 |
| ||
|
||||||||
|
May 21, 2008 Is 2008 to be a Transformational Election?By J.R. DunnWe hear talk of a transformational election, like that of FDR in 1932 and Reagan in 1980. An election that imposes a new political template across the country as a whole. Or in this case, reimposes it, since the "new" template would in fact be nothing more than another repetition of FDR's New Deal socialism and water. Republicans appear to concur. Newt Gingrich, back from wherever it is aging revolutionaries go, has directed the GOP (following close consultations with Madame Hillary) to change its ways to match new realities. A frightened Republican leadership has duly echoed him. No alternative has been suggested. There's little to do, it seems, but prepare for the deluge, and make plans to rebuild once the inevitable retreat begins. This contention has become so widespread that it's achieved the status of a received truth, with the danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there's one problem with it: if the American left is in such great shape, why are all their programs collapsing? The left moves by distinct and separate campaigns, a remnant of its origins as a revolutionary movement during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Overriding goals exist, but progress in fulfilling them is marked by limited, precisely targeted efforts carefully mapped out and executed for a particular effect. Some last only a few months, others a year or so, some for several years. For a time, they become the focus of general effort, widely discussed in the media, on the Net, and in offices, coffee shops, and diners across the country (it's always fun seeing grassroots lefties become "experts" on topics they'd never heard of a month earlier when one of these campaigns starts rolling). The same slogans are uttered, the same factoids repeated. Often conservatives play a valuable role by debating the issue on prepared ground, responding precisely the way leftists guessed they would. Al Gore's global warming is a perfect example, a long-term program designed to push several separate agendas -- political control, economic centralization, and the Green worldview -- under the umbrella of "saving the planet". In environmentalism alone we have had endless campaigns of this type, involving electromagnetic fields, Alar, dioxins, PCBs, acid rain, global cooling, and overpopulation all the way back to the Ur-campaign attacking DDT. The same process can be found in any field in which the left is active, including foreign policy, health care, the economy, law, race relations, and onward. There are inevitably several such efforts going on at once, and when we look at the current batch, we find, remarkably enough, abject failure across the board. Iraq has set the tone. The American left intended to ride the Iraq "disaster" to victory on all fronts, giving them a lock on political power unseen since the beginning of the Reagan era. That dream ended with the success of General David Petraeus's surge strategy, which rousted Al Queda in Iraq with humiliating swiftness and thoroughness. Mention of Iraq then became scarce in the media and among left-of-center politicians. There was a flurry of excitement a few weeks ago with "failure" of the Iraqi government's effort against the Shi'ite militias in Basra and Sadr City. But it lasted only days until it became apparent that something else was going on: that government forces were in fact engaged in a "cut and reduce" strategy, in which limited objectives are taken one after the other, rather than the swift, once-and-for-all sweep characteristic of Western forces. This is a common technique in Eastern warfare (Byzantium was conquered in exactly this fashion), and one that appears to work: Moqtada al-Sadr, the chief irritant, has steadily given ground, and the recent "truce", utilizing the good offices of Iranian middlemen, was effectively dictated by the Maliki government. Iraq is one step closer to pacification, and once again unsuitable for public discussion among decent people. (The American media has consistently misread Iraqi intentions and capabilities throughout this war, discussing the government and people as if they were average Americans and events were taking place in the area around Dubuque.) But it didn't end with Iraq. In fact, the past year has seen a general collapse of liberal programs unmatched since the 60s and one that may well be unprecedented in such a short span of time. Global Warming was one of the more successful efforts at Green propaganda over the past decade, one that has paid a number of dividends (including financial). The science underlying warming was simplistic and badly worked out, and could not be expected to prevail for any extended period (e.g., the claim that CO2 was a major driver of global temperature, when in fact such elements as solar radiation, earth's orbital variations, and water vapor are all more important). The facts caught up with global warming last year. It became common knowledge that the earth's temperature had remained constant since 1998, a problem compounded by a sudden drop in global temperature of nearly a degree and a half Fahrenheit. Neither development was predicted by any climate researcher's model, nor could they be made to fit any accepted warming theory. The only alternative was the desperate adaption of an argument derived from a recent scientific paper released by the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, contending that the Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillation is holding temperatures down and will continue to do so until at least 2015. (Just in time to save the polar bears, too.) Though warming advocates will not admit it, this represents a surrender flag -- what kind of overwhelming, universal climatic determinant is overthrown by a single oceanic variation? A more convincing explanation lies in the "quiet sun" thesis -- the contention that we're moving into a lengthy period of reduced solar activity. A few more cold winters will tell the tale. Ethanol -- in its own way an offshoot of the warming panic, ethanol represents the latest "solution" to an environmental menace. None of these have ever been made to work (past environmental problems have almost universally been solved through conventional means), and ethanol is no exception. In short form: mandates for ethanol in gasoline to fight "global warming" and ease U.S. oil imports. The percentage of corn so used grew to one-third of last year's harvest. Coming during a shift in global agricultural markets and amid several unrelated agricultural difficulties, the ethanol mandates triggered a worldwide rise in grain prices that nearly doubled the cost of food in the U.S. and, far worse, created near-famine conditions in a number of marginal nations. It has become clear that the entire effort is little more than a gesture -- ethanol cannot lower atmospheric CO2 (quite the contrary, according to some studies), and cannot replace any substantial amount of imported oil. But it is a gesture that threatens lives, and as such comprises a serious political scandal. The U.S. relieves famines, it does not cause them. An action that reverses this expectation is an action that will have to be answered for in the public sphere. We have not heard the last of the ethanol scandal. The "Recession" -- like global warming, the Great Recession of 2008 is a catastrophe that has not lived up to its billing. The economy is often a winner for American liberals (somewhat mysteriously, considering their actual history of economic ineptitude). Talk of recession began last summer, in the midst of a 4.9% economic growth rate, and continued through the new year. Signs of economic distress due to loose credit policies were taken as clear evidence of the "recession's" arrival. George Soros and both Democratic candidates -- Madame Hillary in particular -- hailed it as something along the lines of the Second Coming. They were echoed by almost the entire legacy media (Particularly the AP's Jeannine Aversa, who has been awarded legendary status by NewsBusters and the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web as the Cassandra of the third millennium. There wasn't a single dip that Aversa didn't see as a "chasm", a bad day in the market that wasn't a "nightmare", a slowdown that didn't become a "collapse". Somebody should give her a reality show.) A classic recession was unlikely for a number of reasons: recessions are rarities during wartime. It would also be unusual for one to occur little more than five years after the last. Nor do recessions usually spring from weaknesses in a single sector. And as the year has progressed, so the specter of a full-blown recession has receded. The growth rate remains an anemic but still positive 0.6. The unemployment rate remains below average historical levels at a little over 5% The Dow Jones industrials has consistently remained in the 12,000 range, inching its way back up to 13,000. Onlookers of such varied backgrounds as Robert J. Samuelson, Lawrence Kudlow, and John Lott agree that no recession has as yet occurred. (Though Kudlow did hedge at one point in April.) An economic slowdown is another story, one that would have served Democratic purposes admirably. But instead they played the recession card and are now stuck with it. We could go one to other, less critical ploys: the claim for mounting American unpopularity on the international scene, which doesn't look quite so compelling with the elections of Sarkozy, Merkel, and Berlusconi. Or the very public and utterly unwarranted humiliation of Colombia and its government, which, with the exposure of Democratic ally Hugo Chavez as aggressor and terror sponsor, could very easily be turned into an issue. This is what the GOP is running against: people who want to lose a war, who are keeping alive an environmentalist scam, who (as a byproduct of that scam) have created conditions of serious hunger across the world, and who would not mind seeing a recession in the U.S., no matter how many people it hurts. How do you lose against a hand like this? You lose by throwing your cards down and collapsing under the table whining about being forced to play at all. That's what the GOP is doing -- it can't be described in any other way. This paralysis is nothing new; it was more than evident in the pre-2006 GOP congress (if a single useful measure -- say, a bill addressing illegal immigration -- had been passed in 2006, the GOP would likely have not lost all those seats). Republicans have never been willing to play the political game by real-world rules. If this list of liberal felonies were extended backward -- say, to the 1960s (and what a job that would be!) -- how many of them would the left have been forced to answer for? A handful, at best. And those almost exclusively by individuals such as Ronald Reagan and the younger, vital Newt Gingrich, seldom by the GOP as a whole. Almost without exception, liberals have been allowed to take utterly obnoxious stances -- supporting the Viet Cong, abolishing DDT, undermining U.S. efforts against the Soviets -- and after they blow up, simply brush themselves off and walk away. They are never called to account, never made to explain themselves, never forced to mount a defense. Look once again at Iraq. Liberals were wrong about the war, wrong about Al-Queda, wrong about the Iraqi people, the government, and most recently, wrong about the Shi'ite militias. And they were wrong in a way that exacted a clear price, one that undermined the efforts of their own country, encouraged its enemies, and cost the lives of many innocent bystanders. Yet no one in the political sphere (partially excepting Joe Leiberman) has challenged them on it. Both Obama and Hillary are still repeating the same nonsense about immediate, unilateral retreat, based on mythology that was never true and has been disproven a dozen times over. And they will go straight into the general election saying the exact same thing, well aware that no one will call them on it. The American left is not made to eat its failures. This must change. The only entity capable of forcing that change is, unfortunately, the Republican Party. So the GOP must take steps: it needs to shed its invertebrate qualities and become an opposition party worthy of the name. To give up its sense of entitlement, which wrecked both George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole and will wreck John McCain if allowed half a chance. To cease expecting anybody to hand them victories, to stop running from the fight, to stop ducking the sharper aspects of politics. To start playing the political game the way it has to be played. The Democrats deserve to hurt for the actions they take and the stances they embrace. (A simple way of doing that would be to nail both Democratic candidates on the ethanol question.) This year offers an excellent opportunity. The recent liberal record represents unusual failure, incompetence, and inhumanity, even by their customary standards. If the GOP can't make an impact with that kind of material, they'll never make an impact at all. J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker. |
Recent Articles
Blog Posts
|
|
||
Comments
Wow, J.R., outstanding piece and great advice!
DKK
Posted by: LifeTrek | May 21, 2008 01:59 AM
I am beginning to fully understand the plight of those who lived under the Weimar Republic: that feeling of utter helplessness as irresistible forces of evil sweep the land...
Posted by: William F. Naegele | May 21, 2008 02:16 AM
I could not have said it better. It is far past the time when conservatives and/or real Republicans take a stand and make the "Left" pay ("eat its failures") for their failed programs and positions. Republicans should be beating the Dems over the head with these failures and outright lies.
Posted by: Jerry | May 21, 2008 03:12 AM
This article is right on. Why are the Republicans afraid to stick the facts right in the eye of the Dems?
Call them on their lies and distortions.Are there no proud and principaled people left in our party?
Posted by: Dave Ash | May 21, 2008 04:52 AM
Is this article a joke / sarcastic piece or election material to rouse the sagging shoulders of comrades?
If you can open your eyes and see for yourselves, Global warming is for real; Iraq will be better, the day America leave them - the sooner the better; this recession is as much the work of the american rich's greed than any of the other factors; Ethanol is NOT and WILL NOT be the solution to cleaner or cheaper fuel ...
please stop living in your utopia and step into the real world which has been quite destroyed by Bush ...
Posted by: Anon | May 21, 2008 07:47 AM
What about ILLEGAL immigration?????
Posted by: Scott Prigge | May 21, 2008 07:50 AM
The hopeful doomsterism we see from the left is projection of their self-loathing of their own inner spiritual and moral chaos.
Posted by: Ed | May 21, 2008 07:58 AM
Great piece. It is unclear whether the GOP will understand the implications - they seem to have lost their vision.
Posted by: DrTaxSacto | May 21, 2008 08:10 AM
Mr Dunn, you are a credit to the conservative movement. This litany of progressive failures, coupled with the lament of GOP ineptitude, will be further disseminated over the airwaves. Unfortunately, writers and pundits go only so far. From whence comes the next wave of effective leadership?
Posted by: Hunterbyrd | May 21, 2008 08:28 AM
Pres. Bush has tried desperately to bring civility to Washington. John McCain has issued orders to all (or is it just Republicans?)that all personal attacks must cease. If our top people won't stand up how can we? Except to withhold campaign funding from our guys in the hope they will start considering our opinions. A futile hope since McCain seems to be more intent on teaching us a lesson.
Posted by: Verne Voelker | May 21, 2008 09:35 AM
Great article, Mr. Dunn, but you commit a common error when you refer to Ms.Aversa as a "Cassandra of the third millenium." Cassandra's curse was that though no one believed her dire predictions, THEY WERE ALWAYS TRUE. Thus, by referring to someone as a Cassandra, you are in fact conceding the truth of her statements, something I don't think you meant to do.
Posted by: Duncan Dana | May 21, 2008 10:07 AM
'if a single useful measure -- say, a bill addressing illegal immigration -- had been passed in 2006, the GOP would likely have not lost all those seats'
You can thank McCain and his supporters Cornyn and Kyl. Not only did they both introduce bills that would legalise 12 million illegal aliens (McCain's bill was even dubbed an amnesty), but also they were flawed in a worse way: neither of the two addresses the issue of future legal immigration. Neither of these two Senate bills has made any provision whatsoever for future immigrants to legally settle in America. That means that not one of them has created any new legal way for prospective immigrants (those who don't yet live in the US, but want to immigrate there). And that is a liberal policy, not a conservative one.
All Americans need to hear the truth, i.e. that as long as America remains a vibrant country (and one inhabited by many beautiful women :) ), there will always be many immigrants who will want to make the US their new home. It's inevitable, and nothing, not even a border fence, can change that. The only solution is to deport all illegal aliens WHILE WELCOMING NEW LEGAL MIGRANTS.
Of the current three presidential candidates, none have yet admitted this on their webpages.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 21, 2008 10:10 AM
The Left definitely does not seem concerned with the past. They say and do whatever works for the moment. Assuming the Dems take back the White House and Congress, it will be interesting to see if Harry Reid is still a believer in the "balance of power in our government", as he described it.
Posted by: Matt Rush | May 21, 2008 10:12 AM
Mr Dunn,
I agree with you and think most right thinking conservatives share your viewpoints. The trouble is, we already felt that way before reading your article.
Until conservatives come up with some sort of strategy to retake - or at least put up a fight in - the Academy I think we'll continue to be slowly swept to the left.
We've done a good job with the media, (Fox, Rush, American Thinker, et al), but there's really no corresponding success in education.
You send a reasonable, well raised child off to almost any college in the U.S. and four years later you've got a Marxist, multi-cultural, eco-fanatic on your hands...
Posted by: David Bueche | May 21, 2008 10:12 AM
this is brilliant analysis, but your final statement is the most telling. if the recent past is any indication, no one in republican party leadership is listening.
in spite of the left's failures, the g.o.p. has followed the democrats down each dead-end road. john mccain is possibly the best example of this tendency as he mimics the left on environmental and immigration issues. he provides no alternative to liberal lunacy.
Posted by: marty nickel | May 21, 2008 10:56 AM
I'm a bit surprised at the immediate impact of ethanol. I guess food riots are one thing that can instantly penetrate even the skull of the Marxist. But that is just the pilot hole through which the augur of Global Cooling is about to pass. McCain going all CO2phobic is a real dissappointment but if you believe the solar cycle was causing warming and now is causing cooling, well, I don't think we have to worry too much about the long term political effects regardless of what our pols say now. This mania may yet deliver the atomic future we should have had in the '60s. Facts, as a fine man said, are stubborn things. A thermometer reading is a fact only amenable to so much distortion. Even by McCain
Posted by: megapotamus | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM
The reason that none of this liberal idiocy has been pointed out to the electorate can be summed up in one world; leadership. Right now the Republican party has none. There appears to be no one that can rouse the conservative base into action. John McCain is certainly NOT that man.
Posted by: Dennis | May 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Very well written. How I wish we had a candidate who would call a shovel a shovel, a hoax a hoax and a liar a liar. Common sense has left the building and the inmates are running the asylum. While Senator McCain was not my choice for the Republican nominee, I pray that neither of the Democrats running for nomination are allowed to further the Socialist agenda. I believe the majority of Americans are longing for a President who tells it like it is, not in grandiose speaches but who simply tells them the truth and refutes the liberal lies.
Posted by: Bill Moulton | May 21, 2008 12:00 PM
JR, as always a great post by a great mind.
Has the time yet come to coalesce the conservative movement? How much longer must we endure the"invertibrate" Republican Party with the likes of John McCain? Will we ever see another strict constructionist as the leader of our nation, or must we continue to witness the continued degradation of our government with narcissistic, power hungry, grandstanding individuals like Chuck Shumer?
BTW, are you finished with your book? Will be looking for an autographed copy when it's published.
And Thomas, some of these post posts are way out of line. But what can you expect from idiot liberals? They can be really be obnoxious, can't they? I guess it's better to expose them for who they really are and how stupid they can be. Like, it's all Bush's fault. Get a life!
Posted by: Fredrick W Smith | May 21, 2008 12:05 PM
Thank your for this article. It sums up very nicely the political lay of the land and exposes "hiding under the table" attitude of our current Republican leaders.
On the comment from Dave Ash..Dave, you have proven this statement from the article:
"The same slogans are uttered, the same factoids repeated."
American Thinker is a place where you need to back up what you say.
Thanks.
Posted by: Peter Hale | May 21, 2008 12:20 PM
(Dave)Ash is a robot! He's a damn robot!!
Posted by: sestamibi | May 21, 2008 12:29 PM
Mr. Bueche made the point I was going to make. In today's politically correct environment, what chance do Traditionalist parents have? You raise your child to respect others points of view, and far left liberal professors ruin in 4 years what took 18 years to instill. Thank God my sons chose to further their higher learning in the military. It just might be interesting to see O elected president. If I wasn't so fearful for the future of my country, it would be fun to watch him crash and burn when all the young people wake up and figure out he isn't going to do squat for them.
Posted by: Pam Littleton | May 21, 2008 12:35 PM
Excellent article and great insights into what the GOP must do! This should be distributed to all Republican congressmen and GOP leadership. This is indeed how the 2008 election and future strategies must be approached. Keep spreading this message PLEASE!
Posted by: OrthodoxNet | May 21, 2008 01:49 PM
Great article! As a refugee from Communist oppression, I get extremely frustrated at the success Marxists/ socialists have had in advancing their totalitarian agenda under the Democrat Party's self-proclaimed assertion as the party of compassion, equality and justice, when in fact these are code words for anti-Capitalism, anti-individualism and anti-freedom. As long as the GOP keeps its head in the sand and does not forcefully challenge these illiberal liberals, the country's leftward tilt will continue unabated. God help us.
Posted by: ecpnc | May 21, 2008 02:53 PM
The offending post is anonymous, not by Dave Ash. Where are our Lefty tormentors anyhow? "Global warming is for real"... this guy is not getting the most current memos.
Posted by: megapotamus | May 21, 2008 03:14 PM
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If Congress had passed one useful bill such as the one on illegal immigration (I assume you meant McCain-Kennedy) the GOP wouldn't have lost all those seats? Many seats were lost to Democrats who promised an even stricter stand than the Republican candidate. Maybe if George Bush had vetoed a few bills and saved the Congressional Republicans from their own excesses it might have been different. Things like the Medicare drug program, as popular as it is, aren't going to help us in the future.
The Left's issues might be losing steam but then why is George W. Bush going along with them? He's joined the Global Warming cabal right at the moment the issue should have gone on the ash heap.
The recession that won't happen? There's a saying that when my neighbor loses his job we're in a recession. A lot of neighbors are losing their jobs to overseas operations. I won't even call it competition because there is no way a middle class American can compete with someone in Asia who will do the same job for twenty cents on the dollar. Rising stock prices might be good for retirees and even for an unemployed worker's 401(k) but they won't pay his monthly bills. Where are the jobs? The only good ones that are left are paid for with tax revenue. Where will that come from in ten years?
If it's not a recession then people are still slowing down. Housing, the last strong sector of the economy, is in freefall. Restaurants in northern NJ are seeing huge cuts in business. People don't have money to throw away. If this is a service economy then it's a bad one because some services are optional but they are also someone's livelihood. I can cut back on spending but then my neighbor loses a job because there's no more money coming in. Watch the dominoes fall.
Think 1974. Would the Democrats have gained all those seats in Congress if not for Watergate? Republicans had been in the ascendancy since the late 1960s. The 1974 election gave Democrats a huge majority in the House, which they held for twenty more years.
You're looking at national issues but Tip O'Neil said all politics is local. A lot of people around the country are hurting, even if the author isn't. They see George Bush and his cavalier attitude and say what have the Republicans done for me? They'll go into the booth and pull the level (just a metaphor) for the Democrat. They'll vote anti-incumbent. See where Republicans are in 2010.
This might be the Democrats' race to lose and they might very well lose it but it won't be because Republicans deserved to win. They don't. They've sold us out. Wall Street might be in euphoria. This Republican on Main Street is filled with utter contempt for the people who stole the American dream from many of us.
They've hollowed out our economy and they think it will last forever. FOOLS!
Posted by: Pat | May 21, 2008 05:09 PM
How about supporting Free Republic? Their goals look feasible to me and I don't know what else to do at this point. CHeck it out:
http://padre-island.us/padre-island.us/publicfolder/FRphase/hopefulpatriot/goal.htm
Posted by: jackncoke | May 21, 2008 05:54 PM
From this vantage point, the largest mistake made by the GOP was to mis-read the last round of elections -and believe the main stream media.
Republicans were not voted out for being conservative, they were tossed out on their ears for not being conservative enough, or at all.
That Republicans were launched out of office caused a mad rush to the middle -and they overshot... still believing they are moving in the right direction.
Like my friend Andy said, "They need to sack up, and get the job done."
I'd would like to know why there is a 1 to 1 relationship between Nancy Pelosi's blocking the Columbian aide package by changing the rules and the promises made by the "gringos" to FARC?
What did Barack know, and when did he know it about his name being mentioned in their computer documents?
Was he aware Dem gringos were down negotiating in his name with known murdering terrorists?
I wonder if any money changed hands between Hugo Chavez and Nancy Pelosi / Barack Obama's campaign.
Maybe thats why they all went nuts when GW Bush gave his speech on appeasement -they thought he was going to give an example.
-Tom
Posted by: Tom from Trollhammer | May 21, 2008 07:45 PM
Hmm...rousing article and certainly thought-provoking. I'm unclear about the nature of your attacking leftists and liberals. Because they make bold claims and use events as symbols for a nation based on opportunism to rally behind...? Both sides do that. It's unfortunate our political process has defaulted to a two-party system, and everyone must flock to the various flavors of left or right, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, but pinning failure to so large a group is not constructive. It's an activity that requires a scape-goat, rather than a solution that works best for everyone. What would be instructive, rather, is to mark how the values and actions of each side are part of a process that shapes American political process as it unfolds through the centuries. For the people who want planetary cleanliness and care for people abused by aggressive economic expansion: you get left-democrat-liberal as the only demographic. This whole movement is played counterpoint by its right-conservative-republican partner in politics, that wants economic growth, hawk-like foreign policy, and strong independent Spartan-like citizens to keep the machinery that is the life-blood of our economy chugging like a well-built, antique-classic automobile. But your comments of scandals are valid: speaking nothing but the truth is commendable. The liberal sector has been weak, it seems, for some time: and too fragmented by too many bleeding causes. They are occupied and concerned, not mobilized. And now they are mobilizing during a well-fought primary election. I wish our country well in the trials the WHOLE WORLD is facing.
Posted by: Anna C | May 21, 2008 07:49 PM
What a threadbare argument.
How could the GOP possibly hold the Democratic presidential candidates responsible for the "ethanol question" when the bill was signed by the Republican president and supported by numerous farm state Republicans. Also, since when did the GOP take an anti big farm attitude?
Posted by: Frank McCarthy | May 21, 2008 09:30 PM
You make wonderful and cogent points....but the problem is, Democrats win the battle for hearts and minds because they own the "emotional" argument. Those few brave conservatives left who dare to engage in debate have two strikes against us: a viscerally hostile media, and factual, but hard to emotionalize arguments. Too many sheeple...not enough Sheperds
Posted by: Kaz | May 21, 2008 09:46 PM
Vote for the FairTax
Posted by: chris | May 21, 2008 09:50 PM
Hey Anon..Wake up and smell the coffee. There ain't no global warming 'cept what occurs naturally...which will be followed by global cooling...which also occurs naturally. Oh, and Iraq was better the day we got there and it'll be great by the time we leave if we can manage to stave off the defeatist dimorats.
If you would spend as much time fretting about something you could actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT, like illegal aliens, domestic drilling and refining our own oil, reducing the size of government, cutting taxes, etc. etc. you'd be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
You'd do well to remember just six things.
1-capitalism is here to stay.
2-Socialism/communism spreads the misery equally and has NEVER worked anywhere it's been tried.
3-greed is good.
4-God takes care of the sparrow, but He doesn't throw seed in it's nest!
5- The U.S.A. is not utopia, but it beats the pants off anything anybody else has.
And finally...
6-If you don't like it here..shove off, you're free to leave. Try Mexico. Remember..press #1 for English....See ya, wouldn't want to be ya!
Oh, is that insensitive? I'm so sorry! Pffffffft!
Posted by: Buckshot | May 21, 2008 10:15 PM
To Pat
If you get anywhere close to facts discussed in the article,let us all know.
Posted by: Thomas W. Coughlan | May 21, 2008 11:17 PM
The genius of Jefferson, alas I was born 200 yrs late.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
Posted by: mike s | May 21, 2008 11:40 PM
'the claim for mounting American unpopularity on the international scene, which doesn't look quite so compelling with the elections of Sarkozy and Merkel'
How many times do I need to repeat this? Sarkozy and Merkel are ANTI-AMERICAN, not PRO-AMERICAN. These disgraced Europacifist are constantly backstabbing the US, and yet you are praising them? Praising people who are actively helping Islamic terrorists defeat the US?
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed050108g.cfm
Sarkozy has lately been caught red-handed while talking to Hamas. If you praise Sarkozy and Merkel, you are a liberal, not a conservative.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 22, 2008 06:24 AM
Mike S - I'd second that. To quote President Eisenhower, a soldier's rucksack is not as heavy as the shackles of a slave.
Which begs the question: why is Sarkozy (who was praised by JR Dunn and many other US columnists, incl. Bruce Walker) such a pacifist girly man? Why won't he send more French soldiers to Iraq, stop talking to Hamas, add Hizballah to the EU's FTO list, boycott the Genocide Games or cancel his contracts with the Chinese and the RuSSians? Answer: because far from being 'a new breed of Frenchman', far from being 'the man who will bring France back', Sarkozy is a timid boy who has no balls. Compared to him, Obama is a tough guy.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 22, 2008 08:28 AM
Maybe we should wait till the election maybe starts before calling 2008 a lost cause.
2006 was lost on Mark Foley not "illegal immigration", "spending", or "Iraq". The Foley story broke Sep 30/Oct 01. The Dims were going to wait until late Oct but panicked as it became obvious they were going to lose. Had the election been two weeks later, both houses would have been saved. How easy we forget history.
Right now there is a big "change" theme. A couple of questions:
How many of the new Dims will still be Dims once Barry or Hildabeast is nominated?
Are three special elections really relavent for Nov when 30% of a normal presidential turnout votes?
Watch Rasmussen on public opinion. Whose positions due the electorate agree? Taxes?, Spending?, Housing bailout?
How do the Dims explain a calm Iraq that has very successful Oct elections?
Posted by: American Thinker Fan | May 22, 2008 08:44 AM
Pssst! Hey! Over here! Did somebody really ask why the Republicans don't do these things? Well, don't look now but...it's because our nominee agress with the Dems on all those positions. Sigh...wake me when it's over.
Posted by: Vincent | May 22, 2008 11:59 AM
Sadly, if McCain wins, it will likely just preserve the sad status quo in the Republican Party. I would like to be able to vote for him in good conscience, but he keeps turning his back on me and all conservatives. In part it took Jimmy Carter to get us Ronald Reagan. Will it take Obama to get us the next true conservative in the White House?
Posted by: j matt | May 22, 2008 12:14 PM
j matt
How NOW GANG of you. Why do you "conservatives" think you speak for other real conservatives?
It's getting to the point where "conservatives" on various blogs can teach every moonbat leftist organization how to play the victim game.
The GOP is not the problem. You need a reality check. "Actual" Reagan (non defense spending/entitlements/"amnesty") would stand zero chance today in what pretends to be "conservative thinking"
Posted by: American Thinker Fan | May 22, 2008 12:50 PM
J Matt, I believe that it will indeed take an extremist Dem like Obama for Reagan's heir to dare to reveal himself/herself.
Yes, America will need to endure a four-year-term of Obama before the heir of Reagan will arrive on the scene. It's unlikely that the heir of Reagan is a GOPer. The GOP has betrayed real conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Melanie Morgan, Michie Malkin, Johnny Isakson, Soeren Kern and Robert Kagan.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 22, 2008 02:43 PM
It amazes me how people say nobody is listening.WAKE UP!!! Ron Paul is in it to win it & he is the only man for the job as our president.
Posted by: Kathy Hatfield | May 22, 2008 09:17 PM
i like how this guy thinks, he's absolutely right of course, the problem is the leadership of the GOP would rather cower in fear of Al Gore and the loopy-left rather than stand up and do what's right. I'm afraid it's going to have to get much worse before it gets better and guess who is going to feel the pain and pick up the tab? why, you and I of course. The quicker we rid our party of the spineless weenies we have now, quicker we can get a batch in there with some common sense. Suing OPEC, yeah, that'll work (/sarc off)
Posted by: Stacy Shomaker | May 22, 2008 11:28 PM
In the last election, the Democrats lied to the American people promising they would change the course in Iraq and bring the troops home. They also promised to enact 100 new laws to help middle class Americans. The American people trusted them and only after the election did the American people find out they were lied to. The Democrats did not change the course in Iraq. Bush did. The Democrats tried to undercut the changes Bush made. The Democrats didn't pass 100 new laws to help the average middle class family, they gave us $4.00 gas with no end in sight. And the GOP cannot figure out how or what to run on. The GOP is conceding defeat in Congress and the Senate in the next round of elections. The GOP liberated a country and gave hope to millions of people who can now govern themselves. This despite efforts by the Democrats at home to surrender those people to al Queda. We want oil. Increasing the supply will bring down the price. We have oil. We want high paying jobs. We are the greatest and most environmentally conscious people in the world and our free market system can get our oil, cleanly, with the right legislative incentives. The Democrats are blocking us from cheaper oil and great jobs. And the GOP doesn't know how to run a campaign. Americans want to be proud, not only of what we've accomplished, but of what we can do. Instead of having the pride in our country to acknowledge the great things we've done and can do, the GOP responds to the negative gloom the Democrats create for us by their constant focus on all things negative whether real or imagined. Leaders lead, they don't respond.
Posted by: Trialdog | May 23, 2008 01:45 PM
To the editors of American Thinker:
You gave OrthodoxNet credit for my comments while the comments attributed to me were somebody else's, probably OrthodoxNet's.
Posted by: ecpnc | May 24, 2008 12:06 PM
Regarding Sarkozy again: yet MORE PROOF has been supplied by Dr Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation. More proof that Sarkozy is no pro-American conservative, but rather an anti-American protectionist liberal. More proof that unfortunately, Mr Dunn, Mrs Shiver, Mrs Feldman, Mr Lewis and Mr Walker were flat wrong about Sarkozy.
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed050708a.cfm
And earlier today, Sarkozy has announced that he will NEVER abolish the 35-hour working week:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/080527/2/1711z.html
This means that France is in the final stage of its decay, as the unconditional abolition of the 35-HWW would be one of the measures necessary to 'bring France back', as one AT columnist has written. Yahoo! did not even attempt to conceal the reason Sarkozy has refused to reverse the 35-HWW is that he is AFRAID to anger unions and voters, whereas Mrs Shiver said that Sarkozy is a brave man. Sorry, Kyle-Anne, but you were flat wrong.
What France needs is a _radical_ reform, an overhaul of its economy. Cosmetic changes like modifying the special retirement privileges of some sectors will cause no effect.
Posted by: Zbigniew Mazurak | May 27, 2008 09:10 AM