I’m in 100% agreement. Abortion and gay marriage are used in a completely cynical manner. Tucker Carlson admitted as much on the Chris Matthews show a year or two ago, stating that real Republicans look down on the Christian Right and simply use those two issues to put themselves in power in order to accomplish other goals.
Abortion rights are here to stay. The power brokers know this. Even if Roe v Wade were overturned it would simply fall back to the states and at most 5 states would ban abortion.
Gay marriage is as unstoppable a force as earlier civil rights issues and in 30 years opposition to it will look just as silly as the opposition to civil rights looks now. There is no way that a federal amendment banning certain unions will ever pass. The states will fall one by one. Let me tell you how much gay marriage in MA impacted my family: not at all. When reasonable people realize the reality of this they’ll stop being energized by this issue. Radicals on the other hand will be motivated by it for the next 25 years and their votes will be used to put people in power that don’t care at all about gay marriage and have a private agenda that differs from their public one.]]>
Regarding the national security issue I always like to point out a statistic I learned earlier this year. Part of my job responsibilities invloves the construction of new Border Stations on the Northern Border between the U.S. and Canada. This past Spring I attended a conference in Chicago where a representative from Homeland Security outlined their needs for new construction. He pointed out that an investment of $0.5 billion each year for the next twenty years would give them everything they need in Border Security facilities. That equates to $10.0B over the next twenty years. When one considers that we are spending $14.0B PER MONTH in Iraq it isn’t hard to see that we are making, and have made, a bad investment there. Which function will give our nation more security? Adequately built and staffed Border Stations or the war in Iraq.
“…$100 trillion that has been committed to making sure that middle and upper-class retirees remain fat an happy for as long as we can keep a heart beating?” I’m interested in the source of these numbers and just what they are referring to.]]>
I’m glad you’ve picked up on the flippant nature of the post. If you’re looking for a dissertation, I would recommend going elsewhere. I’ll defend myself but have no interest in a fun blogger back and forth.
Your analogy is not bad. Good job on that.
#1. You’re right that the WSJ Op-ed page and National Review are two of the most respected sources of conservative thought today. But to say they are the only two is either coy or naive – take your pick. I say anything spoken at a party convention is fair game. I guess you missed that big event in Minny last week. Check out anything since 1980 and you’ll realize what I’m talking about. I’m not going to trouble myself with linking you to all the videos but I will give you one of my favorite examples. Good ‘ole Pat Robertson never lets me down.
#3. Its true – I’m no economist. I have heard of the Laffer curve but its beside the point. I recognize my point was not very clear. Let me be more precise:
1. The Iraq war is paid for by our creditors.
2. In my own experience, a debt can be counted as an investment if it yields a profitable return.
3. I’m not even aware of a claim (by the President or anyone) that the war will yield a financial profit.(well, at least a current claim. We all know how “the oil will pay for the war” thing worked out) – let alone a realization of one. I recognize that was can be profitable. We are not engaged in one of those wars.
4. This does not equal fiscal responsibility – something Republicans used to care about.
As far as your last quip – I suppose you’d have to give me some more detail. Maybe you’re talking about Social Security? I’m not sure. I suppose if you don’t have a problem with the way things have gone in Iraq(financially or otherwise), who am I to convince you? I can hardly blame you – not counting our military families, we Americans have been asked to sacrifice very little – which explains your apathy.]]>
CJ is right to point out that what passes for a Republican party in 2008 is a huge, corrupt political machine that has absolutely lost track of any conservative principles. And lost track of principles, period.]]>
Conservatives love America like their spouse. They take the good with the bad but largely ignore the bad because the good far outweighs the bad which ensures peace and harmony in the marriage. When correction is needed discretion is the rule.
Liberals, on the other hand, are like the shameless, self-righteous spouse– more than ready to publicly air all the dirty laundry and point fingers under all circumstances and in all venues. While the gripes may be legitimate the damage caused by the disunion (or at least the appearance of one) undermines the public credibility of the marriage and render it less effective.
Regarding point #1, you really don’t know much about the conservative movement (which is really what drives the agenda at the GOP conventions lo these last 40 years). The day-to-day voice of the the conservative movement is National Review and the Op Ed page of the WSJ and I challenge you to find even a single article in either of those two publications that even remotely communicate what you have posited as the official Republican position. You assume Mike Huckabee supporters reflect the majority opinion of the Republican party. Need I remind you that he finished a distant third.
Regarding point #3, you conflate two completely unrelated issues (military strength and tax policy) and demonstrate you own ignorance about both. Regarding the military there is not a conservative philosophical tradition associated with a small military. Ron Paul is a libertarian who fears the military as a threat to individual liberties– not because it “costs a lot.” On the contrary, conservative philosophy favors building the strongest military force around and then retaining the will to use it when it’s in the best interest of the country. Now, what’s in the best interests of the country is a subject of debate (even among conservatives) but the presence of a strong military is a given in conservative philosophy. Regarding the need to raise taxes in order to pay for the military you obviously have never heard of the Laffer curve. Before responding read up on it. Review the history of tax policy since WWII. Federal tax rates have been cut 19 times since then and 18 of those times the government took in more revenue than they did the year before. During the same period tax rates were increase 13 times with the result being an increase in revenue only 5 times. Now, based on history what’s the more sure-fire way to raise government revenue?
I’m also curious as to why you think your grandchildren will be paying for the Iraq War which has cost something like $1.5 trillion dollars? Are you as livid about the more than $100 trillion that has been committed to making sure that middle and upper-class retirees remain fat an happy for as long as we can keep a heart beating?
Overall, I find this a sad posting because the author seems to comment on subjects about which he/she knows little.]]>
I’ve been surprised at how non-Republican the rhetoric at the RNC seems to be (I love rhetoric, that’s not a diss) I mean, mavericks, reformers, and taking on the good ole boys and big oil companies (sorry I’m probably remembering Palin’s speech since McCain has the same speech inflection as Wirthlin) that doesn’t seem very Republican to me. But lots of people in the audience were wearing lots of flag clothing and that’s pretty Republican I guess.]]>
I don’t buy the “Democrats led during the biggest conflicts” argument. It’s a false tally. Do you really think that if Republicans had been in power during WWI or WWII that we wouldn’t have entered those conflicts? Vietnam and Korea are arguable, but WWI/II? No way. That leaves your tally falling pretty even between Republican and Democrat for the last 100 years. (And we won’t even get into how much “Iraqi Freedom” has cost in terms of $$$ and time….)]]>