Much has been made of former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s commentary on the Republican Party and his place therein in recent days. He has every right to speak his mind and still consider himself a Republican even though some of his stated positions are anethema to the principles of the party that considers itself conservative even though it has acted decidedly different in recent years.
A party that nominated John McCain as their standard bearer and backed Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter (prior to defection) can hardly be considered far right or non-inclusive. Besides, the Democratic Party is hardly tolerant of those who hold traditional conservative values even as they ran right to capture Congress in recent years. Where are the Heath Shuler’s and other Blue Dog Democrats when it comes to actually fashioning legislation? How many of those names do you even know and how far out front are they in shaping the party platform? Exactly; all of the so called fiscal conservative Democrats signed onto the boondoggle known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act adding debt for years to come and undermining our country’s financial future and viability. Big tents are for campaigning but not actually leading or running a party. At least in today’s Washington.
It’s the old saw of “you have to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”. If you accept people into your party that are more than 40% out of line with your stated core principles then you have to either give them a voice or admit the fraud and show that your stated diversity of opinion is in name only. There are parties for a reason and while no party should too narrowly define the platform, neither can it have too broad of a set of principles. You can’t advocate everything or you impact nothing.
So give Colin Powell his soapbox and let him call himself whatever he wants, the party itself need not listen to him where it involves abandoning bedrock principle. A diversity of thought is good but it has to be close enough to a common ground for compromise to be attainable. 70% or 80% agreement on platform is a good starting point but the 70% must include concrete foundational values and policies. A man who can vote for Barack Obama has betrayed most of the priciples of his party and maybe should consider leaving instead of expecting the party to come to him. While Gen. Powell may call himself whatever wishes, a man that voted for Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and now “The One”, while saying that Americans want more government in their lives may want to consider party platform and principle before claiming one and hanging a label on himself.
Diversity of race brings different life experiences to a party that can help form a broader base of support and enrich a platform. Diversity of opinion helps to maintain party viability by interaction and compromise in forming that platform. Both are desireable but that diversity cannot be so far afield that a party loses identity. When that happens the tent becomes so big that the party ceases to exist as it essentially stands for nothing other than re-election and self preservation.
Why is it assumed by many on the left that all conservative thought is driven by Fox News and that conservatives themselves cannot think independently? Is it possible that Fox News is reflective in its reporting of the whole picture? Is it also possible that the mainstream news organizations are selective in offering only one angle instead of reporting the information and letting the viewer form their own opinion? See the example below of a CNN reporter attempting to drive the opinion instead of reporting it.
I form my own opinions, philosophy and ideology from multiple sources and a deep held belief in the principles of conservatism. I do watch Fox News’ “Special Report” when I can and I like their Sunday show with Chris Wallace as he is fair and objective in his questioning. So was Tim Russert, I miss him as a source. I do skip the opinion shows like Hannity or O’Reilly. That is a personal preference, I don’t like their style or demeanor.
I assume many on the left come about their opinions honestly as much as I may disagree with them but I do find this Fox News mantra to be interesting considering many young liberals consider” The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” legitimate news shows even as they criticize Fox. For those who are unaware, both of the shows are satire and air on the Comedy Central Network.
Can we have an honest exchange of ideas without constantly assuming the basis of one’s opinion as being based on a single source? We live in an ever increasing cynical society that cannot consider dissent with respect and that comes from both sides. If I disagree with your opinion or philosophy it means I have other ideas on what is best for the country, my state, my town and my family. It doesn’t mean I derived that from what Rush Limbaugh told me today or what I saw on Fox News yesterday. I read, I listen and I have multiple sources as well as principles that drive my overall philosophy.
Many from both sides like living in the echo chamber even as they accuse their ideological foes of doing the same. Somehow MSNBC is not slanted and NPR has become the bastion of all that is objective in the liberal world. Can we get to debating actual ideas and issues of substance instead of making broad assumptions about our sources of information or the underpinnings of our information base? The uninformed on either side will not be able to sustain rational thought without the foundation of information.
Most conservatives do not blame the Obama Administration for the current economic downturn but do hold them accountable for a stimulus package and a budget that spends more in the coming years than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Hurricane Katrina put together. We do not believe that we can spend trillions of dollars we don’t have and reduce the deficit. We believe in the free market and abhor the bailouts and TARP spending as a wasteful use of the people’s money. We realize that this was started under the Bush Administration and continued under the current one, it is wrong in both instances.
There is a whole lot more to what makes up a conservative than what many on the left assume or assign. Don’t generalize, it cheapens the discourse at the same time it makes one look as woefully uniformed as they claim their ideological opposites to be.
There is not much I can say to enhance this powerful message. A beautiful and poignant song from the group Cherryholmes. God Bless all who serve and protect us.
While his Administration looks at Americans as enemies of the state he extends a hand to totalitarian governments and avowed enemies of freedom such as Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro brothers.
In the meantime the Obama Administration tries a softer approach at nationalizing business in the name of taking emergency action. Bailouts threaten our economy more than the failure of those businesses involved would in the long term. As the leader of the free world it is imperative that Obama should lead and stop apologizing, dodging and campaigning.
Like with North Korea, Obama will learn that appeasement of our enemies is not leadership and capitulation diminishes our status among the nations of the world as well as undermines our own National well being and security. A free nation should advocate freedom and not coddle those who would restrict the same in their own people. Chavez has nationalized industry, and taken control of the media in Venezuela severely curtailing if not outright banishing the freedom of speech we enjoy as Americans. He criminalizes dissent and restricts opposition. He is no friend and wishes only to cooperate with those who will appease him and subordinate to his socialist revolution.
Attending the meeting is a must, subordinating the status of the world’s only superpower will prove to be a grave mistake.
“We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms,” Obama said to loud applause. “But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations.” - Barrack Obama
A partnership does not include acting against the best interests of freedom. Dictating terms in the interest of freedom promotes more freedom. Any system that restricts speech and supports political oppression of its opponents should not be accepted and cannot be included in compromise. Negotiating from strength will carry the day. This President has already conceded and the countries of the world know it. We have change and that change is a diminished US in the eyes of our enemies, just the way they like it. Nobody respsects the weak and that doesn’t necessarily mean through military might.
Welcome to hope and change. I hope things change before we have to recreate the “misery index” and National pride gives way to needless and unending mea culpas for being the beacon of freedom to those who live in oppression.
While not perfect the United States has done more to promote good throughout the world in our short history than any other before or since. I will never be embarrassed to be an American even if our President feels the need to apologize for our role in the world an our position as the greatest country on God’s green earth.
As the debate between conservatives and liberals roars on over the President’s “stimulus” package one has to ponder the actual meaning of economic stimulus and how much it can really affect the economy. While many of the provisions within either version (House or Senate) may or may not be worthy programs the question to ask is, “are they stimulative”?
Money for the National Endowment for the Arts? Computerizing medical records? Studies on Lead paint reduction? Really? We have been told that this is the greatest economic “crisis” (I do use that term loosely) since the great depression; how does spending on the NEA, or any of the other long term project stimulate the economy and get people spending again?
If we are to buy Keynesian economic theory then why is the infrastructure spending in the bill less than 1/2 of the total package? How much of that spending is to take place before the end of 2010? To be truly stimulative the spending must be on actual job creating programs such as infrastructure and it must be infused quickly(as in the next couple of years). I am sure that John Maynard Keynes never pictured medical records and insurance spending when formulating his theory. If one is to posit a plan to help out the economy then at least hold it up to the light and let it be debated before enacting it. Fast tracking non stimulative spending just puts us further in debt at a time when we are already buried in red ink.
Lastly, profligate spending and an unrealistic housing market were at the root of our current financial downturn. How does printing and spending money that WE DO NOT HAVE get us out of the problem that was created by similar actions?
Food for thought while we try to toss around rhetoric without looking at the root causes behind things; A misstep here can create a downward spiral more harmful than anything to this point. When the President insultingly sneered that a stimulus bill is supposed to be a spending bill he forgot to mention what exactly we are spending money on.
All of the Dems in Illinois seem worried that Illinois will only be represented by 1 Senator now that the annoited one will be taking over the Presidency on January 20th. While it is arguable that we might be better off without the Majority Whip I will have to say that Dick Durbin at least shows up for work most days. That has not been the case for our previous Junior Senator who spent the last two years campaigning for the Presidency and rarely showed up for work at all. We have been operating with a single Senator for all bu the first 143 days of the 109th Congress. I think we can afford to wait and get it right.
Thank you for your service and sacrifice. Despite the political platitudes and lip service you remain steadfast as ever. For those who have served and are still serving you are owed the gratitude of a free nation, I know you have mine.
Jubilant Obamaniacs surged onto the suburban Chicago estate known as “The Magnificent Trutherosa” last night, raiding the Rhinocerous Preserve and killing the entire herd of White Rhinos. An adjacent herd of Black Rhinos was spared. Shouting “Black on the outside, White on the inside” the crowd set fire to the Machete’ of Truth Home for Orphaned Black Children, killing an estimated 48 African American tots who were being housed and educated by the Machete’ Foundation for the Preservation of African-American Youth. After the collapse of the structure, the crowd chanted “Obama is God— death to the Oreos!”
Commenting from his winter ranch getaway on Pitcairn Island, the Machete’ of Truth lamented the loss of his property and the cruelty to his rhinocerous herd, but saved most of his grief for the massacred African American orphans. “No good deed goes unpunished” he said, “the hate of the left knows no bounds. They were great young people, tossed on the garbage heap of society by the liberals who would have had them aborted. America has been deprived of its best and brightest.”
A spokesman for the Obama campaign blamed the riot on Dick Cheney.
Where is the reporting? Good to hear from the Machete’ of Truth albeit in tragic circumstances.
***for our liberal readers THIS IS SATIRE!!, that is all***
