Mattie's Conservative Rants...

We Need To Stop “Reaching Across The Aisle”

mattierants — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:00:32 +0000

This is a great article about how reaching across the aisle has been detrimental to the conservative/republican cause.

Here are a few examples (more in the article) and the link to the story below:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/how_to_get_your_hand_bitten.html

Prescription coverage under Medicare. Here the GOP took the Democrats’ words about health care and put them into action. President Bush reached out to Democrats and even got he cooperation and support of the American Association of Retired Persons. The result was the greatest expansion of entitlements since LBJ and bringing the day of Medicare insolvency closer. Yet the Democrats still got away with calling the Republican program too stingy. In the very next election the AARP went back to endorsing Democrats. And seniors mostly complained, voting Democrat in about the same numbers as always. To his credit, Senator McCain decided this was one bipartisan plan he could not support.

No Child Left Behind. President Bush teamed up with Ted Kennedy on this one. That is reaching way out to the other side. And how did that turn out? It was the greatest expansion of the federal government into K-12 education ever. Federal spending on education more than doubled from 2000 to 2006, and school choice had nothing to do with it — Senator Kennedy made sure of that. Yet the Democratic candidates running in 2008 campaigned to end it. Teachers’ unions and other education lobbies now give even more to Democrats than they used to: in 2000 they contributed 62% to Democrats; in 2006 and 2008 it was 72% and 79%. If education results are improving, it is hard to prove and even harder to prove that NCLB had anything to do with it.

Campaign Finance Reform. Here we had Senator McCain (R-AZ) teaming up with Senator Feingold (D-WI). It was passed in a Republican-majority Congress and signed by President Bush. Democrats and “reformers” loved it. How did that work out; is money out of politics? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama alone have raised and spent over half a billion dollars in this year’s presidential race. The total for all presidential candidates is well over $1 billion, and Congress is about another billion . Of the 15 top contributing industries, not a single one leans Republican. And Obama reneged on his pledge to take federal money instead of private, with nary a peep from those “reformers”. Now McCain is hamstrung in his ability to raise campaign cash because of his own CFR. Not to mention, the free speech clause of our Constitution has been weakened.

AmeriCorps. This program was created by President Clinton. Now here is a program with real results, as they self-report:

“Participation in AmeriCorps resulted in statistically significant positive impacts on members’ connection to community, knowledge about problems facing their community, and participation in community-base activities.”

Imagine that, half a million little Barack Obamas, activists and community organizers, trained by our own government, thus saving George Soros billions. Both President Bush and Senator McCain supported the expansion of AmeriCorps. Funny, though, I don’t read much in the newspapers giving credit to them for that.

International Aid. Our government spent 157% more on International Development and Humanitarian Assistance in 2006 than it did in 2000 . Amazingly, President Bush actually got some kudos for pouring $30 billion taken from US taxpayers into international AIDS efforts. Bono, the rock star, praised him in public and the news even made USA Today. That must be why Bush and the US are so loved and admired around the world today.

Good Riddance Mr. Shays…

mattierants — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:56:44 +0000

This has been touched on by many, many people, so I won’t belabor…

However, it is important to purge all these squishy RINOs from the Republican party. Conservatism did not lose this election (since it wasn’t even present). Moderates like Shays got their asses handed to them because they didn’t stand for anything. They weren’t real conservatives and they were a watered down version of democrats.

The idea that someone like Shays would presume to tell the Republican party how to win in the future is laughable.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/shays_looks_ahe.html

Gracious Losers?

mattierants — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:37:31 +0000

I started out the day like many conservatives… Thinking that by being gracious in defeat, we would prove we were the bigger of the two parties. After all, democrats can’t lose without demanding a recount and crying for 4 years about losing the election. At any rate, without delving any deeper into that sentiment it made me feel a little better.

Then I listened to Rush. I didn’t expect to agree with him on that particular point, but it started to make sense.

The only reason conservatives (and republicans) want to be gracious is so we could get along with the liberals… But why? Do we want them to like us? They’ll never like us! When in recent memory have they shown the tiniest inclination of trying to get along with conservatives.

Uh.. How about never?

The crux of the argument is that, even when defeated, liberals don’t go figuring out how they need to change to win back the vote. They stay every bit as repugnant and obnoxious as ever… Maybe more so.

Conservatives on the other hand always look at a loss as a signal that they need to change something.

That absolutely needs to stop.

Conservative principles are fundamentally sound already. The majority of the country favors conservative principles. Conservatism works. It works not only in government, but in life generally.

In electing Barack Obama, the country did not reject conservatism as the liberals will surely say.

IF anything, this is a telling indictment of President Bush’s actual attempt to govern from the center. All it really accomplished (regrettably) was getting him blamed by all sides for everything.

The democrats will not govern from the center. Reid and Pelosi promised to end the bi-partisan bitterness in Washington two years ago, and we know how that turned out.

They lied then and they are lying now.

Conservatives need to be unified and more agressive in getting their message out.

Most of all, we need to stop apologizing for being right!

Jeffrey Scott Sharpiro On President Bush

mattierants — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:52:04 +0000

I could have written this… This is an excellent op-ed piece in today’s WSJ.

OPINION

NOVEMBER 5, 2008

The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace

What must our enemies be thinking?

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.”

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president’s original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country’s current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, “We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman’s low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman’s presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years — and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry’s legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Post Election

mattierants — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:42:11 +0000

Well, Barack Obama is now our country’s president-elect, and quite frankly I’m very troubled by the implications of this.

First though, the silver linings:

1) Republicans maintained their firewall in the Senate. This could be the only thing that stops the advance of socialism with democrats in control. I only hope the spineless, non-conservative repubicans there don’t sell out capitalism.

2) We have a black president. No matter how much I disagree with basically every single policy he has discussed over the last 2 years or so, I think it says a lot about how far we have come as a country that we elected a black man. Does that mean we can move forward from here? One can only hope.

3) Al Franken didn’t win the senate seat in Minnesota! Minnesota has always been a blue state, but at least they didn’t make a joke out of the senate. I wish I could say the same for John Murtha’s house district in PA and Moran’s district in Northern VA. What the hell were those voters thinking?

4) Now the liberals get their chance to fix the economy. This should be good for a laugh, as they run it into the ground. Of course, we won’t be laughing when we’re paying skyrocketing energy prices and losing money in stock market crashes.

5) John McCain likely would have done more damage to the conservative movement. He would have been associated with it, while not really representing conservatism at all. Hopefully this will be a chance to regroup and rebuild. The liberals will screw up, they can’t help it. No matter what they think this election means, this is not an indication that the country is ready for extreme liberalism. Most voters chose Barack Obama on blind faith. They are trusting that he will govern from the center, despite his past record of radicalism.

Of course, Obama’s election is mostly negative as I view it. I admit it, I’m scared. For several reasons:

1) Socialism. Universal healthcare, redistribution of wealth, cap and trade, all programs designed to grow the size of, power of and control of the government over the lives of its citizens. I refuse to believe that government intervention is the answer to our societal problems. Democrats have long claimed to be for minorities and the poor, and have used race based quotas and welfare (among other programs, like the CRA) to keep these groups from escaping from any disadvantaged state they may have been in. Democrat controlled White House and Congress would seem to only continue more of the same.

2) Taxes. This follows right along with the Socialism thing. When did it become fashionable to penalize people for working hard and succeeding? Is it fair to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to give their money to people who haven’t earned it? The very idea that this will grow the economy is absolutely ridiculous. RIDICULOUS! This is the fastest way to kill the economy! Putting less money in people’s pockets will hurt retail sales, car sales, home sales, investments and most other things that generally create tax revenue and stimulate economic growth.

As far as this preposterous idea that 95% of people will get a tax cut, that’s just a big misrepresentation, and I feel like Obama duped 55 million people with “nuanced” language. These are just fully refundable tax credits. Also, I dont recall any mention of reinstating the Bush tax cuts, which gave tax relief to everyone (who actually pays taxes). When those expire in 2010, that will amount to an effective tax increase for everyone. Something he conveniently left out of the discussion.

There’s also no way he can pay for his stated spending plans by only raising taxes on 2% of taxpayers. Make no mistake, everyone will see higher taxes in his administration.

3) National Defense. In his acceptance speech, he promised to grow the Army and Marine Corps, but he’s also on video promising to cut military spending, discontinue nuclear programs and de-weaponize space. I’m not sure how to reconcile these. Add this to the fact that he has an extremely naive idea that he’s a smooth enough talker to dissuade countries like Iran from wanting to wipe us off the map and the future looks bleak for the security of our country. It will probably look a lot like a Carter or Clinton administration in that respect. And the only smart (or true) thing that Joe Biden has ever said is that this administration will be tested and make the wrong decision. I guess we can sit back and wait for that.

4) Freedom of Speech. For all the stupid complaints about President Bush’s “police state” and “fascism”, Obama did some things in this campaign that are downright scary if you stop to think about them.

When Stanley Kurtz went on Milt Rosenberg’s talk radio program in Chicago to talk about his research into Obama’s tie to terrorist Bill Ayers in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The Obama campaign didn’t have time to send a representative, but did have time to send out a call to his supporters to call the show and ask them to take the broadcast off the air and to protest the station for allowing Kurtz to be on the program. I listened to the broadcast and heard caller after caller say that they needed to “stop the smears”, but when asked by Rosenberg or Kurtz to refute any of the details discovered in the research, no one was able to. They blindly carried out an order to attempt to crush an opposing viewpoint, never questioning whether it was legitimate or fact based. And libs say President Bush is a facist?

We all know Joe the Plumber by now. He’s the guy who recieved an unsolicited campaign visit from Obama and wound up exposing his beliefs on wealth redistribution. His only “crimes” in this situation were getting Obama to admit to socialist tendencies, and then holding conservative values himself. What happened next should be considered a travesty by the same people who oppose FISA (which is for monitoring terrorists, by the way). Reporters and members of the local government picked Joe’s life apart. They looked into his tax records and a gov’t employee in Ohio did an illegal inquiry into his child support records. Is this the treatment an average citizen can expect if dare to speak in dissent of the Obama administration? And libs say President Bush is a facist?

Barack Obama ran many campaign ads bashing McCain, but when a 527 group ran an ad linking Obama to terrorist Bill Ayers, Obama’s campaign tried to bring the weight of the US Department of Justice to stop the ad. This ad was paid for by a private citizen, but contained unflattering factual information. Instead of trying to refute the ad, the first reaction was to use an arm of the federal government to silence this person. And libs say President Bush is a facist?

5) Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Here’s another issue where his past voting record and campaign rhetoric don’t add up. I don’t know what to say about this other than this troubles me to. I also think that, much like creeping socialism, this will be one of those issues where they chip away, banning one or two types of firearms, one or two calibers of ammunition at a time until gun laws are completely restrictive.

6) The Supreme Court (and Federal Courts). Obama is a “Constitutional scholar” who believes the Constitution is “fatally flawed.” Obama said at the Saddleback forum that the one justice he would not have appointed to the Supreme Court is Clarence Thomas. So by rejecting someone who rules based on the Constitution, we can begin to get a picture of the kind of judges he would appoint. He has a preference for judges who base rulings on such things as race and financial situation, rather than the law.

7) Honesty. Barack Obama lied to the American people right off the bat. He reneged on his promise to accept public campaign financing. This allowed him to raise unprecedented amounts of money. Now, because he was a democrat, he “revolutionized campaign finance.” Good thing he wasn’t a Republican, or some might have accused him of buying the election.

He lied about his association with Bill Ayers. He lied about John McCain’s healthcare policies regarding cutting medicare. He lied about the Heritage Foundation endorsing his tax plan over McCain’s. He lied about his voting record on abortion.

It didn’t matter what the issue was. He looked for the majority of public opinion and carefully shifted his position to whatever that was, no matter his positions in the primaries or his past voting record.

We don’t know what his policies will actually be until he takes office, but given his track record on the campaign trail, I find it difficult to believe anything he says. I’ll wait for the actions.

8) Relationships and bad Judgement. Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pflegher, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dhorn, Rasheed Khalidi, Tony Rezko. I’m sure there’s more I’ve forgotten, or that the public doesn’t yet know about. These are a few of the people that Barack Obama has used to advance his political career. The problem is that many of them are vehemently anti-American. I don’t know how this didn’t get any scrutiny from the media (well, yes I do) or the people who blindly screamed for change (again, yes I do). When the good folks in talk radio started talking about it and Obama was questioned, he said each time, “That’s not the that I knew.”

He didn’t pay attention to the hate spewed by Wright for the 20 years he sat in his church. Nevermind that he had Wright officiate his marriage and baptize his kids. All without knowing what Wright’s fundamental belief’s were? They were never a secret! Obama has called Wright the best the black church has to offer. He said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community or his grandmother. Then, when it became a slightly bigger issue, he said “That’s not the Jeremiah Wright that I knew,” and left the church. It’s noteworthy that Wright never hid who he was, and even said that Obama was a politican and saying whatever he needed to say.

Every one of these associations demonstrates either very poor judgement or an intentional association with people who share his views. I don’t believe he’s dumb or naive enough to not know who these people were or what they represented, but if he didn’t initally sympathize with their points of view, he sold out his values to be elected. I just don’t completely buy that though. In your own life, you can probably see that the majority of people you associate with are people who share (at least most of) your fundamental beliefs.

Conclusion

I believe that out of an irrational hatred of President Bush, a majority of the electorate voted blindly for a candidate that promised hope and change. I say blindly because he experienced no scrutiny of his positions, values, associations, record or history. Many voters were swayed by bumper stickers and platitudes with no substance to back them. Obama was very slick and fooled many people with his talk of tax cuts for 95% of people and affordable health care for everyone.

Americans believed, falsely, that the President and Republicans were responsible for high energy prices and the recent economic downturn.

We experienced 6 years of economic prosperity despite a war. All that came to an end with the Deomcratic majority in Congress, though other problems can be traced back to democratic presidents. Democrats blocked any reform of Fannie and Freddie, arguably one of the biggest factors in the trajectory of today’s economy.

As I’ve said, I don’t kow what Obama will ultimately do in office, but I will hope that he doesn’t do what every indicator in his past says he will do and be an ultra-liberal president with ultra-liberal majorities in the only institutions that can proved a check on him.

The only thing we can do now is wait and see.