AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Great post, and comments in response to it, at This Ain’t Hell regarding the Democrats’ election strategy: Still running against Bush

Now, most people note that the Democrats are “running against Bush”. I tend to look at it a different way. They are not necessarily running against President Bush, so much as they are running a campaign based on the ignorance they assume the American electorate still suffers with regards to economic policy.

It worked for them in 2006, when our economy was humming along during one of our nation’s most prosperous times in history: low unemployment (~5%), great GDP growth and record highs on WallStreet (which helped every American’s retirement account). Despite these obvious facts, the Democrat Party and their propaganda machine in the MF-ing media worked together to sell the LIE to the American public that the economy was a disaster. They sold the lie that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in no need of regulation when President Bush, Senator McCain and the GOP worked to prevent the housing collapse that eventually occurred. DEMOCRATS Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Maxine Water were key to stopping anyone from regulating Fannie/Freddie. Yet, despite the fact that THEIR policies caused the housing crisis, they turn around and blame… President Bush and the GOP. Pathetic.

It also obviously worked for them in 2008 when they swept to HUGE majorities in both Houses of Congres and took the White House by… blaming President Bush and the GOP for “the failed policies of the last 8 years!” Um, those “failed policies” were not conservative nor capitalist policies, but socialist policies that failed. So it was not a GOP vs Democrat policy issue, but a conservative vs socialist/progressive/liberal policy issue. The dirty little secret is that there are socialists and liberals within the GOP who worked with Democrats to either enact socialist policies or give Democrats cover for their socialist policies by voting with them to make the bills seem “bipartisan”.

But, if you look back to the policies which caused our current recession/depression — see HERE, HERE & HERE — you’ll see that it was the Democrat Party’s liberal policies which caused them. Not conservative policies, not tax cuts and not capitalism failing. That last one is important to note, because the current Democrat Party — and especially Barack Obama and his cabinet and czars — is made up of anti-capitalists, socialists and Marxists. So it was key to them to sell the American electorate on the failure of capitalism, hide the fact that it was the failure of socialism and then gain power so as to enact their Marxist policies… which they knew would make things worse. But, making things better was never their intention. As Barack Obama famously said during the campaign, he was not interested in bringing in more tax revenue, he was more interested in “fairness” and “spreading the wealth around”. In other words, he was not interested in capitalism, but socialism and Marxism.

So, since this strategy worked to perfection on an ignorant, apathetic and dumbed down American electorate in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats and MF-ing media are simply sticking to the same game plan until we prove to them that we are not the apathetic, dumbed down ignoramuses they believe us to be.

On that note, it is good to see the military commenters at This Ain’t Hell take to task a currently still ignorant commenter. I hope conversations like these are happening all across the nation and people are finally getting educated and informed… and energized to vote out the socialists and Marxists in NOV 2010 and NOV 2012.

The Hill reports that Democrats have released a video in which they’re still blaming GWB for the economic problems we’re experiencing almost two years after he left office…

Despite the fact that Bush and McCain both tried to rein in FannieMae and FreddieMac, the triggers for for the housing bubble, for years before the economic crisis struck.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Democrats should run against Bush, but only because it’s losing strategy. …

Yeah, so keep it up, Democrats – it gives us a more frequent opportunity to mention whose policies were really behind current economic conditions.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:49 am

So let me get this straight – on the one hand you give credit to Bush for getting us out of Iraq even though he’s been out of office for what, 19 months, but no blame for driving the country into a ditch, as the saying goes. Kind of selective memory.

You can’t turn the USS Enterprise on a dime, and you can’t turn around a totally screwed up economy that quickly either. Has Obama made mistakes – you betcha. But nothing compared to his predecessor.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 9:53 am

But nothing compared to his predecessor.

So let me get this straight, Bush told Fannie and Freddie to lend money to people that couldn’t pay it back? Franklin Raines is laughing all the way to the bank…

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am

Where to start? Bush promoted “the ownership society” which promoted and enabled the real estate crisis. He also promoted deregulation so unscrupulous mortgage brokers could put green pea home owners into mortgages they could neither afford nor understand, without fear of getting caught. In fact one of his biggest screw ups was creating an environment where honest brokers had to face a devil’s choice – play by the rules and lose out, or bend the rules (like your competitors) and reap illicit profits. Cronyism, lack of oversight and regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, CEO’s earning 400 times what their workers earn, a growing divide between the haves and have nots – opps, gotta run! Later

nhsparky Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Joe – was Bush responsible for the CRA? Was he responsible for ACORN and other groups suing banks for creating so-called “redline” loans? Did he sit in front of Congress and tell the American people that Freddie and Fannie are “basically sound”? …

Jonn Lilyea Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:13 pm

“Unscrupulous mortgage brokers” couldn’t loan to prospective homeowners without FanM/FredM backing loans with taxpayer dollars to people with a history of bailing on their obligations. Deregulation and “the ownership society” aren’t the problem here. Do you own your house, Joe? Why do you get to own your house and others don’t?

I own my house… I bought it when I could afford to pay for it. That’s not a new concept. For years I resisted the peer pressure to buy a house in favor of common sense. And there were no mortgage brokers or banks involved in my purchase… and certainly no FannieMae or FreddieMac. I don’t need the government to help me buy my chunk of America.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

Deregulation of mortgage lenders? That was CRA started by Jimmeh Carter and expanded by Bill Clinton. Franklin Raines (Clinton Appointee) who headed Fannie at the time predicted all of this and advised Clinton not to. Clinton did it anyway and told Raines to get in line and shut up. Raines made over 90 million from Fannie… How did Bush have anyhting to do with that? When the Federal Regulator for Fannie testified before congress as John McCain was pushing for legislation to reign Fannie and Freddie in both “Coutrywide” Chris Dodd and Barney “Banking Queen” Frank said there’s nothing wrong here, everything is hunky dory. You can throw Maxine “Bailout my husbands bank” Waters in there as well…

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Blaming Bush for everything you mentioned in #7 is pure bilge my friend, and shows a remarkable lack of education on the history of American economics.

It also displays a large degree of contempt for your fellow Americans. What you have so patronizingly laid out is the idea that every ‘common man’ is capable of being coerced into debilitating debt. Simple, Unadulterated, Crap. The public largely has no one to blame but themselves.

Who is responsible for the “ownership society”? How about we start with Henry Ford in the 1920s, and the introduction of CREDIT. Either way, it’s not the Fed’s job to dictate to the “people” how they will or won’t hurt themselves. Self defense in all things begins with the SELF.

Good grief, what are the colleges teaching today anyway?

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

A lot of naive, less affluent people (but many of them working stiffs nonetheless) bought into the “ownership society” hoopla. Some overreached and made mistakes. But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.

I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity. And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.

Joe Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

PS – Canada has much stricter oversight and regulation of the mortgage industry, and they have not suffered nearly as badly as we have.

PintoNag Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

Joe, you say ‘ownership’ like it’s a bad thing. Why the devil do you think I get up five days a week and go to work? I have bills, that’s true enough, but I also like to own things… most of which no one has ever offered to give me for free. And wouldn’t.

This country is an experiment, and was meant to be. It is an experiment in SELF-GOVERNMENT. You take responsibility for your actions or you suffer the consequences. By definition, if you attempt to protect something, you must remove its ability to self-govern. Protection is nothing more than a form of control.

The government must exercise control to a point, to help maintain order in society. The argument we have always had, are having now, and will have in the future, is this: how far can, should, and must that control go? When does maintaining good order become an exercise in negating self-government?

I submit that it has already gone too far.

Jacobite Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

Did you just cut and paste that trash? It sounds like it was lifted whole cloth from some Lib talking points website.

Try again Joe, I was a 30k a year warehousing stiff for over a decade before shipping to Iraq, lost my job while I was gone because the owner of the company retired, and I started a new 30k a year career as a municipal employee after returning home in 2004. I’m still in that category. I directly benefited from the Bush tax cuts, and so did most of the middle class folks I know. I am going to be directly hurt not only by their demise, but also by all the other crap the current admin is trying to push through. Try and peddle that clap else ware.

I notice how you conveniently sidestep the fact that the play now pay later mentality began decades and decades before Bush. Nice. For the record, I’m no fan of a lot of his domestic economic policies, but that doesn’t remove the responsibility for anyone’s situation from their own shoulders. And replacing crappy policy with crappier policy as Obama is attempting, is not the way to solve the nation’s ills.

Old Tanker Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Joe,
The mortgage industry was NOT deregulated by Bush or anyone else. It was FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to make bad loans with a wink and a nod that Fannie and Freddie would have their backs. There was a Federal Regulator screaming from the rooftops about what was happening back in ‘06. Bush attempted to place more regulation on the mortgage industry and Democrats said NO and ignored the regulator. ACORN threatened to sue any lender that wasn’t making the required amount of bad loans. Your willful blindness to history is monumental…

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

First, note how government revenues and disposable income were increasing in 2003-2006, and that we were headed back towards a balanced budget.

There’s your “Bush economy” … even while a war was going on and with the tech bubble in our rear-view mirror. BTW, about that time he was advocating changes to tighten up the mortgage market … and was pooh-poohed by Frank, Dodd, et. al. who still had the fillibuster on their side.

Then note when employment growth flattens … around January 2007.

Could it be that, once the Dim Congress became reality, businesses woke up, realized their future was to become cash cows/social-services surrogates/scapegoats for their new Re-, er, Progressive overlords … and acted in preparation for that future by scaling back their activity, including hiring and expansion?

Could it be that it is that pullback, that started our downward slide … a pullback triggered by the mere presence of a Re-, er, Progressive-controlled Congress? Keep in mind that it is Congress, way more than the White House, who can have a profound effect upon our economy.

So the classic question is, after FOUR YEARS of Dimocrat control of Congress …

Are you better off than you were four years ago?

That … not some half-baked with half-truth ad … will determine the outcome of this election.

Ritchie The Riveter Says:
August 20th, 2010 at 11:50 pm

“But I blame Bush and the conservative mantra for creating the climate, and the lack of oversight that made it all possible.”

Mr. Bush was working to restore some of that oversight … whose restoration was needed primarily because Progressive efforts to make home ownership universal distorted the market to the point that banks could consider it financially viable to fund the irresponsible.

Let me tell you the “mantra” that REALLY caused the problem …

All you need to do is show up for work; we have experts who have the answers to your housing needs, your health care needs, your financial needs … no need to plan for your future or actively manage your career, since we can do a better job than you can; just trust us to solve those problems FOR you.

This is the implicit message from our government since FDR. I call it The Biggest Lie of All … and it has done far more damage than any “mantra” coming from Mr. Bush or his Administration.

“I can only assume that most of the contributors to this website fall into that top 5% category, since I have never heard any of you bemoan the policies that have decimated the middle class, the engine that helped create all our prosperity.”

Problem is, the producers in the middle class who create those jobs are either considered “rich”, or increased success on their part would push them into the “rich” category … and therefore become worthy of being milked as cash cows, by our government.

And in my own case, when the taxes of the rich guy who employs me and about 200 other people go up, my income goes down … for he shares a large portion of his profit with us, and the more he’s taxed, the less profit he has.

Your “progressive” taxation doesn’t differentiate between someone productive like him and a parasite like, say, Enron in their heyday … it still treats both as cash cows. regardless of the value of what each does to our society.

“And in this mortgage crisis, many of these hardworking middle class people got caught up in the storm. In addition, the middle class has been nickled and dimed from every side, thanks again to policies that favor corporations and the rich over regular people. The Bush tax cuts are but one example.”

Perhaps if they weren’t being taxed so highly at all levels of government … and they hadn’t been misled into letting the government provide “solutions” and “guarantees” FOR them … they would have weathered the storm.

You’re mired in mindless class envy … or is it that you believe you must fling anything you’ve got to smear conservatives at them, in the hopes that it will stick, discredit that worldview, and pave the way for you to practice your pet vice without risk of having your mellow harshed? You wouldn’t be the first Re-, er, Progressive I’ve found with that motive, once the rhetorical boilerplate was peeled away.

defendUSA Says:
August 21st, 2010 at 8:54 am

Ritchie-

Spot on about Joe… Class envy. We bought our first house with our VA benefits. We were making 29K in 1992. The mortgage was for 95K. We had to make sacrifices in order to make that happen. 18 years later, and having priced out of what the VA benefits gave we own a house that may soon be underwater, even though we have never missed a payment and made 60K of improvements because of that bubble created by the regs.

But I don’t blame Bush like Joe. No. I take full responsibility for not understanding some things financial and being naive that my better half would always be making the money we made. He isn’t now, but, we have still made the sacrifices necessary to be on time with the payments and eat. This is what Joe misses every time he brings up blaming Bush.

And Joe, Joe, Joe. I am hardworking, self-employed currently and I benefited from the tax cuts, too. Because I *paid* taxes!! These were not only for the “rich” as you appear to believe. Those people got caught in a storm because the lenders preyed and they bit. They bought houses that were not in any way going to be affordable and then they got what they deserved. A person making 60k shouldn’t be owning a house with a mortgage for 300k – it makes zero sense.

But what lending practices did was not verify income and ability to pay. Do you have that straight? And, now, we have people who have defaulted not once, but twice with gov’t bailouts, er, my taxpayer dollars.

And you know what is really funny, Joe? We have been unemployed 3 times in 4 years taking unemployment 1 time for 6 months, and we never missed any payments for anything. Yes. We used up every ounce of savings, and the deferred income that was for the kids college, and the retirement fund. All taxed again. Yep. And when all that was gone, well, we couldn’t get help. Because the gov’t wants me to be in default of everything before I get help. I ask you, what is rational about that?

So when I needed a student loan for the kid, I got denied because I wasn’t delinquent!! Yes that FAFSA formula doesn’t work the way it should… IMO. But I fought the basturds and won. So, at least my kid gets to make her dreams come true.

Get the fuck over yourself and your pretentious “I care for the little guy” bullshit. You’re just a whiner who doesn’t get what economics is about and you have no clue how the gov’t is working to destroy The American dream by making others dependent and helping them to forget how to dream, hope and live. Just exist. Put “Defying Hitler” on your reading list, maybe you can learn something.

UPDATE 23 AUG 2010: The military commenters at This Ain’t Hell are still combating ignorance in the comments at this post as well: Obama as Reagan. Keep up the great work, gentlemen.

The Washington Post tries to draw parallels between Reagan and Obama: [ … ]

Yeah, tax cuts and massive spending are exactly the same – especially in the effect they’ll have on the economy. Reagan let us spend our own money, Obama takes our money and directs how it’s spent. That’s the same, right?

Paul Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 am

Yes, it’s sad when our politicians have obviously never taken an econ class. One thing both Reagan and Obama have in common though is they both like huge deficit spending.

UpNorth Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am

And, one important difference, Paul. Reagan’s economy created jobs, O’s has lost jobs. And will continue to lose jobs, until he’s gone.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Paul,
Democrats over rode Reagan’s vetoes to force deficit spending after the Dems PROMISED him they would cut spending… Slight difference. I also believe this is when they introduced the concept of baseline budgeting. If an agency was expected to have a baseline increase of 7% and their budget only got increased by 6% it was called a “budget cut”

NHSparky Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm

And Paul, FWIW, had Congress (and guess which party was cutting the checks back then?) simply passed Reagan’s proposed budgets without adding a whole shitload of items to it, the federal government would have been running a SURPLUS by FY1990. Look it up. And when Reagan tried to veto the spending inserted in appropriations bills, the Supremes determined a line-item veto was unconstitutional.

Context FAIL, Paul. Back to your hole.

Old Tanker Says:
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:46 pm

Hell Sparky, the Republicans even gave Bill Clinton a line item veto only to have the Supreme court overturn it…

USMC Steve Says:
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:22 am

Yeah, let us compare the two.

Reagan loved his country, Nobama hates it particularly the white part.

Reagan put together an excellent and intelligent, well versed cabinet, Nobama grabbed up a bunch of yes-man kowtowing leftists who wouldn’t know reality if it bit them on the ass.

Reagan included in his achievements the destruction of the Soviet Union and the opening up of eastern Europe, Nobama can claim socialized health care and forcing the spending of almost a trillion dollars AFTER over 70 percent of the people in this country voiced their strident opposition to it.

Reagan had a great deal of unified support in America, but Nobama has basically set race relations back 40 years, and has people at each other’s throats, no doubt in order to help fulfill his socialist agenda. You can’t force through marxism if the country isn’t totally fucked up you know.

The list could go on and on and on. Yep, lots of similarities.

August 21, 2010 , 5:15PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Bush Admnistration, Democrats, Economy, Liberalism, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Socialism | Comments Off on Continual Vigilance Against Ignorance

Politicians Lead from the Middle?

And thus I am reminded once again why I stopped commenting at Ace of Spades HQ. This type of apathetic attitude of accepting — and by accepting, actually perpetuating — the status quo.

My theory about politicians is pretty simple: They lead from the middle. Not from the front, usually, as many strong ideological conservatives demand. Such people want to see their pols out in front on every issue, making the strongest possible case for this issue or that — especially when it comes to the unpopular positions, the positions the movement needs the most rhetorical effort on.

I don’t buy that. That’s a way to lose votes, generally. You talk and talk and talk up the positions where you’re already winning and people need precious little converting, you offer a fair amount of talk for the positions where you’re almost but not quite winning, and you throw your base a rhetorical bone here and there on the issues that are losers and would take some seriously heavy rhetorical lifting to ever change the public’s mind.

You punt on those. You say enough to show you’re on the right side of things and then you pretty much drop it. You leave the heavy lifting for the activists and the pundits and the polemicists. The people who don’t have to worry about securing 51% in a personal referendum on themselves every two or four or six years.

You don’t lead from the rear, simply echoing whatever the public says; the public catches on to that, and deems you a flip-flopper and weak leader. You get somewhat closer to the front, but not too close to it. You lead from the fat middle, surrounded by lots of people.

Does the following sound like “leading from the middle”?

“General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjWDrTXMgF8]

Or how about this: Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation, Spring 1983

We should not rest until our entire society echoes the tone of John Powell in the dedication of his book, Abortion: The Silent Holocaust, a dedication to every woman carrying an unwanted child: “Please believe that you are not alone. There are many of us that truly love you, who want to stand at your side, and help in any way we can.” And we can echo the always-practical woman of faith, Mother Teresa, when she says, “If you don’t want the little child, that unborn child, give him to me.” We have so many families in America seeking to adopt children that the slogan “every child a wanted child” is now the emptiest of all reasons to tolerate abortion.

I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, “without being a soul of prayer.” The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the “Clapham Sect,” for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened.”

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

The difference between people like those who blog at Ace of Spades HQ — and many other places on the right-of-center blogosphere, for that matter — and myself is that I want, demand and am working to elect statesmen and ideological, principled leaders like Ronald Reagan, while they simply accept and perpetuate the status quo of electing unprincipled, cowardly politicians.

These same people say “we’re never going to get another Reagan, so don’t even bother”. Great attitude. And what they do not realize is that their attitude is a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you believe in ‘never’, then, of course, something will not happen.

We, the People, must expect and demand more from our elected leaders. The reason we have unprincipled, unethical cowardly bastards representing us in government is because We, the People put them there. And We, the People put them there based on apathetic attitudes about what we should expect and demand from our elected leaders. Thus, these politicians who “lead from the middle” — which is to say, they don’t lead at all — represent We, the People perfectly, as they are a mirror image of our own “leading from the middle” apathetic attitudes. Just as children’s behavior is a direct reflection on their parents, so too are politicians’ behaviors a direct reflection on We, the People.

If We, the People want true “change” in government — if we truly want principled leaders and statesmen — then We, the People must change our attitudes and expect, demand and work to elect leaders and statesmen.

And if you are not working to this end, then you are part of the problem.

You know what happens when we vote for people who “lead from the middle”? We get politicians supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Instead of principled leaders getting out there and explaining to people that Al Gore and his acolytes are full of crap and perpetuating the biggest hoax in human history, we get people like John McCain and Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich who go out there and support Anthropogenic Global Warming and promote their own versions of Cap-and-Trade policies.

You know what else happens when we vote for people who “lead from the middle”?  We get politicians who don’t value the sanctity of human life and who find it easy to slide down the slope from accepting the mass murder of babies through the practice of abortion-on-demand to accepting the mass rationing of health care to the elderly through the “health care reform” bills being promoted now.

You know what else happens when we vote for people who “lead from the middle”?  We get Amnesty and the complete abrogation of our immigration laws, not to mention our elected officials’ responsibility to enforce those laws.

Yes, that’s right.  By accepting the apathetic attitude of supporting politicians who “lead from the middle”, We the People end up electing officials who push three of the biggest economy-destroying policies in our nation’s history.  Brilliant.

Keep chucking the ficken, ‘moderates’ and RINOs.  Me?  I prefer ‘red meat’.

Still doesn’t get it:

Obama was only to show so much leftist leg because conservatism had been partly discredited by 2008.

How do you think Obama would have fared when conservatism was winning, like in 1988?

The more conservative the country as a whole, the more conservative you can expect the nominees of BOTH parties to talk.

Conservatism has not been discredited. The Republican Party was discredited. Obama himself — despite his obvious socialist, communist and Marxist roots — campaigned on conservatism (tax cuts, cutting the deficit) — specifically, because he knew that the majority of this nation still believes in Conservatism and conservative policies. Which is why he hid his true socialist/communist/Marxist/anti-capitalist ideology and ran a campaign of lies, painting himself as a fiscal conservative.

Thus, he would have fared quite well in 1988. Unless, of course, the GOP had the backbone to call him out on his lies and radical America-hating, anti-Capitalist background (which the GOP did not have from 2006-2008, since they were led by a bunch of spineless RINOs).

Bill Clinton? Ring any bells? Famously broke with his party’s left for a “Third Way” that supposedly fused some conservatism with the basics of the Democratic agenda.

You may say, “Well that was talk.” Well, maybe it was. People get elected on talk. They get reelected, or not, based on actions.

Posted by: ace at December 04, 2009 03:03 PM

Right. And Obama was elected on talk of being a fiscal conservative. He was painted that way by his campaign and his propagandists in the mass media. But, based on his actions in office as a hard-Left, America-hating, big-government socialist, he most likely will not be re-elected.

So long as the GOP puts up someone who is clear on conservative principles and has a good track record of backing up their talk.

The country is majority conservative. Conservatism has NOT been “discredited”. The GOP has been discredited by their move Left to liberalism and socialism-lite while they had the majority in Congress. THAT is why they lost their majority and the Democrats won. The Democrats ran “Blue Dogs” in conservative districts and ran on… conservatism. That reality is counter to the claim that ‘conservatism was discredited’.

The GOP was discredited, because they strayed from fiscal conservatism and conservatism in general. I really don’t know what is so difficult to understand about that.

Geez. Here, in one sentence, Ace sums up why I don’t bother commenting on his site anymore:

“But there are sometimes more important things than being right.”

I see. So rather than being right about anthropogenic global warming, let’s just go along to get along and allow Cap-and-Trade to destroy this nation. Rather than being right about health care, let’s just punt that issue and go along to get along and destroy our health care industry. Rather than being right about the sanctity of life, let’s just punt that issue and allow our nation to become more and more indifferent to issues regarding the sanctity of human life, become more and more coarse concerning killing babies, assisted suicide and rationing health care to the elderly and the infirm.

This isn’t a marriage or a blog, this is a country, where the lives of 300 million people are at stake. I’d say that it is quite important to be right and stand up for what is right. But, apparently, Mr. Ace doesn’t care about that. He’s more concerned with making money from his blog. He sees everything through political goggles instead of through reality and life. Brilliant. Here’s his full statement of ‘moderate’ compromise ideology:

>>>I do like your analysis and it does make sense but it seems to me that her support is akin to truthers stating they are “just asking questions.”

So what?

Look, I experience something like the same political pressures. This blog, I hope you understand, is political, and not just as regards the news.

I believe, firmly, in evolution. Or, let me put it a different way: Whether I believe in evolution is irrelevant; what I know for a fact is that evolution is the only scientific theory I’ve heard to explain speciation, that is, a theory that does not include at its core *magic.*

So evolution may be completely wrong. But it does have the advantage of being scientific, having to do with natural processes, and not relying on, at its heart, supernatural intervention. Evolution may be completely wrong, but what would have to replace it would be ANOTHER theory that relies upon natural, and not supernatural, forces.

Now, I’m pretty sure of those beliefs. Damn sure, actually. I’m more sure of that than I’m sure that global warming alarmism is bunk.

You hear me talk about it much?

No.

It’s impolitic.

I’m just saying, we’re all doing politics in the game of politics. Don’t hold it against a politician that she too is pressured this way and that by political considerations.

You know, if you’re married, you and your spouse may disagree on a bunch of things, politically. What do you do? Well, you probably avoid those topics, much of the time. Because the marriage is more important than convincing your spouse of this or that point.

Being right is important. Creating harmony is important too.

You can say this is cynical, or pandering, or whatever else. It may be that. It’s also another thing: It’s life. It’s another thing: It is the way it is.

What did George W. Bush say about teaching evolution and creationism? He punted. He said something like “I don’t see what the big problem is of teaching another theory in school.”

That bothered me. The answer, you see, is wrong.

But there are sometimes more important things than being right.

Posted by: ace at December 04, 2009 03:11 PM

And with those statements emboldened above, ace admits that he is not principled. He puts politics over principle. He supposedly believes in certain things, but refuses to talk about them for political purposes. Brilliant.

In that way he is no different than the mass media who refuse to report certain news stories for political purposes. And thus, the blogosphere has become just like the mass media. Brilliant.

Oy, and the pessimistic and negative hits just keep on coming with this guy:

I have convinced people of things on this blog like… I dont’ want to say “Never” but let me say it’s close to never.

I have rarely — I can’t remember a single time — had someone tell me “I believed the exact opposite of what you say, but after I read your post, I now agree with you.”

I just don’t see this happening. I have been blogging for six years and I have a pretty good resevoir of goodwill and I’m pretty smart and a pretty effective writer and yet I cannot remember a single time someone told me I’d actually changed their mind.

Oooh, wow! He hasn’t convinced anyone of anything in 6 years of blogging so that means NO ONE can do it! That settles it. Since ace has never convinced anyone to change their minds from his brilliant blogging in 6 years, the rest of us should give up on the idea of ANYONE, EVER convincing someone. Brilliant projection of your individual experience onto tens of millions of other people, ace. Just brilliant.

More often it is like the praise I get here — somone said something like “This has been bothering me for 24 hours and you encapsulated why.” In other words, he already sort of agreed with me; he was having trouble announcing his position in words, though, and I did that for him, and now he knows more why he agreed with this position *ALL ALONG.*

I say this because I think some people have a very, VERY wrong idea of what the limits of political persuasion really are.

I will say it until I am dead: Sometimes, rarely, commenters convince me to change my mind. (See town halls, for instance, or TARP; but note that was less about convincing me and more about watching events unfold.)

I also rarely convince you guys of anything.

Convincing people to believe the oppsosite of waht they believe is very, very difficult, and successful very, very rarely.

Ergo any strategy that just relies at its essence of “just convincing people we’re right” is invalid and doomed. Obviously the strategy must INCLUDE that. Obviously. But also, obviously, the strategy must include a Plan B. What happens when, as is inevitable, you fail to convince more than 3-5% of people to change their midns? What next?

Posted by: ace at December 04, 2009 03:25 PM

“Invalid and doomed”! There’s that “never” attitude again. And that attitude is exactly the problem:  that what ace thinks is what is real, and the rest of us should just give up on our ideas, our optimism, our principles, because in ace’s 6 years of blogging and 40+ years of life on earth, things haven’t happened a certain way and, thus, will NEVER happen that way, so we shouldn’t even bother to try… because ace says so.

Because, afterall, no one in human history has changed their minds on any issues, ever. Afterall, we’re still a country which deems homosexuality to be a mental disorder and would never even fathom discussing redefining marriage in this country to include same-sex couples… oh wait.  And, afterall, people who are liberals when young never, ever change their minds and get convinced they were wrong and conservatism is correct later in life… oh wait.

People like ace are simply living in a self-fulfilling prophesy. As I said earlier, when you believe in ‘never’, then, of course, something will not happen. And that is NOT the American way.

What happens when, as is inevitable, you fail to convince more than 3-5% of people to change their midns? What next?

If you have to ask, that is pretty sad. What happens is… you keep working to convince them. It’s called having principles, expressing those principles and working to educate and inform others on those principles… for as long as it takes.  Did Ronald Reagan just give up after he didn’t convince people of his ideas in 1976?  No.  This isn’t some college debate where we have 15 minutes to make a point/rebuttal/counter-rebuttal. This isn’t some stupid political cable TV news talk show where we have 90 seconds to make a point.

You don’t give up just because the first 1-2-10-100 times you failed. You try and try again. You make your point in a different way. You find new ways to reach people about the same principles. Because the future success and prosperity of this nation is worth the effort.

Ah, finally some common sense on the thread:

building a coalition of 51%, many people in that coalition often having DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED IDEOLOGIES

I don’t think you can really do that, or should want to.

The “big tent” describes the idea of people with lots of different but not mutually incompatible ideas working together for their common good.

If Peter is passionately commited to “reproductive freedom” and Paul is equally committed to curtailing abortion, then they don’t belong in the same party.

People who are commited to expanding the size of government don’t belong in the same party as those commited to shrinking it.

If you do somehow win an election wth a coalition of the diametrically opposed, you’re bound to lose the next one, because you are bound to piss off at least some of them once you actually have to start doing stuff. You haven’t assembled a governing coalition.

Posted by: flenser at December 04, 2009 03:34 PM

And of course, the common sense did not last long:

flenser you continue not to get that someone like me, for example, can be with you 90-100% on eight issues and almost opposite you on 2 issues. (Out of the top ten.)

You continue to sort of imply that anyone who’s “conservative” agrees on ten for ten.

They don’t.

It is rather obvious where there is 90% consensus in the Republcian party and where there is merely 60% consensus. You seem unduly determined to push the 60% consensus as hard as the 90% consensus.

Posted by: ace at December 04, 2009 03:36 PM

I’m getting sick of these damn ‘moderates’ using these 60-70-80-90% bullshit arguments. If a Republican is 80% conservative, but the 2 out of 10 issues on which that member is not conservative is health care ‘reform’ and Cap-and-Tax, then I don’t give a flying fuck about the other 80% as the 20% are huge issues which will destroy out economy and nation. So stop with the 80% bullshit and focus on what you actually believe.  SPECIFIC ISSUES matter, not bullshit percentages.

And he wonders why he hasn’t convinced anyone in 6 years. Well, when providing half-assed bullshit ‘logic’ like this, it’s no wonder.

A thought… let’s go back to this:

I have rarely — I can’t remember a single time — had someone tell me “I believed the exact opposite of what you say, but after I read your post, I now agree with you.”

Well, ace, maybe you should spend some time listening to Rush Limbaugh, as he has been doing exactly that — changing people from believing in liberal ideas to becoming conservatives — for 20 years. So it can be done. You simply don’t know how to do it. But that does not mean that others cannot do it. So stop projecting your weaknesses and failures onto everyone else. It’s very… elitist.

December 4, 2009 , 4:03PM Posted by | Conservatism, Politics, Ronald Reagan | Comments Off on Politicians Lead from the Middle?

The Great Communicator on Socialized Health Care

I’m guessing many people have probably already seen this (considering it was posted to YouTube 2 years ago), but I just got around to listening to the 10 minute video today and thought I would pass it on. I’m betting that this would cause Nancy Pelosi and the mass media to call Reagan a NAZI and un-American…

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

“From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association.”

The key point made here by Mr. Reagan on a couple different occasions is that the goal of Socialists — which Obama and the Democrats clearly are — is to just ‘get their foot in the door’. After that, they know that they can expand their initial program as far reaching as they want. Obama himself has explicitly stated this when he said that they may not be able to get rid of employer insurance and have full single-payer right away, but he imagines in 10-15-20 years down the road, it will happen.

So this bill is all about ‘getting their foot in the door’.

This is why it is so important to not get too caught up in details, but to smack down the whole idea of government insurance in general. We should be arguing that no matter how much lipstick the Democrats put on this pig, or how much they try to take out of the bill now — only to be put in later after they pass it — it does not matter, because government healthcare itself is BAD and a failed idea.

It truly is a shame that we don’t have a Reagan around today. We need his clarity and his courage to speak the facts and not back down from his enemies smearing him at every turn.

August 10, 2009 , 2:28PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Communism, Conservatism, Fascism, Healthcare, Liberalism, Marxism, Ronald Reagan, Socialism | Comments Off on The Great Communicator on Socialized Health Care

It’s a Simple Answer Afterall

After hearing all the lies and bloviations and empty rhetoric of Obama and his merry Marxists in Congress for the last 2 years, it is such a breath of fresh air to hear a man of principle and passion speak as Ronald Reagan does here.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” —Alexander Hamilton

Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face: that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand, the ultimatum. And what then?

When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this, because from our side he has heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he would rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.”

And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.

If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin? Just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain.

Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said that “the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits, not animals.” And he said, “There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

March 17, 2009 , 4:12PM Posted by | Ronald Reagan | Comments Off on It’s a Simple Answer Afterall

My First ‘Hate Mail’ – I Feel So Honored

So I have just recently received my first bit of ‘hate mail’. Not exactly hate mail, but more like ignorant ranting mail. Either way, I am honored to have posted something which irritated someone so much that they were moved to write an e-mail to tell me about it. heh

So here’s “Independent” “Paul Be” from norethug08 at yahoo dot com. (Quite the “Independent” e-mail address, eh?):

So let me see if I have this right. Over the last 8 years, we have added 5 trillion dollars to the national debt. We created 3 million jobs, as opposed to 21 million the previous 8.

The national debt was reduced 4 of the 8 years of the Bush Administration. This despite inheriting a recession from the Clinton Administration, the 9/11 terrorist attacks, fighting in 2 war efforts and the Hurricane Katrina situation. I’d say that is pretty damn impressive. Especially considering the average debt was not too far off from the average debt during the Clinton Administration.

You are about to lose your job, and yet, you are focused on why people are attacking rush el lardo??

Um, no. People are losing their jobs, the economy is getting worse and the first thing that our new President did once in office was attack Rush Limbaugh, a private citizen and talk radio host. One would think that the President and his Administration had much better things to worry about than attacking a private citizen. But apparently not. One would also think that the President and his Administration had much more class and dignity and respect for the Office of the Presidency than to use their power to attack a private citizen. But apparently not.

Do you really listen to Rush?

I’ve been listening to him almost every day since September of 2001. I also have subscriptions to his website and The Limbaugh Letter. So, yes, I really do listen to Rush Limbaugh. Do *you*? From the sounds of it, you don’t at all, but simply know the talking points about him from the Left-wing outlets who smear him.

How can a conservative, especially a christian endorse him? Do you dismiss the hateful things he says about women, minorities, etc.?

Uh, what hateful things about women and minorities would those be, genius? Care to provide examples? I know of none. And if he were saying hateful things about minorities and women, I would think that his program guy Mr Snerdly would say something, since is Black. And Dawn, another show employee, would probably say something as well. Or they would both leave his show if he were hateful. But, they remain. So provide some examples or shut the fuck up.

The guy even went after Michael J. Fox. I guess that’s ok, cuz he’s a conservative.

Um, no, he did not, dumbass. Michael J. Fox was lying about stem cell research and using his illness to promote bad policy and lie to the American public about it in order to convince them to vote a certain way on bad policy. Rush Limbaugh called him out on his lies and deception. The fact that you don’t know this shows your utter ignorance.

As for your love of Reagn, a little news flash. He raised taxes and grew the government, BIG TIME. I happen to think he was a terrific president and great leader, but those are the facts.

He cut the federal tax rate from 70% to 28% in order to stimulate investing and job growth. This worked for JFK, worked for Reagan and worked for the Bush 43 Adminisration as well. Despite these facts, the Obama Administration flat out refuses to do this and, in fact, has decided to do the complete opposite in raising the tax rates.

You mentioned you are about to run out of money, cuz you lost your job. A few questions. Conservatives have been bashing the supposed reckless people who bought homes they could not afford. How come you don’t have enough savings to make it longer than to the end of May? Are you going to collect unemployment? Are going to use a free clinic if you can’t afford COBRA? Well according to conservatives, you don’t deserve that. You were reckless… Seems like a double standard to me.

(1) I don’t have enough savings, because I didn’t save enough money the last 5+ years of owning my home. (2) Yes, I am collecting unemployment. (3) I chose not to have COBRA, because I haven’t needed to go to a doctor or hospital in over 15 years. I take care of myself and don’t get sick. So I am *choosing* to not have health insurance. Something the Left and Democrats tell me that I should not have the freedom to do. That’s why they want to push National Healthcare and force everyone to pay for health insurance they don’t want or need.

Explain to me which conservatives are against unemployment and free health clinics, because I have never heard anyone express that before ever. Seems to me you have no idea what is conservatism and no idea what conservatives are for/against.

The fact is that I was not ‘reckless’. I made sure to get a 30-year fixed loan for my home and I have paid my mortgage without issue every month since I have moved in back in 2003. After getting laid off, however, I calculated that I could survive for 7 months on unemployment. After determining that, I did not go whining to the government for a bailout or go bitching to my lender and tell them that I am not going to pay my mortgage, nor did I go to Obama’s radical thug buddies at A.C.O.R.N. to have them help me bully people in order to stay in a home that I can no longer afford. I did the responsible thing and started looking at my options for selling the house, as anyone else should do. That is a bedrock conservative principle: personal responsibility. No double standard at all. I take responsibility for any mistakes I make in life and then work to fix them myself, without blaming anyone else or asking the government (American taxpayers) to bail me out or fix my problems.

As for you being called out as a racist, I don’t know if that’s true. It was curious though, that your post on black five media ended with, well at least he is black… Would you have ever said that about bush?

Why would I say President Bush is Black when he clearly is not? And I don’t know which comment of mine at Blackfive you are so riled up about, but if you are that ignorant to not know about the “My President is Black” movement of the Obama supporters, then you obviously missed my sarcasm. You obviously also missed Uber Pig’s admission on Blackfive that he voted for Obama based on his Blackness. My sarcastic statement that ‘we can not worry about any of the problems in America, because at least our President is Black and that makes it all better’ was making fun of Obama supporters who supported Obama solely because he is Black. And stated that we can now be proud of our country because “My President is Black”. If you truly are that clueless that you don’t know about this, then I’m not surprised that my sarcasm went right over your empty head.

I will say as an independent that the right’s rhetoric is appalling.

Heh, the Right’s rhetoric is appalling. Ah yes. Apparently you had no problem with the rhetoric of the Left of the past 8 years, but now the Right saying they don’t want the socialist policies of Obama and his merry Marxists, that’s appalling. Whatever, buddy.

I was on the fence between Obama and McCain. The Palin pick was a deal killer for me.

So let’s see. There was a choice between a socialist/communist/Marxist racist with no executive experience, no achievements or successes in his entire political life except giving speeches and co-writing a book with a domestic terrorist and whose entire political career was forged with the likes of communists, socialists, Marxists, racists, corrupt pols and domestic terrorists who all hate America and were anti-capitalism. And his VP who is an idiot and who also has no achievements in his entire political career. Compare that to a left-leaning Republican who brought on a running mate who had more executive experience and accomplishments than Obama, Biden and McCain combined, not to mention experience and accomplishments with the energy industry. And yet, the deal killer for you was not Obama’s horrible background and lack of experience, nor Biden’s horrible lack of experience and accomplishment, nor McCain’s policies being basically socialist-lite, but rather the one politician among the two tickets who was most qualified of the 4 to actually govern? Brilliant logic there, genius.

The BS since then is incredible. The right has become about the party of Jesus and Pro-Life. The stock answer is lower taxes. It lacks any intellectual arguments. So keep up your hateful rantings…

The Right has become the Party of Jesus and Pro-Life. Uh, sure thing, bub. And yes, lowering capital gains taxes and lowering corporate tax rates in order to encourage people to invest and businesses to invest and grow and hire people is a pretty much common sense stock answer and a proven successful solution time and time again. No intellectual arguments, eh? You apparently don’t spend much time actually listening to the arguments of conservatives then, because we are the only ones presenting intellectual arguments for successfully fixing the economy. Hateful rantings, that’s a laugh. Take care, Mr. ‘Independent’.

March 9, 2009 , 10:46AM Posted by | Barack Obama, Conservatism, Debating an Obama-Lover, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Socialism, Tax Cuts | Comments Off on My First ‘Hate Mail’ – I Feel So Honored