AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Random Thoughts & Discussion of Politics, Ideology, Life and the 2008 Presidential Campaign

I decided to actually participate in some discussion over at HotAir last night, after having not participated in over a week due to, what I felt, was a lowering of the quality of the discussion on the comment sections. But last night I was actually able to have some interesting discussion.

Straight talk or arrogance: You make the call.

Neither. He is just reacting to what the American voting public is telling him. The mass media and blogs are propping up polls and saying that people need to vote for certain candidates based on what those polls say. So the candidates are doing whatever they can to get their polling numbers up. McCain, if I remember correctly, was around 6% late last year in October, I believe. Even lower than Fred Thompson. Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani were the leaders. But then, all of a sudden, John McCain rose in the polls and now leads nationally. He hasn’t changed positions on anything, still keeps pushing liberal, redefining Conservative principles talking points and has seen his stock rise.

Meanwhile, with this rise, he sees all the political pundits, mass media and sites like HotAir and others saying that the polls tell the story and we have to focus on “electability” and “momentum” and forget the issues. The focus should be on running a great campaign, not on issues. Just frame the issues in whatever way to fool the most people to vote for you and get your numbers to rise well in the polls. Forget whether or not the policy positions are correct. Just flip flop, misrepresent or outright lie and count on the American voting public to not notice any of this.

Mike Huckabee and John McCain are running their campaigns this way and are garnering praise across the board for having great campaigs. Meanwhile, Mitt, Rudy and Fred run their campaigns on issues and get criticized for it.

So, John McCain is just doing what the American voting public is telling him to do: run a great campaign and wow us with one-liners and identity politics and we shall vote for you.

I really don’t know why people keep criticizing the candidates when they are just doing what the American voting public is telling them to do. McCain is rising in the national polls based on his message. Why should he change it? Especially when people keep saying that he is now inevitable and people should just forget about Rudy and Fred and now need to focus on Huckabee, McCain and Mitt, even though we have not even gotten to Super Tuesday yet.

If political pundits want to live by the polling numbers, we will all die by the polling numbers too. Unless people ignore the polls and encourage people to vote on policy and principle, we will get what we deserve in November with either a liberal, populist RINO or a liberal Democrat in the White House.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM

*****

And you think that staying home and giving the win to Hillary is going to [be] better for America?

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM

Yes.

McCain (as well as Huckabee) is a friend of the Democrats. He has many liberal Democrat positions. And I don’t see the Republicans in Congress uniting to stop anything he wants to do as President. They will, however, have more motivation to unite to stop anything a Hillary Clinton Administration wants to do.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 12:54 AM

*****

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM

SimplyKimberly on January 20, 2008 at 12:53 AM

I agree. I see Mike Huckabee and John McCain as simply liberal Democrats running in the Republican Party.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 12:56 AM

*****

So is everyone on here disowning Reagan and Bush as conservatives then? They’ve supported immigration reform. Bush is suppose to be conservative and under his presidency the Republican Congress spent like crazy. Where’s all the dislike for Reagan and Bush?

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 12:55 AM

President Bush is not a conservative. Period. He has some conservative positions, but I don’t know anyone who calls him a conservative. Rush Limbaugh stresses this point as well. “Compassionate” Conservatism was simply code for being a liberal with some conservative positions.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:00 AM

*****

Don’t sit home, folks. Speak out on the issues that matter to you. Vote. Teach conservative values. Stop crying.

Skidd on January 20, 2008 at 12:55 AM

Taking part in the political process is a lot more than just casting one’s vote on one day every 2 years. People need to stay active in following legislation and contacting their local and state representatives as well as contacting the Administration to voice their support or displeasure with what our government is doing. Phone calls, letters, e-mails, letters to the editor. All of this is necessary. Voting is only one part of what we can do.

We also need to work to educate and inform our fellow Americans. Coworkers, friends, family. We need to spread info and news to them all the time. Keep them informed and educated. Don’t necessarily try to prostletize to them, but just provide them the info and open the discussion with them and help them make up their own minds on the issue.

An informed, educated and engaged/active American public is the best thing for this nation. We need to stop with the identity politics and get back to talking about issues and ideology.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:04 AM

*****
McVain, I will never forget that you called me, and others like me, bigots for not supporting your Shamnesty bill.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:04 AM

I remember that as well and it is one of the primary reasons that I decided to not even give McCain another look were he to get the nomination. Apparently though, there are a lot of people voting in polls and at the Primaries so far who don’t mind having their President call them bigots for disagreeing with him.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:09 AM

*****

Or how about Barry Goldwater? Wasn’t he pro-choice? So does that then disqualify him from calling himself as a conservative.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:10 AM

MB4 has done a good job posting some quotes in the past about Barry Goldwater. That has brought to my attention many things I didn’t know about Goldwater, including, as you mention, that he was pro-choice and, I believe, had a lot of contempt for “the religious right”.

I bet many people today would not consider Goldwater a conservative, just on those positions alone, yet he is supposed to be one of the fathers of modern Conservatism. I believe Ronald Reagan and Rush Limbaugh look to him as inspiration on many of their ideological views.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM

*****

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:16 AM

I should add that Rush has mentioned that Reagan differed from Goldwater in that he was openly religious and openly pro-life and that is where he parted ways with Goldwater. Yet he still considered Goldwater somewhat of a mentor, I believe.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:17 AM

*****

If it’s up to Congress to enforce the border. Then why is immigration such a topic priority for you in a presidential candidate when you’re basically saying responsibility falls on Congress.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM

Because a President can veto legislation and send it back to Congress to “fix”. A pro-Amnesty President, however, will not be using the veto pen, if the American people cannot stop Congress from passing the legislation.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:21 AM

*****

If the Chief Executive enforced the laws that are already on the books, then the problem could be solved. There is little need for more legislation honestly.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:22 AM

BINGO.

If we enforce the laws on the books, most of our illegal immigration problem, in addition to the illegals already here, goes away. Any candidate who does not talk about doing that is not serious about the illegal immigration problem.

And the talk about building a wall is not really an issue. There is no need for a wall either, really. Enforcement of current laws would solve much of the problem.

It is simply amazing to me that there are people running for President of the United States of America who are campaigning on NOT enforcing the laws of this country. And people are supporting those candidates.

Just amazes me.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:27 AM

*****

We did get an inordinate number of gits and trolls, didn’t we? Not all, mind…but MANY.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:25 AM

In my opinion, yes. However, I’m also looking for a higher standard of discussion of politics than most people, so I’m probably more critical than most. I come here because HotAir is good for links to the news, but, in my opinion, the commentary is going downhill.

Granted, this site is not really about leading a movement of any kind, but mainly about critical and a lot of times snarky commentary on issues. I prefer more serious discussion and less snark. So I just mainly come here for the news links and go elsewhere for the discussion.

But prior to the open registration, I was beginning to enjoy the discussion in the comments with MB4, Entelechy, RushBaby, Spirit of 1776 and a few others that slip my mind at the moment. In my opinion, there seems to be too much tabloidization of politics and I prefer to discuss ideology and issues. Polls and identity politics and “momentum”.. that stuff just doesn’t interest me. There were plenty of polls and momentum regarding the war effort and the “surge”, yet that was not the story. The story was in the details of the war effort and the news not being reported. The polls were reported, because the details were not part of the agenda.

We don’t and shouldn’t fight wars based on polls and “momentum” and identity politics, we shouldn’t treat our country that way either.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:34 AM

*****

If MiM and MB4 can like/tolerate each other, this coalition ought to still be possible. Alas, no leader to enable it.

Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 1:33 AM

You’re looking at the wrong details. You need to take a poll of what South Carolina, Nevada, New Hampshire and Iowa voters say and then come to your conclusion about what is possible. If those people say that MB4 and Michael in MI cannot get along, then it is “inevitable” and we must listen to the “momentum”.

In all seriousness, I used to “tolerate” MB4 (which is to say whenever I saw his handle, I would scroll on by his comments), but I now appreciate his comments more and more. We may not agree on everything, but we probably agree moreso than not. But what I like about him is that he treats issues seriously, except when certain comments deserve snarky replies with quotes or song lyrics. But his serious comments have challenged my understanding and knowledge of things and for that I am grateful.

I used to come into discussions of politics trying to get people to come around to my point of view. I now go into discussions hoping simply to open people up to the facts and knowledge that I have and also to educate and inform myself from the facts and knowledge others provide. I simply enjoy learning. The more I know and learn, the better decisions I can make.

I just wish more people would focus more on learning and sharing knowledge and less on debating.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:41 AM

*****

My point is that you guys run a really tight definition on who is ‘real’ conservative on here. What happened to being the Big Tent Party?

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:29 AM

There is a difference between Conservatism and politcal parties. Conservatism is not about the Republican Party, it is about a set of ideals and principles and a way of governing. It just so happens that most Conservatives are in the Republican Party.

Ronald Reagan stood for a set of ideals, principles and values… a certain conservatism. He left the Democrat Party, because he was loyal to his ideology, not his Party.

Conservatives vote Republican, because the Republican Party has stood for majority conservative principles more often than not. When it stops doing that, Conservatives have two choices: (1) vote out the elected officials who are not governing conservatively or (2) leave the Party as Reagan left the Democrat Party and vote for an elected official (of any party) who is governing conservatively.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:47 AM

*****

There Congress really could come into play is to take away fed funds from sanctuary cities. Because of the vacuum of action at the fed level though, a lot of states are starting to take the issue into their own hands. By the time the election is held, I suspect we will really see how viable that approach will have become. Attrition by enforcement still seems to be the logical path to me.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:31 AM

Good point about the sanctuary cities. However, aren’t those laws already on the books too? Or are States making local laws that allow for Sanctuary Cities and Congress and the President would be able to make a federal law to supercede any laws that allow sanctuary cities?

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:51 AM

*****

Understood and agree. Tho, I tend to like the friendly threads. They do happen once in a while.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 1:38 AM

Yeah, I understand people come here for that sort of thing. I personally do not. I have had too many people online betray my trust in them in the past that I no longer consider things I read online in this kind of format to be coming from people, but rather I just treat it as responding to opinions posted online. I refrain from responding to the person and choose to just acknowledge the statement or opinion or ideological viewpoint. I can understand though that others are not as cynical as me and actually consider this website some kind of “community”. Personally, I don’t see it that way and just choose to come here to discuss issues. When the comment threads stray off course or focus on nonsensical issues instead of substance, I choose to leave. To each their own.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:56 AM

*****

What is so wrong with moderates!!! Most Americans are moderates. Imagine that, a Republican party that mirrors the people.

terryannonline on January 20, 2008 at 1:43 AM

I really don’t get this term “moderate” and “Independent”. Most Americans that I know are people. People with opinions on issues. And most of those people I know with opinions on issues, vote based on those opinions on those issues. They are not “moderates” or “independents”, they are people with opinions.

There is no “moderate” or “independent” opinion on an issue. You either have an opinion or you do not. And you either vote Republican or Democrat or other party or you do not. All of those votes are taking stances on the issues and voting accordingly.

All this talk about “moderates” and “independents” is just a fancy way of saying (1) I don’t want to take a stand on an issue for fear of being labeled something or (2) I have opinions on all the issues, but they do not line up with any particular party most of the time, so I vote on what is most important to me and so I consider myself “independent.”

But when it comes down to it, the average person is not “moderate” or “independent”. Most people have strong opinions on most issues. But it seems a lot of people today are too afraid of being labeled that they come up with the nice safe PC label of themselves as “moderates” or “Independents” so as to seem above it all.

This is just another form of identity politics. Instead of identifying oneself a certain way, people need to get back to just talking about the issues and their ideology.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:05 AM

*****

A lot of the problem is self-inflicted. I mean we are complaining about being stuck with rino’s but one of the presumed front runners, G. Allen, shot himself in the foot with his macca remark. He was as conservative as Fred (if not more so I think), and he was an automatic front runner. It’s not like the guys aren’t out there, the party just imploded temporarily. Compound that with the fact that the VP is not an heir-apparent.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 1:57 AM

An old friend of mine who taught me a lot about politics and who considers himself a “9/11 Conservative” mentioned Allen to me right after the 2004 election. I knew nothing about him, but he said to watch out for him, because he felt that he could surprise a lot of people.

Unfortunately, as you say, he shot himself in the foot with that comment. The thing that annoys me is that conservatives and Republicans could accidentally run over a cat and they would be forced to resign. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats can basically commit murder, fraud, steal and be corrupt as can be, and even openly admit to all this and just apologize, and they get off no problem.

I want to continue holding our elected officials to high standards, but I tire of the double standard that exists for the two Parties and the two ideologies.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:13 AM

*****

With deference to your experiences, I’m plenty cynical. But I have made a couple really nice friends on this site. Mind, the friendships are now OFF this site, but they started here, so I will not complain.

I just don’t take the whole thing quite that seriously.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:01 AM

Well, I used to do that too. “Meet” people on website comment sections such as this and then correspond with them through e-mail or IM off the site and then develop a repore with them and, seemingly, a “friendship”. But, as I said, every time, I was betrayed in one way or another with them not being completely honest with something or another (too many long stories to get into). There are many commentors here who seem nice in their comments, but I no longer think that I can “know” a person based on a few comments they leave on a blog or a few comments they leave in a comment section. Or, for that matter, a few e-mails and IMs exhanged. People can be anyone they choose to be online without any repurcussions, as I have learned the hard way too many times.

I used to believe that since I am a “normal, decent” person online, there must be other “normal, decent” people online as well. I no longer feel that way. Now I just assume everyone is using an “online personality” and I don’t take what anyone says seriously, whether it be insults to me or praise and “liking” of me.

But I understand others have not had the same experience, so I don’t begrudge them that. As I said, to each their own. But, just an FYI, if I don’t return any pleasantries from any commenters on here, now you know why. I’m not here to commiserate and mingle, I am here to discuss politics.

With regards to taking things seriously, are you talking about the personal discussions here or the political discussions? Personally, I wish people would discuss politics in a little more serious and less snarky manner. The goal, I believe, should be to help educate and inform and to help ourselves learn in the process of discussion. Passing on insults or getting into debate contests does not really do much to further the goal of improving this country, in my opinion.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:22 AM

*****

The term moderate is a joke. They call the PLO aka Fatah (which means conquest) the moderate “palestinian” party, and Abu Mazen aka Abbas the moderate leader.

NeverSubmit on January 20, 2008 at 2:14 AM

This is exactly what I am talking about. Instead of actually listing all the positions of the Fatah Party, they are labeled “moderate” and thus acceptable. People who are ignorant of “Palestine” politics see the label “moderate” and associate it with “moderate” here in America, when it is nothing of the sort. “Moderate” in “Palestine” has a completely different meaning. But the mass media and “Palestine” apologists use “moderate” on purpose, to whitewash the actual ideology and positions of Fatah.

I don’t like the whole “moderate” nonsense here in American politics either. People are not “moderates”; you either have an opinion on something or you do not. Period. Most people calling themelves “moderates” only do so because they are afraid of being labeled and not being “liked”.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:32 AM

*****

Supporters use anything against other candidates regardless of legitimacy. Which I don’t think serves us well because then the big things are taken less seriously then they should be. Politics is just a night of long knifes, sadly.

Spirit of 1776 on January 20, 2008 at 2:23 AM

This is what I meant when I said I want to hold our elected officials to high standards, but don’t like the double standard that exists. I also do not like the riduculous attacks that happen and the small things that are blown out of proportion. Maccaca was not really that big of a deal. He should have had to apologize for it, but that’s it. He should not have been labeled a racist and denied public office, simply for that comment. Or, if he should, then there are a LOT more public officials who need to resign from office based on that standard.

I just want the standards to be even across the board. And I also want the Republican Party to stop eating its own. But that is what happens when people are more focused on identity politics, polls and “electability”. The substance and ideology and issues go out the window and we sit and talk about “silly hats”, guitar playing and Mormonism vs Southern Baptists. Meanwhile, we also sit around denigrating entire states of people or groups of people simply based on some Primary results. Look at the comments people are throwing around about “evangelicals” and Iowa, etc. Instead of talking about issues and explaining issues and ideology to people to help them learn and educate themselves, people sit around calling Iowans idiots and evangelicals stupid. Brilliant.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:38 AM

*****

Yes, he grows on some people, and thoroughly annoys others, and doesn’t have to care. It’s really a beautiful thing.

Entelechy on January 20, 2008 at 2:27 AM

He shouldn’t care. These are only a bunch of comments left online. It’s not like we’re talking to our best friend or our family members or our boss. I don’t get why anyone cares what anyone else says about them online. If people would just stick to discussing the issues and ideology and bag the identity politics, people would find they get along a lot better.

That’s why I enjoy MB4’s posts. I know nothing about him as a person and, frankly, I don’t care. All I know is that I learn something from his comments he chooses to leave here, and am entertained by some of his other comments he chooses to leave here. Not once do I consider what type of person he is or what he looks like or whatever. I focus on the substance of the post and that’s it.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:42 AM

*****

I think the parents are the problem. Either they choose to commit to the well being and raising of their kids or they don’t. Good parenting offsets any negative things the schools may offer.

Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 AM

BINGO.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:43 AM

*****

I can respect your need for circumspection, but you may not get what you want from ANY internet site.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 AM

Not true. The discussion on a site depends on what the standards are for the site and what the blog authors allow in the comments. HotAir has no restrictions on discussion in the comments of personal matters or whatnot. That is not the case on many of the military blogs that I read. The discussion is focused primarily on serious discussion of the issues and commenters are asked not to go off topic or treat the comments section as some sort of chat community for any topic under the sun.

So this kind of discussion can be found on many sites online. It all depends on the regulations on the site by the authors. HotAir does not regulate its site in this manner and it is moreso in line with a community chat site like LGF, rather than a blog where comments are mostly on topic.

I treat HotAir the same way I treat LGF. Once the comment section starts turning into a personal chat site, I just move on. I no longer have any interest in making “friends” with people online. I do that with people in my everyday life offline.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:47 AM

*****

I meant taking any of it seriously.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:29 AM

Also, one last thing about this comment. This is fine if this is known by both parties up front, but it causes trouble down the road if one or the other don’t realize that things aren’t serious, but everything discussed is simply in jest or not really serious. Personally, I am honest to a fault and don’t say anything that I don’t mean, whether in person or online. I have corresponded with too many people online in the past who liked to fool around with saying things that they didn’t really mean and then hiding behind the anonymity of the internet to protect themselves from any repurcussions. Sometimes they did it deliberately to hurt people and sometimes they were under the false assumption that both parties knew it was all in fun or jest. But most of the time, one can’t really know if someone is being serious or just goofing around online. So I bypass having to figure that out and just stick to what I can figure out: statements on issues.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:53 AM

*****

And I think this is largely due to the parent’s choice. We consciously chose to keep one parent at home while the kids were growing up and forego many of the luxury items our peers were enjoying with their dual incomes. Kids are grown now, each successful and independent and we are still together. Was it easy? Not at all. Was it worth it? You betcha!

Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:37 AM

That is absolutely excellent. My parents chose to do the same thing with my brothers and I. Like you, my parents did not have all the luxurious things for us and we lived very simply and did not have the best clothes or the best toys or get to go on a lot of fancy, expensive vacations or live in a big house (my room that I have now in my own 4-bedroom house is probably bigger than the one my two brothers and I shared growing up in our 2-bedroom townhouse). But, my brothers and I had what could not be bought: quality time with our parents. What I most cherish is the time I had with my mom growing up, making sure that I got all my homework done, checking it even after I did it and then allowing me to go outside to play. She also went with on school field trips, helped out with Mother’s Club and was very involved with our school and church and with our sports activities.

That was all priceless. It was not easy, as you said, but it was definitely worth it. All 3 of us boys have college degrees (BSME Purdue 1999 for me) and both my younger brothers are now in the military. The same choice to have one parent stay home could be made today, but the parents are making other choices. Sad.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 2:59 AM

*****

If your profile is correct you are about 30 years old. You will find as you marry, raise kids and age that your stance on some things will harden while softening on others. To paint the world in terms of conservatives and liberals only is narrow minded at best.

Bradky on January 20, 2008 at 2:40 AM

Yep, I will be 32 in a couple weeks. And while I do know that my opinions will change as I mature and educate myself more and become more informed than I am now (my gosh was I ignorant 5-10-15 years ago, even though I felt I knew it all at those times in my life), I won’t be getting married or having kids (completely given up on that aspect of my life), so that won’t affect my metamorphosis in ideology. Though, I can understand how people change when getting married and especially when becoming parents. One of the most amazing experiences of my life was the 45 minutes I spent holding my cousin’s baby last Christmas. She was only about 4 months old at the time, but when he went to hand her to me to hold her, she turned and gave me this big smile and my heart just melted. When I held her and she seemed so content on my lap, I felt like nothing else mattered in the world and all my worries went away. All I could think of was this baby girl and how amazing she was. I can see how that experience 24/7 would have quite an effect on a person…

I don’t see the world in terms of “conservatives/liberals”, I see the world in terms of having opinions on issues. Conservative and liberal are terms used to describe people with certain opinions on certain issues.

What I am trying to promote is for people to stop using the easy labels and start focusing on their opinions on issues. Labeling someone a Conservative and Liberal is playing identity politics as well. There is too much of that and too little of talking about issues and ideology and policies.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:06 AM

*****

You know, there is a comfortable middle ground between trusting all those that you talk to online and shutting down. Some of us exist there, without issue. 🙂

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:44 AM

I know there is a middle ground. I have made the choice not to find it. I choose to not have to figure out who is real and who is BSing me. I’m a sensitive person who wears my heart on my sleeve and that has gotten me in trouble more times than I would prefer. So now I simply choose not to put myself through any of that BS anymore.

As this isn’t a military blog, and more of an entertainment political blog, you shouldn’t expect it to be dry. I’d rather it not be. The other would bore me to tears. But I’m glad you find what you need there.

tickleddragon on January 20, 2008 at 2:50 AM

As I said, to each their own. I’m not saying that I expect this not to be an entertainment political blog. I know what it is and I know what to expect here. Part of my point though was that if one doesn’t treat things seriously, then one shouldn’t expect others to either. For example, politicians don’t treat voters seriously, because they know voters don’t treat politics seriously. People need to stop complaining about politicians and start examining themselves. If we don’t treat this country and its government seriously, we shouldn’t expect our elected leaders to do so either. That was my main point.

Just as children are a reflection of their parents, a country’s government is a reflection of its citizens. When people complain about politicians, they are really complaining about themselves. Something to think about…

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:13 AM

*****

The overabundance of “Fred’s in third, that means he’s done, I know it, don’t deny it” crap when no actual announcement has been made has made me cut back on the Hot Air (both literal and site name).

MadisonConservative on January 20, 2008 at 2:56 AM

Same here. The lack of substantive analysis anywhere on political blogs these days is pretty uninspiring, to say the least. But, if the goal of all those kinds of posts from all over the blogosphere was to depress the public, specifically conservatives in support of Fred Thompson, it seems to be working. As I have heard and read a lot of my friends start throwing in the towel and getting discouraged and basically giving up. The annoying thing is that some of these bloggers seem proud that they are having this effect on people. But, as has been said:

“Stay away from people who belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that. But the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”

It is just frustrating to work to inspire people, when there are so many others working to depress them.. and enjoying every minute of succeeding at it.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 3:20 AM

*****

Believe it or not, there are people on this planet who will chose to stick with their principles about private property and theft. Even to the point of death. There are others who will abandon their principles and choose personal survival.

There are some of us who still believe in the words, “duty, honor, country”. We are called conservative.

Now imagine some scenario, something less dire than the first, where you are faced with abandoning your principles or sticking by your moral code despite the resulting personal consequences. What would you do?

rockhauler on January 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM

Excellent post, rockhauler. Excellent, excellent post. There seem to be a lot of people nowadays who just do not understand the idea of sticking to principles and a moral code. This idea seems to be foreign to too many people today.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who hold the same view of conservatives sticking to principles and a moral code that the Left has about the military and their moral code. The Left can’t comprehend the military actually standing for something and considers them stupid. The same insults are being thrown at conservatives this campaign season with regards to not voting for a candidate who is not conservative.

The problem is that the American voting public, and this includes political blogs such as HotAir, have stopped focusing on the issues and ideology and now are engaging in identity politics. Sure, right-wing sites are laughing at the Democrats arguing over whether they should be sexist or racist, but the Republican side is doing the exact same thing.

Whenever you see the “exit polls” from the alphabet networks and the writeups after the primaries, do you see anyone talking about issues? No, on both the mass media and here on sites like HotAir and NRO, you see them playing identity politics. Women voted this way, Blacks voted this way, the military voted this way, evangelicals voted this way. No talk of issues, just talk of classifying Americans into groups.

Which then results in comments on websites and comments on TV saying “evangelicals are stupid for voting for X” or “women are ___ for voting for Y”. Still, no talk of issues or ideology, simply identity politics.

Am I the only one who is interested in WHY people voted for candidates? What are the issues in which they are interested?

How about “Voters whose main concern was the economy voted for X”, “Voters whose main concern was national security voted for Y”, “Voters whose main concern was social issues voted for Z”, etc etc. This is what should matter, not identity politics. All this identity politics does is split the entire country and have a bunch of people talking on websites about “hating evangelicals” or “hating Iowans” or saying “South Carolina is stupid”, etc. Meanwhile no talk of issues and ideology.

Brilliant.

WE are the problem. Not the mass media, not the politicians. WE, the People. If we want better elected leaders, we need to hold them to higher standards. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and start getting back to talking about issues and ideology.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:00 PM

*****

but this isn’t a choice between winning or losing. If we select a RINO the general election will be a choice between losing and losing. either you didn’t read it or you were purposefully spinning what I said. I’ll let you all decide which.

BadBrad on January 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Personally I don’t believe that one bit. If it does happen, it will not be because of the Democrats, it will be because We, the People, did not care enough about our country to stop it from happening. The 2008 election is not the end of this by any means. No matter who wins, we all need to continue to stay active, continue to work to get Americans informed, educated and engaged in our nation. No one person and no one Political Party can destroy this country without the consent of millions of Americans. Those who keep saying that Hillary or Obama will destroy this country are really saying that the American people do not care enough about this country to stop them.

Michael in MI on January 20, 2008 at 1:15 PM

Advertisements

January 20, 2008 , 1:58PM - Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: