some generals asked for 30,000 troops; Obama gave them 17,000.
I also have another suspicion. I think Obama really, really wants to get Osama bin Laden. He's even willing to lose Pakistan, with its nukes, to Taliban and jihadi warlords if that's what it takes. Not that I think Obama cares all that much about the War on Terror. But can you imagine the press he'd get, bagging the A-Number-One 9/11 terrorist after Bush let him slip away for eight years? I admit it's just a guess.
But we're making good progress: halfway there in just one month. Be patient, comrades. As CPUSA's National Chair, Sam Webb, was quoted in the People's Weekly World ,
"The ‘biggest challenge' now, he told the meeting, is to ‘resist efforts by reaction and some on the left' to advocate a break in the coalition that elected Obama and is now led by him. ‘We will have our differences but they have to be handled so as not to break the overall unity,' he said."
President Obama is leading our coalition. Unite behind him. You have nothing to lose but your minds, and your life savings.
Strunk & White's "Elements of Style"
Submitted by jrw on Sun May. 31, 2009 8:56 PM PDT.
The classic guide to good writing. I suggest you read it. One of the key recommendations is entitled, "Omit Needless Words".
You are sad...
Submitted by wbinmd on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 5:50 PM PDT.
Why don't you offer a real rebuttal or shut up!
No Church for dittoheads?!
Submitted by Trippp on Sun May. 31, 2009 10:23 PM PDT.
Hey, I like it when you wackos go all scaredy pants and make your wild accusations "representing" conservatism. Shoot, keep that up and you'll drive your numbers below the pitiful 21% you've got now. Genetics alone should give you about 25%, so you are already scaring away some of the people inclined to be on your side.
But really, isn't Sunday supposed to be a day of rest? I know parroting Limbo isn't real work, but still . . .
Tripp
you of all people
Submitted by wbinmd on Fri Jun. 5, 2009 5:59 PM PDT.
Come on Tripp. At least dispute some of what I posted. Please don't sling around analogies to Limbaugh.
You know nothing of what I did that specific day. In fact, I spent the morning with my family at Church. After that, we spend the day together.
It is pretty clear you believe in your "superior intellect." I submit what you need is a serious ass kicking or shock treatment to set you free of your liberalism. In some way, I hope we meet up some day so I can supply you with the former.
ugg boots uk
Submitted by ugg boots uk (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 11:17 PM PST.
Ugg Boots
Uggs
Ugg
Ugg Sale
Uggs Online Sale
buy uggs
Buy Ugg Boots
Buy Uggs
Buy Uggs Online
Cheap uggs
Cheap ugg boots
discount ugg
discount ugg boots
Australia UGGS
Australia Ugg Boots
ugg bags
UGG Sheepskin Boots
Wholesale UGGS
Wholesale Ugg Boots
UGG Onsale
Ugg classic cardy
Fashion Ugg Boots
Fashion Uggs
uggs outlet
Classic Ugg Boots
winter ugg boots
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
