Adam’s Blog

That’s my thing, keepin’ the faith, baby. –Joe Friday

Archive for the ‘Future of Conservatism’ Category

The Dangerous Good Old Boys of the GOP

Posted by Adam Graham on April 30, 2009

My latest Pajamas Media piece is up.

Since the election, the debate has raged. Who is responsible for the 2008 election debacle and the defeat of the Republican Party?

So far this question has centered on various groups’ attempts to reenact the scapegoat scene from Leviticus and cast all the sins of the Republican Party onto cultural conservatives and release their concerns into the wilderness.

The battle has been as entertaining as it has been misguided and pointless. Is there a war between economic conservatives and social conservatives? As someone actively involved in both social and fiscal issues, I’ve seen a lot of crossover between the two sides in terms of people who show up. This crossover is quite common. A leading economic conservative group, Club for Growth, often backed the same candidates as socially conservative groups like National Right to Life, Government Is Not God-PAC, and Focus on the Family Action. Newt Gingrich has begun to go around with slides showing that the most socially conservative members of Congress were also the most fiscally conservative.

I’m going to suggest an alternate conclusion. I’m going to reject the conventional wisdom that the election was lost because of the party grassroots and go out on a limb and suggest that maybe the problem is not the party’s activists. Perhaps (and I know this is shocking) the people who led the party over the cliff are the ones to blame.

The GOP doesn’t have a religious problem, a gay rights problem, or an abortion problem. It fundamentally has a good old boy problem. Let us tell the story of a primary, and we don’t have to name names, because the story is the same across the country.

Read the rest here.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

Frequently Mouthed Anti-Tea Party Talking Points

Posted by Adam Graham on April 17, 2009

There are many anti-tea party talking points going on out there, let me go ahead and tackle a few:

Talking Point: Obama has only been in office 86 days.  How can you protest him? He hasn’t been in office long enough to have even done any damage.

A: Under Obama’s watch we’ve seen a $797 billion Stimulus bill that’s a Pork-filled Christmas Tree to the left. In addition, his budget has come out and scorers at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say it will run up $9.6 Trillion in National Debt over 10 years.

TP: You idiots! Obama hasn’t raised your taxes! He hasn’t even raised taxes on the top 5%, you cretins! He’s cut your taxes.

A: I noticed the extra money on my pay stub and will send it to Republican causes.

In all seriousness, Senate Democrats are suggesting that Obama’s meager $12 a week tax cut be axed after 2010. In addition, Obama has already raised taxes on tobacco in order to pay for his S-Chip expansion. This hits working and middle income folks the hardest, as they make up the largest percent of smokers. Of course, it will be noted that they could and perhaps should quit, but you better pray they don’t because then your whole SCHIP program collapses like a house of cards if they do.

In addition, Obama’s proposals are full of expenses to the average American worker. His Cap and Trade deal will cost thousands to the average U.S. family in higher utilities.  More importantly, is the future taxes Obama is bringing on us through his reckless and unprecedented deficit spending that will increase future taxes exponentially, as well as devaluing our currency through incessant inflation.This will shrink the value of everyone’s savings and retirement.

Plus, on top of that, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is talking about implementing higher taxes next year, rather than in 2011. Either way, when higher taxes are implemented it will have the effect of driving investment and capital out of the country. Do you think we can handle that?

TP: Oh yeah, where were all you deficit hawks during the Bush Administration?

A:  As someone who personally spent 40 minutes scraping the Bush/Cheney 2004 Bumper Sticker off the back of my car-Shut up!

Conservatives were plenty ticked off under Bush. That’s why you had groups like Club for Growth challenging big spending Congressmen. You had the Porkbusters effort. Perhaps, the more common response though was a passive aggressive one. Republican campaign funds dried up, conservative voters didn’t show up at the polls in 2006, or to a large degree in 2008 either.

Of course, there were some people who chose to forget deficit spending during the Bush years. They usually defended this by stating we were in a War and pointed to the fact that deficits were at a sustainable level of under 3% of GDP, Obama’s deficits are in a much higher range that most economists say are completely unsustainable.

TP: Oh yeah, if you weren’t happy with Bush, why did most of you guys vote Republican?

A: Well, a lot of people did stay home or give “Blue Dog” Democrats who talked  like Republicans a chance to govern. The vast majority of these Blue Dogs turned out to be lapdogs that went along with the President’s irresponsible spending programs.

Others did stay home, but for those who voted for Republican, either: 1) they supported someone who was doing good work in Washington or 2) voted Republican because they had a sense of how bad the Democrats would do if given the chance.

TP: Hey Genius, I don’t see you raising any solutions.

A:

  • Abolish the IRS, the Payroll Tax, the Corporate Income Tax, and implement the Fair Tax. You’ll immediately alleviate the economy of a more than $300 billion compliance burden. You’ll also bring back foreign investment to the county.
  • Apply term limits to members of Congress. I suppose we could quibble on the details, but my guts says 2 Consecutive Terms for Senators, 4 for House Members.
  • Implement a line item veto to allow the President to veto wasteful government spending.
  • Pass a Balanced Amendment to the Federal Constitution.

TP: Ha! There are way too many Democrats in Congress for you to get any of that passed.

A: Not for long.

TP: Oh come on, America is laughing at you. Yesterday was the day conservatism died and the Republican Party ceased being a serious contender for winning elections.

A: The left is laughing, but America isn’t. Americans are concerned about this Administration’s run-away spending.  If you find an example of a political movement that suffered doomsday as a result of hundreds of thousands marching for its causes, please let me know.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

Why I’m Attending a Tea Party

Posted by Adam Graham on April 14, 2009

My latest Pajamas Media piece is up and I have to say of all the pieces I’ve written, it is probably among those that I’m the most proud of:

I’ve taken time off from work on April 15 to be at my local tea party. As the tea parties occur, the media will offer their spin on why people are there.

Large events like this are remarkable. In some ways, they’re comparable to baseball games, where you’ll find some people with an agenda aside from the game. If the media applied the same coverage to baseball games that it applies to tea parties, it would assume that, if someone gets through security and streaks across the field nude, most of the crowd are closet nudists.

Of course, most just want to see the game and have no interest in the streaker. Similarly, the streaker has no interest in the baseball game. He simply wants to streak nude in front of a large audience.

Like our baseball streaker, some at the tea parties will have their own agendas that have little or nothing to do with the cause for which most people are going to attend. Most would rather not be defined by the proverbial streaker, and I’m no exception. I’m not going to the tea party to make the case that President Obama is a Muslim born in Indonesia, to advocate secession from the union, or to explain how America’s problems are the direct results of actions by members of the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m not going as a Republican; I’m going as an American.

My party has let the country down with its massive overspending, corrupt career politicians, and willingness to play business as usual when it’s not called for. As much as I’m not a fan of the Obama administration, if he’s replaced in 2012 by a feckless Republican president with a feckless Republican Congress that believes only its own re-election, our country will be no better for it.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

In the Wilderness

Posted by Adam Graham on January 19, 2008

Conservatives must steel themselves to prepare for hard times ahead.

Click here to download, click here to add this podcast to your Itunes.

Try GotoMyPC free for 30 days! For this special offer, visit www.gotomypc.com/podcast

Posted in Future of Conservatism, Podcast | Leave a Comment »

Goodbye, Hans

Posted by Adam Graham on January 2, 2007

Hans Zieger, one of my fellow Renew America columnists is bowing out:

For a while, I have contemplated writing this column but haven’t had the full sensibility to do it yet. I began submitting columns online at age seventeen, back in the year 2002. I began the process with the hubris of a budding pundit and kept the habit until now, with a declining sense of the value of this kind of writing. Now I am twenty-one and about 21 percent half-educated.

I now know at least this: I don’t know enough to be weekly offering my opinions as though possessed of some eminence. There is a thousand times more sense in one of Seneca’s ancient moral sketches or Joseph Addison’s essays three hundred years ago than in the freshest columns I could put forth on any topic. Wisdom is better nurtured in the memorization of Solomon’s Proverbs than the attempt to produce new proverbs for the age of YouTube and iPod. The Bible is better for the soul than the morning newspaper…

Regret is not the word for lessons learned. I have learned that punditry, for all of its good sense every now and then, is not my calling.

I may write again, soon, but without regularity. And without the hastiness that is the temperament of the internet.

Well, the Bible is better for the soul than the newspaper for sure. But as the man said, “I read the Bible and the New York Times, so I know what both sides are doing.” :)

Hans has learned to be a class act gentleman and a credit to the scouts and his family. He’ll be missed and I’ll look forward to seeing what’s next for him.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

7 Reasons to Back John Cox for President

Posted by Adam Graham on December 18, 2006

After much thought and prayer over this election, I’ve accepted the position of Idaho State Coordinator for the John Cox Presidential Campaign. While this may seem a questionable move to some, I have my reasons:

1. John Cox is dedicated to the reduction of government spending and reforming the way Washington works. He believes in reigning in an out-of-control federal government. He also advocates passing the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Federal Constitution and a line item veto.

2. He understands we cannot reward those who break our nation’s laws and that we also shouldn’t create a permanent underclass in our country. He’ll say no to amnesty and to a guest worker program.

3. He’s 100% pro-life and pro-family.

4. As a CPA and investment professional, he understands the mess our nation’s tax and social security systems is in. He believes we need to get rid of the IRS with a Fair Tax and bring needed reform to Social Security.

5. John Cox has leadership experience in the private sector as a businessman who helped turn around a failing company in the ‘90s, served as president of his parish’s school, and a member of his public school council. He understands that all wisdom does not come from government. Given the utter arrogance of our politicians in Washington, this is a needed change.

6. He’s not a part of the political establishment. Both sides have created a mess, and I believe electing an outsider like Mr. Cox can be key to cleaning it up.

7. He’s shown himself a serious candidate. He’s invested his own money to start this campaign and to get his message out. He now has dedicated grassroots coordinators in thirty states, and it is more than a year until the first caucus. He has grasped the idea that those who wait until 2007 to start thinking about a run for the White House will not succeed.

He has placed the future of this campaign in the hands of the American people. It will be the American people who will decide whether to provide the financial support necessary to conduct a successful campaign. It will be the American people who will decide whether to vote for Mr. Cox. The candidacy of John Cox will rest on the reaction of the American people, not the dictates of party bosses.

Additional Thoughts

Some will consider this a pointless exercise. I can hear commenters typing already, “John Cox can’t win.” Of course many of these same folks were typing just a few short months ago, “George Allen can’t possibly lose in Virginia.”

I’m not going to claim that John Cox will have a cakewalk to the Presidency, or even that he’ll win. Unlike other political commentators, I make no claim as a clairvoyant. I don’t know what will happen in the next fifteen months or so. All I know to do is to support the candidate who best represents my values and beliefs, while leaving the results in the Hands of God.

We are only guaranteed to fail when we refuse to try. John Cox is building a grassroots organization to fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party in every state in the Union. He has committed to the cause of conservatism, and conservatives should respond in kind, by joining this effort to create a better Country for ourselves and our posterity.

Trackposted to Rightwing Guy, Perri Nelson’s Website, , third world county, The Random Yak, Planck’s Constant, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Dumb Ox News, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | 2 Comments »

Open Letter to Tom Delay

Posted by Adam Graham on December 17, 2006

Dear Mr. DeLay,

I’d like to begin by welcoming you to the blogosphere. I’m so glad you have discovered the power of this medium to communicate directly with the grassroots of America. I’m also glad to hear your rhetoric about a need for Republicans to return to first principles.

However, there’s an aspect of this whole business I find troubling. There’s no mention of your own record in Congress in all of this. While you used your skill as a Whip and leader to obtain the votes necessary to attempt to save the life of Terri Schaivo, and forever earned the scorn of Democrats by getting the US House in the waning days of the 106th Congress to call Bill Clinton to account.

Yet, your leadership skills were not always exercised for such noble purposes. In 2003, you worked with the White House to coerce members of Congress to vote for the Medicare Reform bill. You kept the vote open for hours to get this bill passed despite the fact it was the largest expansion of government since the Great Society.

It was only 15 months ago that, in the midst of $300 billion deficits, you stated that Republicans had been pared government down to size. Contrast that with your statement on Red State following the elections: “Further, our government has almost become a self-sustaining organism which continues to grow and propagate programs without accountability and without results for the people it is supposed to serve.”

How did what was “pared down to size” grow up to become an out-of-control self-sustaining organism in a mere matter of months?

In addition, while I do not believe there is merit to the indictments against you, you do deserve some of the blame for creating the atmosphere that allowed multiple scandals to plague the Republican Party through the influence of Lobbyists. The K Street Project had the net effect of creating a corrupt system where the power of special interests were magnified by a close allignment with Washington Power brokers.

Certainly, I, like most Americans, am forgiving. We’ve all made our mistakes and certainly power can blind people into making most regrettable choices. But, to go from a Majority Leader telling us that government spending is under control while working to secure Republican power on K Street, to declaring yourself a Grassroots Activists dedicated to reigning out of control spending, strains credibility and makes me doubt your sincerity.

Certainly, you’re not the only leader trying to recapture ‘90s magic without having to face past mistakes. Speaker Gingrich has been out decrying the out-of-control Congress when it was during his leadership, the House began to break the budget caps. Those of us with a memory are not impressed by such posturing. Not addressing this issue suggests that you’ve really learned nothing from your mistakes and given the chance, would repeat them.

If you’re going to help America, if you’re going to achieve anything worthwhile, then you need to come clean about the increasing the size of government while you were Majority Leader and the control lobbyists exercised over our government. Mr. DeLay, if you wish to be part of the solution now, you must admit you were part of the problem.

May you and yours have a blessed Christmas.

Sincerely,

Adam Graham

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Wake Up America, Rightwing Guy, 123 Beta, The Cutting Edge, The HILL Chronicles, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The Uncooperative Blogger ®, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, Dumb Ox News, and Culturetastic, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

The Rough Season for Politics

Posted by Adam Graham on October 14, 2006

This is the rough season for politics. I’ve invested a lot of myself in some of the campaigns out there including Bill Sali and the Keep the Commandments Campaign. As a Republican, I don’t like the idea of a Speaker Pelosi. Don’t like it with a passion.

Perhaps, the worst thing that happens this time of year is that politicians of all stripes act like the very future of mankind hinges on the result of the election. Sometimes, it’s like, “Didn’t I help save the World in 2004?” Mankind must truly be fragile.

On the other hand, I’m not going to that tempting other extreme. You know so many of the other blogs are full of the doom and gloom. Republicans to lose 30 seats, landslide, avalanche, etc.

So, rather I plug away and I do the best job I can do as a blogger and as an activist. I’m only one man and can do what I can.

So, I’m resisting the urge at pessimism, fighting the best I can for what I believe in, hoping for the best, and prepared for the worst. And that, I would hope would be everyone’s plan of action.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

How Liberals Face Their Doom

Posted by Adam Graham on September 20, 2006

Pam Spaulding has a post up on study that foretells the shrinking of liberalism. While the piece Pam linked to explained it well, the Opinion Journal gives a more complete picture:

According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That’s a “fertility gap” of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections.

What does the trend translate to?

Alarmingly for the Democrats, the gap is widening at a bit more than half a percentage point per year, meaning that today’s problem is nothing compared to what the future will most likely hold. Consider future presidential elections in a swing state (like Ohio), and assume that the current patterns in fertility continue. A state that was split 50-50 between left and right in 2004 will tilt right by 2012, 54% to 46%. By 2020, it will be certifiably right-wing, 59% to 41%. A state that is currently 55-45 in favor of liberals (like California) will be 54-46 in favor of conservatives by 2020–and all for no other reason than babies.

Libreals face their impending defeat many ways in Pam’s comments. We have denial:

While it may be true that conservatives are propagating at a greater rate, there’s no guarantee that their children will be conservatives.

Thus ignoring one of the central thesises of the the story that 80% do end up voting like their parents.

One person who labeled themselves anonymous came up with an alternate theory:

But if you focus on other things than having kids – writing novels, teaching, working in politics et.c. are you not then more likely to influence those around you?

As a parent you can influence your child’s party affiliation to 80% and as a non-parent you can influence 1000 persons party affiliation to maybe 0.5%?

The problem is that if you have too many people making that choice, you get in major trouble. The fact is worldview determines how these things get perceived, which is why many things very popular in liberal circles are unpopular in society as a whole. In addtion, few can be extremely influential authors and most novelists are never published. Having novels and havings babies are not mutually exclusive.

Others rely on “natural superiority”

I think there is more to maintaining relevance than simply pumping out offspring. Ingenuity and adaptivity–virtues liberals possess in abundance–can will out over simple numbers.

This article–and the way conservatives sometimes refer to the same issue in regard to “family values”–reduces human beings to simple animals. Haven’t we outstripped this reliance on simple “survival of the fitness” for our success?

Survival of the fitness? Who dragged Richard Simmons into this.

And another poster:

More proof that fundies still don’t understand the concept of evolution.

This actually shows liberals don’t understand what the theory teaches:

Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.

If one believes in evolution, than liberalism is one of those traits it’s trying to breed out of the gene pool.

Beyond that is the first poster’s arrogant assumption that Conservatives lack ingenuity or adaptability. But, sure, I guess the left can go with the, “We’ll survive deomographics because we’re just so clever.”

Our old buddy Russ theorizes:

So Utah breeds like crazy, huh? And urban environments produce more liberals? Great! So the Mormons breed like, well, Mormons, that makes Utah’s cities larger and larger, and therefore more liberal. Hooray!

Hasn’t worked out too well over the past 30 years. In addition to this, you have many Conservative cities out there. The difference with Red State cities is that there’s room for expansion, so people don’t become like caged rats. Also, many blue cities have centuries long liberal histories. They’ve simply harderened in that direction as liberals stayed (or moved in from elsewhere) and more conservatives left.

Then we’ve got a sane, reasonable theory:

Part of the reason that conservativism tends to predominate where there are more children is because having children leads to more conservative behavior.

Abortion is fine when pregnancy is only an inconvenient byproduct of sex, but much less so when you’ve lived through one and held its results.

Drug use and sex are fine when it’s someone else’s child, but less so when it’s your own.

Welfare makes less sense when it comes out of your paycheck and decreases your ability to provide for your kids’ own.

Raising property taxes on homeowners to pay for rent control and subsidized housing sounds like a great idea — until you become one.

Of course, there are liberals with children, however many ex-liberals will attest that moving rightward began with kids. But this provides one answers.

Of course, there’s also despair:

I’d been hearing about the fundie interns/political activists-in-training for several months but never in such detail.

Coupled with the higher birthrate and generational trend, here is my assessment of the future:

We. Are. Screwed…I’m moving to the UK, I swear!

And finally we have an attempt at spin:

As for the original article, everyone is missing a prime opportunity for spin control. The title to the article and links thereto really needs to read, “Red States: Breeding Like Hungry Rabbits Or Just Too Stupid to Use Birth Control?”

Of course, spinning won’t make the liberals’ problems go away. Perhaps, winning the culture war is as simple as holding the line, raising your children decently, and waiting for nature to take its course.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

Heal Our Land

Posted by Adam Graham on September 10, 2006

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.-2 Chronicles 7:14

This verse has been a favorite standby for years. Yet, it’s only recently that I’ve realized how much America needs it today. The thought of “healing our land” can often be viewed in terms of draughts, diseases, war, or economic suffering at home.

Our nation needs healing in a more profound way. In the course of our political debates, we’ve become two nations. One secular, humanistic, and hostile to religious faith outside the four walls of the Church. The other is theistic, or at least tolerant of a religious role in public life. One sees the greatest threat to our nation in the Bush Administration and the PATRIOT ACT, while the other sees the greatest threat in terrorists who seek to kill us.

My columns are most often advocating the view of the latter America. One thing haunts me in quiet moments. “A House divided against itself cannot stand.” Originally said by Christ and then quoted by Lincoln three years before the Civil War, the words echo in our political debates.

In years past, I’ve written of the need for common ground, but it hasn’t been forthcoming. Indeed, the gap between the two sides of the culture war swells by the day. And those who’ve stood as moderates are reaching the point when they must choose which side they’re on.

I’m not foolish enough to claim that in year’s past we all got along. Indeed, politics has been a contentious business, but never before in our nation’s history has the divide been so vast, so bitter, and so intractable.

Those who care about this divide often propose compromises, but when it comes to great cultural struggles, compromises are band aids that solve nothing, because the underlying problem still remains. A compromise over abortion or gay marriage would as little solve our cultural war as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 solved the issue of slavery.

Indeed, I would say there is no human effort that will long keep our nation safe from civil strife. From the harsh words posted on the Internet today, we will see even harsher deeds in years to come. We will fondly remember the days when physical assaults in politics were newsworthy. Dark clouds hover on the horizon, which have afflicted other lands. I see no aid in human wisdom, no hope in politicians who, election after election, promise to bring us together.

Five years ago, for a few days in the Autumn of 2001, we stood together, united by the most basic of instincts—survival and grief. Yet, it couldn’t last. We require far more to survive as a nation than short-term trauma or shared geography. We need to become a people once again.

But how does that happen? I see no way to resolve the differences. Certainly, there are ways to win the Culture War, but the bad thing about winning is you’re stuck living with the losers.

This has brought my mind back to 2. Chronicles 7:14. It is here we can find hope. Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention said, “I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel:”

At this time in our country’s history, my greatest prayer has become that God would turn and heal our divided land and make us one nation once again.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | 7 Comments »

Sad

Posted by Adam Graham on August 31, 2006

Ask me four years ago about Fred Thompson in 2008 and I’d say it was silly and he’d not be a great candidate. Brian Noggle had a meeting with his Republican-leaning relatives and the consensus was Tommy Thompson. Sad thing is that compared to most of the alternatives, (Exceptions: Pence and possibly Allen) Thompson sounds appealing.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

Taking Back the GOP

Posted by oatney on May 9, 2006

I have been asked by some folks what conservatives can do to take control of the Republican Party once again. The short answer is: Get involved, get REALLY involved.

Continue to do the things you are currently doing-be involved in the political campaigns of conservatives running on the local level in your area. Whatever you do, utilize the blog as a tool to get the truth out about issues. Many of you reading this blog already have blogs of your own. Use them to the advantage of the movement-and circulate your blog address among local party leaders. You’d be surprised at how effective this is-if you blog it, important people will read it-especially if they know your weblog address.

Use your blog as a springboard, then, to greater party involvement. Work or volunteer down at Party Headquarters. Run for Republican Central Committee and/or Executive Committee seats when they come open in your county or parish, or when you might be able to knock off a more liberal sitting Committee member. Above all, circulate your name in any way you can-let the Party know you are out there and you are ready to help, to lead, and to fight for the cause.

If we conservatives and Christians take a “bottom-up” approach to controlling the GOP, there is no reason to believe that we will not be able to one day nominate a real conservative for President.

Posted in Abortion, Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

Growth in Government Under “Conservatives”

Posted by oatney on May 8, 2006

A recent front page article in USA Today (I can’t link to it because it is in the paid archive) revealed that the economy was growing fastest in areas of the country where oil and government are the primary industries (nevermind that the phrase “government industry” is an oxymoron). Indeed, the United States is currently experiencing the most rapid growth in the size and scope of the federal government since the New Deal, and many pundits have been quick to point out that this level of growth in federal power and authority is far greater than the Roosevelt expansion of the 1930’s.

Since all of this rapid growth in government is happening under a so-called conservative administration and a Congress filled with Republicans, it poses the relevant question: Just how conservative is the administration? As I have pointed out, a lot of people are asking that question.

It is a fair question, since it is an established conservative principle that the government that governs best governs least, and that smaller government is always better government. Those Jeffersonian axioms are true on multiple levels, and since the days of Barry Goldwater they have been the bulwark of the conservative movement. It is reasonable to expect that real conservatives will live up to these ideas.

Under the Reagan administration, it was easy for conservatives to dismiss the growth of government because Reagan’s agenda was at the mercy of a Democrat Congress. However, when Bush was elected in 2000, I recall one friend of mine saying to me (on election night) “we control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, there is no excuse for fundamental change NOT to occur.”

Many will say “but 9/11 changed everything, we are at war.” We as a nation have not been called upon to sacrifice in a time of war-the President’s version of national sacrifice was to tell us to go shopping. Just because we are at war and need more military spending (which isn’t happening) doesn’t mean spending everywhere else can’t be curtailed (which also isn’t happening). These aren’t conservative messages.

And we wonder just why it is that 69% of conservatives think Congress is doing a bad job, or why the conservative base isn’t energized for this year’s Election. Perhaps it is because many are afraid to send a so-called conservative group to Washington that isn’t really conservative.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

GOP needs to show some muscle to regain grassroots public’s favor

Posted by avigreen on May 7, 2006

The Republican party has become surprisingly irresponsible in the past month, something which now jeopardizes its grassroots support base. David Limbaugh makes some good points on why the GOP is going to have to start showing that they’re not afraid to rebut their rivals in the Democractic party:

Based on their repeated behavior, these Beltway politicians couldn’t possibly comprehend the degree of angst, disgust and frustration swelling in the conservative base of the Republican Party.

The tepid, feckless reaction of Republicans to the Senate Democrats’ latest assault on President Bush’s judicial nominations is a perfect illustration of their recurring abdication. More and more they think like Democrats, act like Democrats and get in bed with Democrats. And why? Democrats do not come to them bearing gifts.

Like the unmitigated minority bullies they are, Democrats are threatening to filibuster White House aide Brett Kavanaugh, President Bush’s nominee for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Judge Terrence Boyle, his nominee for the 4th Circuit.

Democrats are grossly politicizing Kavanaugh’s appointment, using it as yet another platform to paint the administration as a sadistic torturer of terrorist detainees and an enemy of the 4th amendment through its NSA wireless surveillance program. Democrats are alleging that since Kavanaugh has been a White House staff member, he must have approved of these dastardly policies and must not be allowed anywhere near the federal appellate bench, where he would vote to constrict our civil liberties.

As for Boyle, Democrats are pretending to be concerned that he is riddled with conflicts of interest and has heard cases involving companies in which he had a financial interest. Sound familiar? Remember a few months ago when they made a similarly bogus charge against Judge Alito concerning his interest in Vanguard?

Senate Judiciary Committee members have a lot of gall to be throwing around ethics charges when the very substance of those charges is unfounded and fraudulent. Which is more unethical: for a judge to hear a case involving a party in which he has a financial interest, but whose interest cannot possibly be affected by the outcome of the case — as in Vanguard? Or, for United States senators to level unfounded allegations — bearing false witness — against judicial nominees of stellar character?

Senate Democrats have proven themselves to have no credibility when it comes to assessing the character of President Bush’s judicial nominees, who they routinely slander with actual malice — that is, knowing their charges are false, or having reckless disregard for whether they are true or false. When will Republicans quit tolerating this and begin to condemn these Democratic senators for their tortious conduct, quit trying to compromise with them and plow forward full speed ahead with these nominations?

Why would the Democrats’ filibuster threats even bother Republicans? They should welcome the showdown. And if Republican members of the Gang of 14 want to continue their charade of colluding with these obstructionists, target every last one of them for defeat in the primaries, no matter how secure their seats. Make them pay for defecting in the name of collegiality.

[…]

As I wrote at the time, the Gang of 14’s agreement that averted the Republicans’ invocation of the “nuclear option” was a great betrayal, because it legitimized judicial filibustering. Republican Gang members insisted the concessions they secured, such as the Democrats’ agreement to allow nominees Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and Priscilla Owen to get a full floor vote of the Senate — big whoop — outweighed any negatives. Plus, they boasted, Democrats agreed that henceforth they would only filibuster judicial appointees upon the existence of “extraordinary circumstances.”

Nonsense! As we knew at the time, “extraordinary circumstances” was undefined and left open to each member of the Gang to define for himself. Result: The judicial filibuster remained alive and well. And since that ignoble “bipartisan” treaty, we’ve seen the Democrats threaten the filibuster time and time again.

This cannot go on. The Republicans’ acquiescence to the Democrats’ demand for a delay on the hearings on these nominations is just another straw. When will the elephant’s back be broken? How long will Republicans continue to allow themselves to be walked on?

Limbaugh is correct. The Republicans should not be intimidated by the Democrats bully tactics. In fact, they shouldn’t be intimidated by the left-wing MSM either. Yes, of course it’s to be expected that the lefty media outlets would attack them for standing up to the Dems, or for taking a strong stand on serious issues. But even so, they shouldn’t allow this kind of intimidation to get them down.

And it’s not just their cowering to the Democrats themselves that jeopardizes their success in the fall elections for US Congress: if they make it seem as though they’re willing to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, as they almost did a few weeks ago before approving of funding to curb it, then they’re making it harder for people to vote for them, if they think that any members are sellouts. They have to be united on an issue, and to pay good attention to public polls and acknowledge what the public wants.

As if that weren’t enough, there’s also the case of president Bush approving of Dubai’s buying the Doncasters military manufacturing company, a sale which, in sharp contrast to the attempted sale of several US seaports, has gone by all but uncommented on in the media. As WND says about this:

So far, the Dubai acquisition of Doncasters has largely stayed below the radar in the U.S. media. Yet, the transaction clearly means the Dubai government would control two U.S. corporations that produce precision components for advanced weapons systems upon which the U.S. military depends.

Now this is just as dangerous and serious a matter as the seaport controversy, and it’s hard to understand why there haven’t been any serious protests so far. If the Republicans don’t start addressing this seriously, then that too can spell a serious electoral risk. One of the most important subjects in public opinion is state security, and if the Doncasters deal is dangerous – and it certainly is – then that’s why the GOP needs to confront and veto it in order to maintain their support base well, and to gain new supporters as well.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »

John McCain v. America

Posted by Adam Graham on April 30, 2006

Senator John McCain (R-Az.) crossed a line in a recent response to Don Imus. Without Imus asking about it, McCain responded to a critics attack on his campaign finance reform stance, “I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I’d rather have the clean government.”

Enough with all that, “Protect and defend the Constitution” stuff he swears to every six years. Oaths are cheap. We just need a government where the trains run on time. McCain believes the problem with our government is found in citizens expressing their viewpoints 30-60 days before an election.

McCain’s cavalier attitude towards our constitutional guarantee of free speech is the latest in a series of events this year that raise questions as to his fitness for the presidency. With all he does, McCain has an air of self-righteous arrogance. Everything he proposes is about reform, and woe to the man or woman who stands in the way of reform. McCain will not let peons in the Senate or among the American people stand against him. In a crystallizing moment in 2000, McCain proclaimed that he was “Luke Skywalker trying to get out of the death star.” He said everyone was out to get him, but that “We’re going to kill them. We’re going to win this election.”

I would suggest that the Senator bares a stronger resemblance to another Star Wars character, Senator Palpatine, who became the Emperor. Like McCain, Palpatine talked of reform and attacked the corruption and partisanship of a Senate beset more by ambition than the best interests of the people. Also, like Palpatine, McCain is willing to compromise fundamental rights to achieve his goals.

McCain is called many things: a maverick, a moderate, and a nut. Yet, in the White House, a man of his temperament is extremely dangerous. He’s a zealot, who views reform as above the Constitution, and believes that his ends justify the means. If he, as a member of Congress, cannot respect the limits of the Constitution, how can we expect him to as President?

Some will be aghast that I raise the question, after all the noble service he did for our country in Vietnam. That’s true enough, and I respect his service, but it doesn’t give him a pass. Look at world history. How many war heroes have become dictators? How many have come home only to destroy the freedoms of the country they defended?

The future of America is too important to risk on John McCain. I’m a Republican, but I’m an American first. A man who believes our government must be protected from the influence of the people, and that our constitution is less important than a smooth running bureaucratic machine, is unfit for the presidency or any other office. Whether he wins the nomination or not, John McCain will not have my vote in 2008.

Posted in Future of Conservatism | Leave a Comment »