Weinergate? Really?

From BigGovernment.com

Why the hell are we (conservatives) paying any attention to this. Sure he needs to resign. Sure he's a total douche. But this seems like a gargantuan waste of time. Democrats won't censure the idiot. The media won't focus on the issue. They'd rather follow Sarah Palin and complain of having to pee on the side of the road than acknowledge Anthony Weiners' stupidity. The media would rather talk about Andrew Brietbart and his vendetta rather than address the issue of Weiner's inane lies. Drop the issue and move on to the bigger issues at hand. Lets see more pressure on the President over his failed jobs plan. Lets see more pressure on the GOP candidates so that we have the best nominee this next fall. Lets focus people. Weiner is aptly named (or perhaps not so aptly named) and deserves to be lampooned in the late-night shows but he certainly shouldn't be taking our eye off the prize. The GOP win in 2012 is not going to hinge on this story. It is a flash in the pan. It may paint the Democrats poorly but it doesn't break Obama's grip on the reigns of this country running off the edge of a cliff. Let this blog post be the end of this particular news cycle.

GOP Cost cutting deep

The GOP recently revealed their plan to cut $2.7Trillion in spending over 10 years (Yes that is a T). Does this mean we're on our way out of our national financial problems? Not if the Democrats have anything to say about it and they will have something to say. Without a majority in the Senate the GOP efforts to bring fiscal sanity back to the country are symbolic. What that really means is they already know this and they are going as dramatic as they can to try and build public support. The problem is that it's almost as likely to backfire as it is to help them. Of course the staunchest Republicans are going to support them in any and all of the cuts they've detailed. The problem is that while the independents got them into office on the promise of fixing the economy and bringing down the debt the reality is that they are just as likely to balk at some of the cuts that have been proposed. The GOP knows this and proposed them anyway forcing the dialog with the Democrats and if the Republicans are careful they can show "compromise" and still win...if they're not careful they'll stick to their guns and fail miserably and be accused of being "too partisan". This is an opportunity for our country to get back on track and perhaps dig out from the holes that were dug over the last 6 years. If the Republicans can navigate this tricky political maneuver and bring up a legitimate Presidential candidate they have a decent shot at saving us from the whims of China and our other creditors. Don't hold your breath though.

Related articles

• Will the GOP Deliver on Spending Cuts? (reason.com)

They Vote then Vault

Can you say AWESOME!?  I of course mean that in the most sarcastic way possible. Bart Stupak the infamous congressman that "almost" blocked the Healthcare Reform Bill before actually passing the bill. His leaving office puts the Democrats in an awkward position to try and fill his position, a position with a pretty conservative core already.  This is the type of thing that the Democrats are going to have a hard time with in a lot of the races this year.  Of course the other issue at hand is that the Republicans also need to convince Tea-Party folk that they are worthy of their vote.  Not an easy task for incumbent Republican's that helped Bush spend us into a debt that could have been managed much better.  I have nothing in particular against Stupak.  In fact I sort of admire his hard headed style over the run-up to the healthcare vote.  His stance on abortion has been consistent until now and given the pressure to pass from Nancy Pelosi and others it was impressive for him to last as long as he has.  This may be a sign of things to come as polls indicate the hard battles associated with the mid-term elections.  Republican's, if they are smart, will put people on the ballot with zero association with the big spending of the last administration and people that are ready to get America out of debt.  Of course getting people to understand that the only way for that to happen is to cut programs completely.  If you can put a candidate that can communicate the strength of the individual and negate the need of government to provide for them and get people excited about it then you'll have the ideal candidate.  This is the time for "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" rhetoric.  That is what the Healthcare issue is really about.  The candidate that emphasizes personal responsibility and challenges his constituents to be personally responsible for their own lives and not dependent on others is the candidate that will win the Tea Party and very likely the election.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rep. Bart Stupak won't seek re-election (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Stupak's Exit: How Bad An Omen For Dems? (swampland.blogs.time.com)

Temperance and Vengeance

So lately there has been some really heated political rhetoric and even some violence from both sides of the political rainbow.  I want to express my feelings on the way that this has been covered and also on how it has been executed.  There is no question that the political climate is as divided as it has ever been in any living person's memory.  There are talks by some groups of a complete government coup and others are silently trying to marginalize populist movements in hopes that they can continue a coup of their own.  Here's the deal.  Neither of these groups is right.  It seems to me we have two choices when it comes to our political activism.  We can either choose temperance or vengeance.  Temperance will bring everyone closer.  It will give those, who don't have anything to do with the process because of the insanity of both sides, a chance to feel like the can get involved without feeling like they're part of the insanity.  The country was built on temperance.  I know, some of you will point out that it took a violent revolution to create this country.  The premise of this country is built on temperance.  The founders foresaw what could (would) happen if we allowed the political process to be defined by the margins.  They created a Constitution that is at once simple and complex enough to embody the basic tenets of free society.  The process that was used to develop this document was rife with political posturing and grandstanding and philosophical debate.  The end result was that all of the vastness of opinion were distilled and, dare I say it, tempered, into a document that has founded the greatest nation of civilization.  The type of give a little take a little temperance that created this country is the very thing that we are in need of now.  The problem is that one party has took while another party gave for nearly a century now.  Progressivism has given America some very important things namely woman's rights, Civil Rights, and Environmental Protections.  The problem with Progressivism is that it also created things that are not fundamental rights like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Education.  These things were seen as for the good of the country and, indeed, it can successfully be argued that some of these contributed to our success as a country (ie Education).  I have a different opinion of some of the entitlements and what they have done to our country.  I see entitlements as being explicitly against the Constitution or at the very least explicitly against the Founder's intent to create a country that enabled liberty and the pursuit of happiness but did not guarantee happiness or anything else for that matter.  We are free to govern ourselves and the government guarantees that freedom by preventing invasion and in all else they should have no power.  By starting entitlements the Progressive movement has created an environment whereby they can subtly change the culture of America.  The heat of the current debate hinges on this very notion.  Many of the most virulent right-wingers view the left as bringing about a socialist/communist/Marxist government that is heavy handed and oppressive just as Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Mao and others have been.  They may have a point.  The problem is that they are so lost in the heat of their passionate distaste that they fail to think and just strait to action, or what I am terming vengeance.  This is no different than those from the left that did similar acts in the 60's.  The difference should be that we temper our resolve to act according to our beliefs and not to our passions.  This is how America should work and how it can work if we choose temperance over vengeance.

Anderson's Law of Racist Claims

You've heard of Godwin's Law which more or less says that most online discussions will boil down to a comparison of someone or something to Hitler/Nazi's.  I'm here to start a new law.  It's called Anderson's Law of Racist Claims.  All discussions of Tea Party proponents will result in the claim that all white people or more specifically all people against Obama or the Democrat party are intrinsically racist, regardless of their political, social, racial, and cultural affiliations.  I recently read an article by Pat Buchanan about some recent accusations by Frank Rich.  This article seemed to point out how the Left levies Godwin's Law (and now Anderson's Law) when they see Republicans/Conservatives/Tea Party Activists speaking out against the Government and whatever abuses they are lamenting.  What the left seems to forget is that the cries of racism and hatred are pale when placed against the actual criminal (en masse) behavior that Liberals exhibited in the 1960's.  While Democrats hunker down and send the FBI to arrest "militant Christians" the fact remains that very few actual instances of violence or documented proof of hatred or racism actually exists within the Tea Party movement.  It's a shame that racism is the tool of the left.  The Conservative/Tea Party Movements are anything but racially motivated.  The Tea Party has it's roots in the Rick Santelli Feb. 19th 2009 rant that was in response to the stimulus bill.  These types of issues are the glue that binds the Tea Party and results in a "Big Tent" that encompasses all parties and strata of thoughtful electorate.  The keyword being thoughtful.  It's the people who attempt to quell dissent by trumpeting claims of racism that are the real racists.  They seem to think that people of color are foolish enough to buy into the claims and that they will be the constituency that keeps them in office.  The problem is that all it will take is someone savvy and simple enough to communicate the real reason for the dissent to blow holes all over their claims of racism.  The right is fighting for "equal opportunity not equal outcome" and that means that what the left is saying is that people of color need the Government because they aren't capable of achieving without them.  This is the most insulting political stance I can imagine.  If someone with half a brain runs for office on the argument that the Left is continuing to "coddle" the minorities because the Left doesn't believe that minorities can make it against the rest of the world  I really think that things could change.  If honor alone wouldn't open the eyes of the typical electorate of the Left then perhaps shame would.  If you are a minority and you're voting for someone who believes that they need to give you a handout because of your minority status then you should really ask yourself why.  Why would they want me to come to them for money, food, healthcare, retirement, housing, etc?  Is this because white people are better than me and the only way I can have a chance is if the Government provides me with other peoples money as support?  There are some in the academic world that think African American's should get reparations.  Well if welfare, food stamps, and free healthcare don't count as reparations then I don't know what they want.