AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Fiscal Conservatism vs Social Conservatism

I don’t understand how people can say that fiscal conservatism is more important than social conservatism. Look at families. What is more destructive to a family’s success, financial trouble or social trouble? If there is a good moral core to the family, they can survive financial trouble. But a financially stable family cannot survive a moral breakdown. Same applies to the country/society.

The core — the foundation — of this country is social morals. Our entire nation is based on the foundation that we have unalienable rights — life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — granted to us by Our Creator (God). Everything else is based off of that foundation.

So, to say that social issues are simply irrelevant during our current fiscal troubles is nonsense. The core of a family and the foundation of our country is the most important, at all times.

Just as a family breaks down if their moral core breaks down, so too does a country break down if its moral foundation breaks down.

This country has survived numerous financial/fiscal catastrophes in its short lifetime. But nations throughout history have crumbled from within due to a breakdown in moral foundation.

So those who think that social conservatism is irrelevant are not learning from history.

February 4, 2010 , 2:24PM Posted by | American History, Conservatism, Economy | 3 Comments

You Can’t Succeed if You Don’t Try

It is possible that a bigger push for a conservative candidate by the rightroots/Tea Partiers could have gotten someone more conservative the nod.

The trouble was no one really knew that a victory in Illinois, in The Obama Seat, was even possible. All of this has snuck up on us. Well, I think I can say “us.” I don’t think too many people were expecting the Brown win, or… this.

Mark Kirk actually ran. Can’t get too angry at him for being the only major Republican candidate to show up for the party.

Once again, we see pundits simply baffled by the reality that when people are given a real choice and alternative to liberal Democrats — even in supposedly liberal areas of the country — these people will choose the alternative. Conservatives — accused of being “purists” who “live in fantasy land” by “pragmatic moderates” — have been saying this all along. We have faith in the common sense of the people that if you stand for conservatism, explain it and defend it unapologetically, the people will choose it over liberalism most every time.

The key is that you must get out there and try. So-called “pragmatic moderates” and eeyores keep saying “oh there is no possible way that people will vote for conservatism or Republicans in this area, so it’s a waste to even bother to try”. Hogwash. That’s just cowardice and lack of principle.

This is a center-right country. Conservative policies and principles have succeeded throughout the history of this nation. All one has to do is get out there and stand for those policies and principles and you will win people over.  It has happened time and time again.  People who start out liberal in their mentality and ideology move to conservatism after having it explained to them and seeing the logic and correctness of it.  Heck, even Rush Limbaugh has caller after caller each year telling him that they tuned into his show when they were liberals because they wanted to “find out what the enemy/other side was saying”, only to end up agreeing with what he was saying and becoming conservatives themselves.

“The trouble” is not that “no one really knew that a victory in Illinois was possible”, the trouble is that there are eeyores out there who refuse to even bother to try to find out. The negative, “it’ll never happen, so don’t bother trying” attitude of these so-called “pragmatic” Republicans is what is holding back conservatism.

You don’t convince people that your principles and ideals and policies are correct by not bothering to sell and explain them to people. You convince them by first having faith in the people to understand them and then proceeding to explain and express them.

The so-called “pragmatic” Republicans who refuse to stand for conservatism all across the country are simply practicing the “soft bigotry of low expectations”. This is a liberal mentality. Sad to see that Republican pundits have this attitude as well.

Amen to this:

Hey, he was the most conservative likely candidate the citizens of Illinois would elect.

I don’t buy this line of reasoning, at all. Conservatism, if articulated properly and accurately, is a winner anywhere anyplace with people who work and pay taxes.

We need to get out this silly mindset of ‘electability’.

Posted by: This is Randolph Mantooth at February 04, 2010 12:58 PM

Exactly. These same “pragmatic” Republicans focus on “electability” simply to get the GOP in the majority, and then turn around and whine when the GOP majority is a majority of RINOs who govern as liberals. What the hell is the point to winning an election if the people who win are liberals?

We saw that during the Bush 43 years, when the GOP controlled Congress from 2003-2006. Sure the GOP had the majority, but they were not fiscal conservatives. Then, the Left puts out the meme that “GOP=conservatism=fail” and then earn HUGE victories in 2006 and 2008 based on that.

So guess what… the “electability” strategy is a failed strategy.

Ronald Reagan is admired and revered to this day, because he unapologetically stood for conservatism, explained it and defended it and didn’t resort to compromising his principles for political expedience. He won two HUGE landslide victories using this strategy. Yet, “pragmatic” Republicans continue to say that strategy is a loser and “electability” and compromising principles for the sake of winning an election is the way to go. Brilliant.

I do not get this at all:

Now — IF, as is possible, the Democratic Parties in these states contain lots of Reagan Democrats willing to be called into the conservative fold…

…and if such Democrats break the tradition of just voting Democrat even if it’s a liberal they don’t like…

…and if they become more persuadable by more conservative and more Republican candidates, then things change, and we can start pushing true-blue conservatives.

You can go a lot further with the wind at your back than in your face. Yes, the winds just changed, and that’s awesome, but they just changed, like a month or two ago.

You know, for years, we have said of the differences between the poles, “Conservatives look for converts, liberals look for heretics.”

I am dismayed that it seems we are joining liberals’ in their counterproductive heretic-hunting.

We need converts. If we were a LOSER PARTY, frankly, we might as well be as ideologically pure as possible, because we’re going to lose anyway, so we might as well do so with integrity.

We are not going to be losing. We have to get into the winner’s mindset here and stop trying to construct a rump party that only exists to propagate a message and nothing else.

Posted by: ace at February 04, 2010 01:08 PM

Um, the “winner’s mindset” is that you stand strong on your winning principles no matter if the wind is in your face or at your back.

And someone explain to me how you win converts to conservatism by running liberal Republicans. Unless, as I suspect, “ace” doesn’t care about winning converts to conservatism, but simply wants to win converts to the Republican Party. That right there exposes him as a “squishy moderate” who doesn’t stand for conservatism, but simply Republicanism… which is basically anti-Democratism (“anyone but Democrats”). Which is a loser’s mentality.

He doesn’t have faith in conservative principles and ideals at all, he doesn’t have faith in the American people to understand those principles, so he decides to just play the same games as the liberals and Democrats and use strategies like “electability” and sacrificing conservative polices X, Y and Z in order to trick the electorate to vote for a Republican, thinking s/he is a conservative, only to find out that once they get into office, they aren’t conservative at all. But, hey, we won and have a Republican majority!

Big deal. We have a liberal Republican majority who simply will govern and legislate not as conservatives, but simply less liberal than Democrats.

Meanwhile, after they fail in their less liberal than Democrats governing, we are right back to the Democrats pointing out the GOP’s failures and getting back into power again.


The problem is that these “pragmatic” Republicans are more concerned with superficial “victories” instead of long-term success.


Balls: A lot of “better candidates” were not candidates at all because they were too afraid to run, thinking this was Obama’s year.

Well, Kirk ran. (Hughes ran too, but had never run for anything before, nor even voted much, and was pretty much a protest candidate.)

So — you know what all of your preferred candidates were lacking?

Ambition and drive and belief and even a little courage.

Kirk had those. The imaginary “better candidates” didn’t.

No one can win without those.

Woody Allen said 80% of success was just showing up. Kirk showed up. Other “better candidates” didn’t. I’m sort of not understanding why were are talking about gutless candidates who didn’t even bother to stand for election.

So let me get this straight…

First you “pragmatic” Republicans say “there’s no point to even trying to win this seat, it’s not possible, so don’t bother”. So people listen to your “pragmatic” advice and don’t run. But now you turn around and call those people cowards for not having the balls to run in a race you said was un-winnable.


Guess what, genius. If there were less “pragmatic” Republicans like yourself doom-saying and being ‘eeyorish’ and telling people to not even bother trying, because you’re never going to succeed, then we’d have a lot more opportunities to get conservatives we want to campaign and win office.  You go around calling conservatives “purists” who “live in fantasy land” when we say we want to campaign conservatives in liberal States, then turn around and say if we don’t campaign conservatives in liberal States, we’re cowards who lack balls.  Nice having it both ways there, jackass.

I find it ironic that a pessimistic “pragmatic” who goes around telling people “it’s never going to happen, so don’t bother trying” is lecturing others about not having any balls.

Effing A-men to this:

Politics is the art of the possible.

Politics is the art of marketing. Politics is the art of advertising.

Marketing and advertising are about telling your idiot customers what they should want (i.e., your product). It’s about pushing their emotional buttons so hard and so often that they feel absolutely COMPELLED to forgo paying the rent just to buy what you’re selling.

Marketing is not about passively listening to customers, and letting them tell you what to sell to them. It’s just not. It’s about manufacturing consumer demand for your product.

But no one in politics knows anything worth a shit about marketing or advertising. They think that TV spot with the wolf-with-the-red eyes crap is a state-of-the-art ad. It’s not. It’s a fucking joke.

If you want genuine, conservative, pro-market, anti-socialist change in government, conservatives need to learn how to be better marketers. The Left is better at marketing than the Right. They have been for a long time. They own the media, and the media knows marketing. The fact that the Dems are losing so badly right now is 20% attributable to improved Republican marketing, and 80% attributable to Democrat stupidity. Their recent losses are a testament to their utter corruption and avarice. Only they are dumb enough to fuck up a super-majority/White House combo. It’s like the Star Wars prequels — astronomical success should have been a lay-up, a gimmie, but they somehow found a way to turn it into shit. Republicans shouldn’t praise themselves too much for Democrat self-defeat.

The Republicans could blast out a super-majority of their own, with a fire-breathing, rock-ribbed, free-market, small-government agenda, if they knew how to market it properly. The right kind of clear marketing message, properly delivered (by them, not by sideline pundits) would CREATE the demand among voters for the conservative message.

The Republicans don’t need to be passive followers of voter opinion. When passivity is your marketing strategy, then the Dems end up controlling the message, and the Republicans end up selling a watered-down, milquetoast version of the Democrat message, which no one wants. (See, e.g., McCain, John.)

Posted by: Phinn at February 04, 2010 02:12 PM

And the hits just keep on comin’

I didn’t mention that, because I knew the rightroots (internet right) was on the side of Hughes and I didn’t want to be seen as thwarting the Tea Party Movement and supporting a dreaded RINO.

I just shut up, so as not to hurt Hughes’ chances. But I kinda knew, based on reader input, that not only would Kirk win, he should win, because even if a miracle happened and Hughes won the primary, he wasn’t a strong enough candidate to even come close in the general.

Really? The same people who were sure there was no possible way that a Republican could win a Senate seat in Illinois (or Massachusetts) are now certain that Hughes could not possibly “even come close in the general”. The same people who said the GOP was dead last year and were going to be in the wilderness for years. The same people who last year would have said not to even bother trying for the Senate seats in Massachusetts or Illinois now are political geniuses based on hindsight. Brilliant.

Oh, and the same guy who goes around telling other people they are cowards with no balls comes out and admits that he shut up and didn’t campaign for Kirk, because he was afraid of criticism from Hughes supporters. What bravery.

That’s as childish as a college football fan who goes around and gets in everyone’s face about how awesome he is for supporting his team and how idiotic the supporters of the other team were/are… after his team wins.

In other words, it’s just like voting “present” and not taking a side, then waiting for the results to either take credit for a victory or curse the other side for a loss. Right-of-center pundits emulating the cowardice and condescension of Obama. Brilliant.

Ah, you knew it was coming:

I feel compelled to point out that there wasn’t really much of a primary because the conservatives got in too late because no one thought it was worth the expense (yes, I see the obvious counter there). Posted by: Methos

As in, “Whose fucking fault is it that the conservatives were late for the primary?” That kind of thing?

Posted by: Iskandar at February 04, 2010 03:11 PM

Well, smartass, it was partly your “fucking fault” — and that of those “pragmatic” Republican pundits like “ace” — who last year were going around saying conservatives will “NEVER EVER” win in liberal areas and you shouldn’t bother even trying and if you think you can, you’re living in “fantasy land”. I’m sure that kind of brilliant, winning attitude had nothing to do with it, right?  Idiot.

February 4, 2010 , 12:49PM Posted by | Conservatism, Liberalism, Political Bloggers, Republicans, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on You Can’t Succeed if You Don’t Try

The Purpose of Marriage is ‘Affiliation’

Good post by Maggie Gallagher at NRO The Corner: Defending David Blankenhorn

An excerpt:

…David [Blankenhorn] is… a man who genuinely believes both in the “equal dignity of homosexual love” as he wrote in his book, The Future of Marriage, and that marriage must be protected in law as the union of husband and wife.

David’s view in a nutshell: Social institutions arise and persist over time because they address persistent problems. The problem marriage attempts to address is sex difference, or, as David likes to put it, “embodiment.” The purpose of marriage cross-culturally throughout history is “affilliation,” i.e. the assignment of a mother and a father to every child. The marriages of sterile or older couples do not contradict this purpose, because any child of these marriages (whether via birth or adoption) would have both a mom and a dad even if no such child ever actually comes into being. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, would end affiliation as the purpose of marriage. The institution would be taken over and used to address a new problem: sexual orientation.

Marriage was not designed to address this question and should not be misused for this purpose, however noble that purpose is (and David clearly thinks demonostrating social respect for committed gay love is a noble purpose).

David Blankenhorn is, in other words, the embodiment of how a person with not only no animus, but no disagreement with homosexuality, could nonetheless support Prop 8.

February 4, 2010 , 11:21AM Posted by | GLBT Movement, Homosexual Movement, Marriage | Comments Off on The Purpose of Marriage is ‘Affiliation’