josh4viceprez

Nancy, you make me swoon

2009-03-18T06:36:00.000-07:00

Dane County Executive Candidate Nancy Mistele offers a full throated libertarian/conservative message for students.

This web ad is great because it gives us a concrete example of why limited government is an optimal choice. I see the subtext as "stop the paternalistic crusade and focus on the proper role of Government."

"Rather than dedicating the resources to tracking down the killer and fixing the 911 center, Kathleen Falk is busy cracking down on legal and responsible activities on campus. Her priorities include banning keg delivery, increasing the beer tax, and forcing bar owners to charge legal patrons higher prices. Elect me County Executive and I'll dedicate resources to making Campus safe again, not cracking down on legal activities."

Notice that Mistele sells a small government message to young voters better than any Republican has in recent memory. Falk's nanny state is out of step with the student population.

Get the Falk of Dane County!

Shes back!

2009-03-07T10:10:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite bloggers Liz Mair is back after leaving the RNC's blog and then taking some time off blogging for her work. She just wasnt the same with the muzzle of the RNC!

She recently had a great critique of CPAC which articulated many of my problems in a way that I couldn't. One of her recent posts is titled:"I still love John McCain and think he's awesome". I feel the same way. Apparently McCain has been Twittering and on a "tweet" (ugh) about earmarks, Liz appreciates his straight talk.

Welcome back Liz!

DC school choice

2009-03-07T09:51:00.000-08:00

It looks like Congress will kill the DC choice program, but let the remaining students stay.

I still find this move appalling, but not as bad as my worst fears. You could of literally had the spectacle of Obama forcing his daughter's friends out of their school. The whole thing reeks of thuggish turf protection.

The main consitituents of the choice program are the same that vote 90%+ for the Democrats. I hope they remember who did this. I love it when liberals "explain" that the black community is socially conservative yet votes for the Democrats out of a tendancy to vote their economic interests. This Malcolm X speech comes to mind: "Every election year these politicians are sent up here to pacify us!...Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok!" See
here

I feel the need to explain that Im not singling out one group of people, I think voters are actually by and large irrational.

What they said.

2009-02-28T09:51:00.000-08:00

RPW sent out a press release calling Jeff Wood out on his vote against the requirement of a supermajority vote to raise taxes. If Wood is for TABOR there is no reason I can think of that he would oppose this.

Im still trying to figure this weirdo, out but he seems to be voting with the Democrats as if he were one. Wood came into the Assembly as a libertarian Republican. He now votes like a left-winger. I was done with Wood when he didn't come clean about his DUI situation and still hasn't. It seems like a case of a guy thats gone native.

*A typical evening for Jeff Wood

RNC Chair Race

2009-01-30T09:11:00.000-08:00

The 1st ballot just got over with and Michael Steele came just behind Mike Duncan. Maybe someone more informed than I on the process could tell you more about what this means than I but I suspect it is very good news for Steele. He is surging on intrade

There was a survey of the Young Republican National Committee and they felt that the voting process taking place now is ignoring their concerns. The election of Steele would prove them wrong. (They prefer him) I also suspect they don't buy the criticism that Steele's support for moderate GOP groups is a strike against him.

Remember This Apparently Saul Anuzis is channeling Kevin Madden. He put out an attack on Steele for his support of Log Cabin Republicans. The RNC did a good a good thing by ditching gay-bashing Anuzis.

The GOP is set to pass on Duncan, (status quo) Dawson, (It would be a sign that the Republicans are content with merely holding their Southern base) Blackwell (polarizing and his main draw being his strict Conservatism, meaning the Republicans are not concentrating so much on ideology) and gay-bashing, no solutions Saul Anuzis.

The Republicans I think will install Michael Steele who Conservatives like just fine, is the best communicator and the most charismatic. He ran the best GOP Senate campaign in '06. Steele is the most up to the job. Fair to say their voting for change?

Everett Dirksen

2009-01-05T09:26:00.000-08:00

Michael Zak who runs the excellent grand old partisan blog reminds us of GOP support for the Civil Rights Act. They were led by Minority Leader Everett Dirksen who broke Robert Byrd's 14 hour filibuster.

Why Governor Doyle had a Bad Day

2008-12-03T13:40:00.001-08:00

Obama is now dropping his support for a windfall profits tax. This must be giving Jim Doyle a headache.

Obama will be going around saying that a tax is not needed because the price of oil dropped and the oil companies profits have decreased. Doyle is stuck without the cover of the party line, and we'll see how he explains the fact that the leader of his party thinks its a bad idea.

More bad news. His hometown paper
editorialized against the proposal on the very same day. Ouch.

The logic behind the windfall profits tax was always particularly interesting. Oil companies are making record profits at the expense of the hard pressed consumer so lets tax the profits! Well, other corporations have made larger profit margins than oil companies, but lets concede that point for a moment. A windfall profits tax isn't going to make gas any cheaper. It isn't going to INCREASE production The companies will a)pass the cost on right back to the consumer. b)Restrict supply as it can not sell it at the market price.

Happy Birthday John McCain

2008-08-29T10:37:00.001-07:00

Well done on the pick sir!

Sarah Palin is a gamechanger. I am embarrased to not have seen the wisdom in this, and it beats the heck out of Mitt Romney.

The Democrats will trod out their "0% foreign policy experience" talking point. The fact is the man at the top of the ticket is unmatched on foreign policy experience and Barack Obama is the one that has only been a Senator for 4 years. Palin beats all three men on Executive experience.

Look at the way the McCain campaign rolled this out. Yesterday morning Lieberman was leaked. Then Romney was leaked. Then Pawlenty was leaked. Then it was going to be Romney then Pawlenty again. The McCain communications team kept him in the news all day and took the media for a ride. The pick did not leak out until this morning. which really helped the effect. We all woke up to a shock. Compare that to the Neil Kinn... err Joe Biden pick. Obama promised his supporters they would be the first to know via text message, the pick leaks at midnight and the text goes out at 3AM. I thought it was Obama's campaign that had the rock-star communications game and it was McCain's that was bumbling their way through the campaign.

Obama went negative at McCain hard last night while Palin was entirely positive. McCain has had the risk of winning men closely while losing women by a fairly wide margin. I think both genders are now in play. There is no saying that Romney would have been a positive on the economy because of his experience. The Obama campaign was probably thinking he would be an easy kill by continuuing their xenophobic, class-warfare campaign about houses and wealth. Palin grew up middle class in Alaska and is well off currently but not (rich). Also, both members of the GOP ticket has a son in Iraq so there goes the chickenhawk allegation. McCain has put him self on top the world today and Barack Obama is sweating it out in Beaver, Pennsylvania.

Steve Schmidt taking over from Rick Davis the day to day operations of the McCain camp has been a great benefit. The "celebrity" meme was questionable with regards to its effectiveness but apparently he guessed right. It now looks like the campaign is taking my advice. With a reformer on the ticket McCain can make the case that he is the change agent. To be viewed otherwise was always a poor reflection on how informed the American people are, not a poor reflection on McCain. Like I have previously said, politics are about brands, the ammunition is there, if it is fired correctly, Obama's lead on "change" can be erased, his brand discreted and he will be finished. Way to go Sargeant Schmidt.

Sarah challenged the Incumbent Republican Governor in a primary and won. She opposes the porkbarrel Republicans Young and Stevens, endorsing their opponents. Palin's brand is conservative reformer, maverick, and insurgent. Obama's vacuous "change" is coming to an end.

Governor Palin is a beauty pangeant winner, has 5 kids one with Down's Syndrome, has a husband that is a snowmobile racer and is an NRA member. Swing voters will eat this stuff up.

One of my worries for the past year has been who other than McCain can viably lead the GOP. A woman who is attractive, Religious, but rarlely invokes it like a Huckabee or Brownback, conservative but not extreme. You often here that all the GOP has to do is go back to Reagan. The problem is, 1980's problems are not 2008's. Palin will coopt Tim Pawlenty's "Sam's Club Republicanism" making a renewed effort to capture middle-class voters with market-based solutions. Palin is the future.

Congratulations to Governor Palin for being chosen to be the 1st female vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party on the anniversary of the day women got the right to vote.

p.s. Will she be the 1st female President?

p.s.s. What a ticket!

In case your missing it

2008-07-29T13:45:00.000-07:00

John McCain is going through the roof on Intrade.

He was at 29% a week ago, and is now at 37%.

France's 35 hour work week gets gutted

2008-07-26T10:16:00.000-07:00

The previous efforts to take the sting out of the law by cutting taxes on overtime proved not be effectual. It is still not repealed, but will be rendered toothless.

Mankiw's Economic Agenda

2008-07-25T01:28:00.000-07:00

Greg Mankiw ponders what would happen if candidates pandered to economists. The results lead to an agenda that is about as popular as itchy algae. Sign me up however.

SUPPORT FREE TRADE Economists are nearly unanimous in their support of an unfettered system of world trade. Here, Senator Obama lags behind Senator McCain. Senator Obama’s bad-mouthing of Nafta and his opposition to free-trade pacts with Colombia and South Korea make most economists cringe.

Many economists would go even further than Senator McCain has suggested by, for example, repealing antidumping laws. The ostensible purpose of these laws is to prevent foreign companies from selling in the United States at prices below fair value, but the law’s notion of “fair” rarely makes sense. In practice, these laws are little more than an excuse for special interests to shield themselves from competition.

OPPOSE FARM SUBSIDIES Economists like free markets, a principle that applies to agriculture as much as any good or service. Again, Senator McCain has the lead. Senator Obama’s endorsement of the recent $300 billion farm bill, his support for domestic ethanol subsidies and his opposition to imported sugar ethanol may bring votes from farmers, but economists view these policies as a burden on taxpayers and consumers.

LEAVE OIL COMPANIES AND SPECULATORS ALONE With the stunning rise in oil prices, both presidential candidates have been tempted to demonize market participants. Senator McCain has complained about the “obscene profits” of oil companies and called for a “thorough and complete investigation of speculators.” By contrast, most economists see nothing more sinister than the forces of global supply and demand at work. There is little benefit, and potentially much harm, in the candidates’ populist finger-pointing.

TAX THE USE OF ENERGY Senator Obama wins a point by opposing a summer gas tax holiday, a McCain proposal that economists greeted with derision. Most economists advocate increased taxes on energy products. The recent response of consumers to higher gas prices — including the increased use of mass transit and greater purchases of small cars, scooters, and even bicycles — demonstrates that the price mechanism is the most reliable way to reduce energy consumption and to curtail a variety of driving-related problems.

RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE Like both presidential candidates, most economists recognize that Social Security faces a long-term problem. Senator Obama says he wants to fix it by extending the payroll tax to high incomes. Senator McCain opposes tax increases and wants the Social Security system to include personal accounts, but he has avoided proposing specific benefit cuts needed to make the numbers add up.

Some economists endorse Senator Obama’s tax hike, and some endorse Senator McCain’s personal accounts, but a much greater number would increase the age of eligibility for benefits. As Americans live longer, we need to redefine old age — a theme that should resonate with Mr. McCain, who is 71.

INVITE MORE SKILLED IMMIGRANTS As part of their embrace of globalization, economists are more open to immigration than is the general public. Admittedly, unskilled immigrants raise some potential problems: They may depress wages for Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder, exacerbating the rise in inequality, and they may overburden the social safety net. By contrast, skilled immigrants promote economic growth, especially among poorer Americans, and pay more in taxes than they get in government benefits. The more, the merrier.

On this issue, economists very clearly practice what they preach. Many of the best economists at top American universities were born abroad.

LIBERALIZE DRUG POLICY Many economists marry their support of economic freedom with a similar support of personal freedom. Drug policy is a case in point. A 2006 poll of professional economists asked whether the United States should legalize marijuana. Those in favor outnumbered those opposed more than three to one.

Labour loses Glasgow East

2008-07-24T19:13:00.000-07:00

The SNP have defeated Labour by about 350 votes.

This is a safe seat- even safer than Crewe and Nantwich where they suffered another by-election loss just about a month earlier. All the speculation is whether Labour replace Gordon Brown. All the polls suggest it would not make a difference, and it would be hard for Labour to impose a 2nd unelected Prime Minister on the public, so I would guess that Brown stays on for the General Election.

I have to feel bad for Gordon Brown. This is the latest event in a string of bad luck. Nothing seemingly goes right for him. Much of the perception about Brown is driven by the media action line of "Brown the psychologically flawed, dithering, control freak, incompetent, boring, scheming politician." The British media have typically acted like sheep and decided that David Cameron's Conservatives are new, chic, modern, young, green and a less nasty kind of conservative. Can anybody really say their is a great deal of difference between Coke and Pepsi er- Tory and Labour? Heck, the conservatives budget matched Labour's spending levels so as to avoid a fight. Brown is viewed the way he is mostly because of personality and p.r.

I think my feeling sorry is also merited by Brown's failures not being all that much different than that of Tony Blair. Early release for prisoners- that happened under Blair. Government incompetence under Blair- you bet. Browns Government did lose millions of people's tax records, but is that substantively much worse than Blair's Government under which crime went up and up while civil liberties went down? Brown dithered on Northern Rock causing a run on a bank, but if you look around the world you can see the banking crisis is not isolated to Britain. Removing the bottom 2P tax bracket raised taxes on some poorer people, but just about every government has done something that has resulted in this. To listen to the claims today this makes Labour no longer a party for the poor. Not that I thought they ever were, but these claims are just hyperbolic.

Im no fan of Brown but Im not going to kick him when he's down like the rest of the sheep.

The last one worked pretty well

2008-07-16T12:23:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney gets my endorsement for John McCain's running mate. I write this at a time of course, when the likelihood of this pick is soaring. Romney does benefit from a lack of deep bench to choose from. However, he emerges as the cream of the crop on merit.

Since McCain's nomination, voters pick the Economy as their top voting issue leaving the War in Iraq in lesser consideration. The Great Man has never been too interested in the economy, in fact he was just recently going around telling people he does not know a whole lot about it. Mitt Romney is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to the economy. Before his political career he was CEO at BAIN Capitol also working for many other companies. He developed a reputation as a turnaround artist.

Romney's corporate experience have also made him an expert on management. I admit that managing a company involves orders being given and not resisted whereas government is the opposite. I think in any event, the former Massachusetts Governor is second to none in getting results. He knows how to set deadlines and check progress, how formal meetings should be conducted, how accessible to stay, and generally the correct management style to achieve competence and results. There would be no better manager of Government than Mitt Romney.

Romney's pick is smart politically. His name helps in the key state of Michigan. His father George Romney was the legendary Michigan politician. Romney helps in the west given the high population of Mormons who apparently practice identity politics. That may be a little Realpolitik for me but this means swing states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Mitt Romney has shined as a surrogate for McCain, burying the hatchet while landing effective blows against Obama. He is well-spoken, smart and has a good chance of winning the Vice-Presidential debate.

What Romney should do should he get the pick is relaunch his political brand. His Presidential run was an attempt to get to the right of everyone else, with unconvincing explanations for his flip-flops. What he should do is concede that he has some differences with conservatives. He should run as a technocrat who is going to bring back competence and manage government well under a McCain Administration. And while he's at it, talk about trade, balanced budgets and reforming entitlements. He does all of that extremely well. We saw flashes of this type of candidacy in Michigan where he did it well and tirelessly to finish ahead of John McCain.

A McCain-Romney ticket would allow McCain to talk about Foreign Policy and Romney to talk about the Economy. They both have a strong suit which would mean allow for a good one-two punch. The ticket that was once impossible is now looking like a great pick.

They think they can't lose

2008-07-06T05:08:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's consistent lead in the polls is having many assume he's got it in the bag. They might want to think again.

Much of politics is about selling one's brand. Obama's success has been through selling himself as a different kind of candidate, a change agent, and an optimistic bipartisan compromiser. The ammunition is there to blow this brand up.

Barack Obama had a chance to run a different kind of campaign and take public financing. He decided he'd rather take the money and run. He broke his word and took the money. He had a chance to have an elevated discourse with a dozen non traditional debates, but decided he was too busy with his conventional campaign. After saying he would debate John McCain "anywhere, anytime" he broke his word. All the big bipartisan compromises have been made without Barack Obama's help. Immigration, the judicial filibuster, Obama has been MIA. He has voted robotically with the leadership making no break with his party. The emperor has no clothes.

John McCain can show how he has been the change agent. He has lobbied for the successful surge strategy in Iraq. He has broken with his party on major issues like Immigration, climate change, and torture. He has achieved change with Campaign Finance Reform, tobacco regulation, scuttling the corrupt Boeing Deal, investigating Jack Abramoff and I have to invoke again his support for the surge while other politicians squirmed.

Now a simple question. can anyone tell me Barack Obama's position on Iraq? This week's equivocations coupled with the announcement that he will have more information for us after he goes to Iraq leaves the American people with a candidate for one of the two major parties without a clear position on Iraq just months out before the election. His position is in limbo.

The election will not be about John McCain. Obama is the dominant figure this year. There is 120 days before the election, the McCain campaign will take every opportunity to tell the voters about Obama's discredited campaign.

28 to 42

2008-06-10T20:38:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the British House of Commons takes up
the proposal to increase the detention limit from 28 to 42 days.

Tony Blair was defeated a while back on a proposal for 90 days. These long periods of time are an affront to Habeus Corpus. Civil liberties aside, the Government has failed to demonstrate a need to increase detention limits. The trouble is, with an increased limit, Terror recruiters can make suspects into martyrs and play on muslim solidarity to increase their ranks. This proposals mascot should be a condom. It gives you a false sense of security while your actually being screwed.

Good job by the conservatives for opposing this. The tories are following in the tradition of Winston Churchill in standing up for Habeus Corpus. Gordon Brown will undoubtedly demagogue the issue and give a tough guy act to score a couple points. The House should do the right thing and defeat this proposal.

We are all Danish

2008-06-02T19:55:00.000-07:00

Today the Taliban's bombing of the Danish Embassy shows us why we are fighting a War on radical Islamic extremism.

This is about the Danish Government giving a newspaper the right to press, speech, and expression. If we are going to tell someone they shouldn't express their opinions because of threats, we might as well stop a "war on terrorism" now.

It may seem unnecessary to print a cartoon that is blatantly offensive to Islam. Indeed, we know what the reaction will be. However, we have seen the same types of offensive material to Christianity in media all around the world. Im not about to censor that speech. If we start restricting freedoms, censoring our speech, and allowing fear to control our decisions then the Salafists have gotten what they want. It would be a bigger blow than any destruction of people or property. The free world should show solidarity behind Western values. This is my show of solidarity:

Positive poll numbers

2008-06-01T07:16:00.000-07:00

in Michigan! Obama can't possibly win the election without winning the Wolverine State. Know hope.

McCain hits Obama. Hard.

2008-06-01T06:35:00.000-07:00

And now were hearing that Obama is likely to go to Iraq! Not because John McCain shamed him into it or anything.

This is all followed up by yesterday's announcement that Obama is leaving Trinity. Didn't he say he could no longer disown Wright than his Grandmother? Not only does he disown Wright but he disowns the Church. This morning Chris Matthews' crew were all confident in an Obama victory. Im all the more cautiously optimistic.

My somewhat dated article

2008-05-28T23:11:00.000-07:00

I wrote an endorsement of McCain about a month ago for my school paper. It is more geared toward the General Election:

David Brooks quoted a political consultant as saying, “You know, there’s really only one great man running for president this year, and that’s McCain.” I feel the same way.

In the last On the Edge, an op-ed author stated that although he is supporting John McCain, this year’s election is insignificant. Given my numerous problems with the state of American Politics, I understand his cynicism. However, I am writing in to show the viewpoint that millions of Americans have, that McCain’s candidacy is reason for optimism.

As a young fighter pilot serving in the Vietnam War, McCain was shot down and tortured by his captors. In a famous incident, the prison guards intended to show a Christmas service for the POWs for propaganda purposes. To ruin the effect, McCain repeatedly yelled, “Fuck You!” To McCain, they weren’t worth the dignity of a Patriot’s response.

McCain derives his value of honor from his family’s long record of military service. He talks of a conviction to “serve a cause greater than one’s self-interest”. Although the conservative Arizona senator may believe in the dignity of the individual, he is certainly driven by the common good.

John McCain is a conviction politician. He was an early critic of Bush and Rumsfeld’s failed strategy in Iraq. His outspokenness led to the “surge” strategy of sending reinforcements to Baghdad and the greater Anbar region. This is seeing violence decrease in the country.
His conviction is shown through his reputation as political maverick. He went to Iowa and criticized ethanol and corn subsidies. He went to Michigan and said that Detroit’s automobile jobs “aren’t coming back.” He said the same thing about South Carolina’s textile mills. South Carolina’s use of the Confederate Flag was opposed by McCain leading shady radio ads to slam him. And he of course went to Wisconsin to criticize milk subsidies.

When others flapped their gums about bipartisanship, John McCain was right in the middle of the big compromises. The Senator sponsored a historic bill with Joe Lieberman for a cap-and-trade approach to climate change. As Chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee McCain led the investigation into corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff whose clients were mostly Republicans.
During the heated judicial-filibuster debate, McCain was part of the “gang of 14.” This consisted of 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans. The Democrats were assured that the filibuster would stay and the President would consult the Senate on his nominees. The Republicans were assured that the deal was tentative hinging on the agreement of Democrats to only filibuster under extreme circumstances, and the confirmation of Bush’s 3 more controversial picks that had been held up previously. McCain was part of several bipartisan Immigration compromises to deal with the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.
As someone who physically bears the scars of torture, John McCain opposes the Bush Administration’s legalization of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In other words- waterboarding, putting someone into stress positions while stripping them naked, and hypothermia. I am grateful that John McCain will end this policy that has gone a long way to harm America’s honor. McCain will stand up for limited government by opposing Bush’s more egregious expansions of the executive branch like the warrantless wiretapping program.

I am optimistic about a President McCain. This is a man who has not been afraid to challenge his party to do the right thing. There is no one in American Politics like John McCain. Given his remarkable character, McCain could do great things as President.

Good Reading

2008-05-24T15:48:00.000-07:00

Im just getting aroung to reading Tucker Carlson's profile piece on Ron Paul in last December's New Republic.

Heres how he describes the supporters:

It's hard to think of a presidential candidate who's ever drawn a coalition as broad as Ron Paul's. At any Paul event, you're likely to run into self-described anarcho-capitalists, 9/11-deniers, antiwar lefties, objectivists, paleocons, hemp activists, and geeky high school kids, along with tax resisters, conspiracy nuts, and acolytes of Murray Rothbard. Sounds about right.

Quote for the Day

2008-05-05T01:38:00.000-07:00

"If God were to hold all Truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand only the steady and diligent drive for Truth, albeit with the proviso that I would always and forever err in the process, and to offer me the choice, I would with all humility take the left hand, and say, Father, I will take this--the pure Truth is for You alone."

-Gotthold Lessing

Expelled

2008-04-29T18:00:00.000-07:00

I saw Ben Stein's documentary today. The case for Intelligent Design science seems more convincing to me.

The vast majority of scientists believe Darwin's theory of evolution explains our creation. This can be argued, is a consensus. However, several credentialed scientists have been fired for submitting papers and articles in support of I.D. Is there a chill wind over this debate? I struggle to find a convincing incentive for the movie's demonstrated blacklisting of scientists and frankly journalists who lend support to I.D.

I think the scientific community is dominated by Darwinists who honestly believe that given the evidence, life is formed by evolution. I agree that Science is not there to debate anything, and needs to focus like a laser on the truth. If they feel someone is saying something that does not seek truth, I can see why they would lose their job. Hence, an incentive.

Academic Freedom only goes so far. But the consensus contention of the Darwinists is undermined by the fact of rank intimidation of anyone who challenges their orthodoxy. Darwin himself challenged the consensus at the time. Newton isn't the end all of Physics. How are we sure that Darwin can't be supplemented and have his findings expanded upon? I wonder how the world works in a harmonious fashion of systems, and how exactly life was on Earth to evolve to begin with? We have experts supporting I.D., the scientific community not being serious about its merits because the debate is "over", and several questions about the sufficiency of Darwin's theory. Given these doubts, it is more than reasonable to err on the side of Academic Freedom.

I didn't like Stein's point that Darwinism was used by the Nazis. He takes into the gas chambers of Dachau and has the German guide talk about how people were systematically killed. He shows how the Nazis believed in Darwinism and were therefore certain that the holocaust and eugenics were a force for good. This is fallacious and unfair. It is fallacious in that the images shown and explanations given are a play on emotion. It is unfair because there are plenty of honorable ideologies that have been used for horrific acts throughout history. For example, patriotism is born out of Fascism.

The beginning and end of the movie show Stein making a speech to a College audience. There is an allusion to the Berlin wall. A wall blocking any debate about I.D. At the end he gets a standing ovation. The image of the Berlin wall coming down is played. I admire the revolutionary attitude. The students cheered Stein as he challenged the party line of the Faculty. The wall needs to come down, and fast.

Thank You Rev. Wright

2008-04-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

Let me tell ya, Its pretty entertaining to hear White-Liberals who have never stepped foot in a black church explain away Wright. "Well, he doesn't literally mean the government spread AIDS."

Its also pretty fun to watch them rationalize the view that God attacked the U.S. on 9/11 given that they jump at the opportunity to slam Robertson and Falwell for saying the same thing. (Drivel either way as far as Im concerned)

Don't you love how Wright says "this is an attack on the Black church."? Way to drag your faith down in the mud with you. Hes using a favorite politician tactic of hiding behind a group that no one would ever criticize.

But anyways, This National Press Club performance is going to get played all week and swing voters are going to conclude that Obama's pastor is a revolutionary bum. The lemmings err... Democrats are going to throw away their 2 elections winning, best political couple away for a guy that has no record of big accomplishments in his political career. Beating Alan Keyes definitely doesn't count.

Obama's comments in Pennsylvania show the ugly side of liberal politics. Its seeks to help people that it holds in contempt. This is an old 1980s Democrat that sees his voters as victim constituencies. Fuck you,Democrats.

Bob Barr's marijuana flip-flop

2008-04-07T15:50:00.000-07:00

Bob Barr's reasoning for his change of heart is incredibly stupid. Heres the quote:

I, over the years, have taken a very strong stand on drug issues, but in light of the tremendous growth of government power since 9/11, it has forced me and other conservatives to go back and take a renewed look at how big and powerful we want the government to be in people’s lives,”

So the Government's expanded anti-terror powers going too far is what passes for an argument against marijuana decriminalization? I didn't detect anything said about the merits of drug-policy in his quote. This makes as much sense as someone explaining their position on say... CAFTA as driven by say... their position on the War in Iraq.

Either Bob Barr is lurching closer to the Libertarian Party for his sudden bid for the party's Presidential Nomination, or his sense of his logic is completely amateurish.

A very unimpressive start Im afraid.

Theres still Hope...

2008-04-06T09:03:00.000-07:00

I usually dont quote country music but...

'And he bowed his head to Jesus/And he stood for Uncle Sam/And he only loved one woman/He was always proud of what he had/

-Alan Jackson

Today's Prime Ministers Questions

2008-04-02T09:56:00.000-07:00

William Hague vs Harriet Harman

Hague: Id like to congratulate the Leader of the House on being the first female Labour member ever to answer Prime Ministers Questions; she must be proud 3 decades on to be following in the footsteps of Margaret Thatcher.

Mitt gets Busted

2008-01-28T09:57:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while, a campaign will come out with a response to an attack that stings ever so nicely. The McCain campaign achieved that today:

"Mitt Romney's campaign is based on the wholesale deception of voters. On every one of the issues he has attacked John McCain on, Romney was for it before he was against it.
"He was for campaign finance reform, and even proposed taxing political contributions.
"He was for cap and trade, and even supported a tax that increased the price of gasoline at the pump.
"He called our immigration bill 'reasonable' and 'not amnesty.'
"The truth is, Mitt Romney was a liberal governor of Massachusetts who raised taxes, imposed with Ted Kennedy a big government mandate health care plan that is now a quarter of a billion dollars in the red, and managed his state's economy incompetently, leaving Massachusetts with less job growth than 47 other states."

Sorry to all the conservatives who are hell bent on nominating a candidate that cant win a general election. Im looking forward to Limbaugh's head exploding. He'll be madder than the time the Police caught him with someone elses prescription of Viagra on his way to the Dominican Republic. (Anyone headed there for spring break? maybe Rush will lend you his little black book of contacts) Lets hope the MSM will stop pretending that talk radio runs the Republican Party.

New Hampshire Predictions

2008-01-07T22:23:00.000-08:00

GOP

1.Mccain by less than 2%
2. Romney
3.Huckabee
4.Paul
5.Rudy
6.Fred
Everyone else (I wont give Alan Keyes a prediction)

Dems
1.Obama by double digits
2.Hillary
3. Strong third by Edwards (within 5 points of second)
4.Everyone else -Richardson, that fugly lookin martian dude, et al

McCain Facts

2008-01-07T22:18:00.000-08:00

From Drew Cline of the New Hampshire Union Leader

1. Dick Cheney’s “secret, undisclosed location”? Crouching behind John McCain.
2. North Korea’s nuke program began afer Kim Jong-Il bought one of John McCain’s toenail clippings on eBay and accidentally dropped it into a nuclear reactor.
3. Nostradamus tried to predict the rise of John McCain, but the thought alone killed him.
4. Teddy Roosevelt actually said, “Speak softly and carry picture of John McCain.”
5. Rudy Giuliani once invited John McCain to New York City, and all crime instantly ceased.
6. Chuck Norris is John McCain’s decoy.
7. Mitt Romney’s secret of success: On day one, warn all managers: “Perform, or I’ll give you to John McCain.”
8. The original pirate flag was a drawing of John McCain’s face, but it was so terrifying the crew lept overboard every time it was raised. The skull and crossbones was created as a less frightening alternative.
9. Hillary Clinton’s opposition research paper on John McCain is only five words long: “If he is nominated, quit.”
10. John McCain was once bitten by a cobra. It died instantly.
11. Ninjas wear black so John McCain won’t see them.
12. Women wear pink so he will.
13. Santa Claus has three lists: Naugty. Nice. John McCain.
14. The Vietnamese word for “tough” is “McCain.”
15. John McCain’s plan for U.S. energy independence is to plug himself into the power grid for one minute a day.
16. Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence read, “. . . all men are created equal, except John McCain.”
17. The commander of the U.S.S. Intrepid’s plan in case his ship ran out of ammo was to put John McCain in a cannon and fire him at the enemy.
18. The devil went down to Georgia because John McCain was in Arizona.
19. Nails think of themselves as “tough as John McCain.”
20. Instead of waterboarding terror suspects, John McCain plans to stare at them until they talk.
21. John Edwards brushes his hair each morning so he’ll look great in case he runs into John McCain.
22. When John McCain was a baby, he dug a hole in his backyard. Today we call it the Panama Canal.
23. Aircraft carriers are so big because they need to be able to carry John McCain.
24. Ken Burns was going to make a film about John McCain’s life, but he realized the story was so incredible no one would believe it.
25. If John McCain thinks about you, you’ll experience total happiness all day long."

Hat tip to redstate

ChuckHuck Facts

2008-01-07T22:10:00.001-08:00

This is a list created by some cat named Chase Cooper writing for the Indiana Daily Student. (Whatever the Hell that is)

Fact: Chuck Norris is so corny that ethanol producers believe him to be a vast, untapped source of alternative energy.
Fact: Mike Huckabee calls himself a Republican, but functionally he’s a pro-life Democrat. He’s a big government, tax-and-spend proponent of the Nanny State, who supports a nationwide smoking ban, government-sponsored wellness programs and more government regulation of private industries, such as minimum wage increases. He also has a grossly liberal record on illegal immigration.
Fact: Chuck Norris is so painful to watch that nine out of 10 Americans would rather take a roundhouse kick to the face from him than sit through an episode of “Walker, Texas Ranger.”
Fact: Mike Huckabee granted over 1,000 pardons and commutations during his 10 years as governor – roughly one clemency every four days. In 17 years, Huckabee’s three predecessors – which included Bill Clinton, by the way – granted only 507 clemencies combined. The Huckster’s clemency recipients included violent criminals who reputedly “got religion” in prison. Should this man have the power of the presidential pardon?
Fact: Chuck Norris is so pathetic that Jack Bauer tracked and killed him in only 21 hours, then took a three-hour nap.Fact: According to the Arkansas Leader newspaper, Mike Huckabee, while governor of Arkansas, raised more taxes than Bill Clinton did while governor of Arkansas. His tax record is so bad that even the members of the Arkansas Republican Assembly chose to endorse Fred Thompson rather than Huck. When the Club for Growth, a prominent conservative anti-tax organization, sharply criticized his tax record, Huckabee responded by calling them the “Club for Greed.” There’s nothing greedy about the concept that the money you’ve earned belongs to you.
Fact: Chuck Norris is such a bad actor that even Keanu Reeves flips the channel whenever he sees Chuck on TV.
Fact: Mike Huckabee has little to no foreign policy experience. When confronted with this fact in an interview with Don Imus on Dec. 4, the Huckster stated, “I may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.” If he likes Holiday Inn Express so much, I’d much rather he sleep there than at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Fact: A Huckabee nomination would be disastrous to the conservative movement, the Republican Party and the United States of America, and the Democrats would almost certainly take the White House, regardless of who they nominate. If conservatism is to be advanced in the next four years, the Republican Party needs to chuck Huck – soon

For real, is anybody not tired of these guys' shtick? If you saw Huckabees speech post-Iowa, Norris was standing in the backround, and it was never explained why he was there. I thought it looked really, really, stupid.

Hat tip to http://www.clubforgrowth.com/

Hillary as Maggie?

2008-01-07T16:22:00.000-08:00

Andrew Sullivan is pissed off. Heres what he says

Thatcher never used her husband to climb up the greasy pole. From very modest beginnings, she got a chemistry degree and a law degree at a time when most women were home-makers. She was never the party establishment - always the insurgent. She spent her career telling people to look after themselves, not that she would take care of them with coddling government help. And she was a real feminist, the kind of woman leader who would never deploy the gender card to get her elected. Compared to Thatcher, Clinton is a political footnote.

I wholeheartedly agree. This echoes Peggy Noonan's
column from a while back. Dennis Thatcher was a good bloke, but his wifes success was born of her own mettle. She didn't argue that she should be elected because of her gender. She made a case based on merit.

Heres a favorite Hillary tactic: -HRC lashes out at someone
-She is called on it
-HRC and her surrogates say she is being called a "bitch" or they accuse others of attempting to imply that its due to her monthly bill.

Lady Thatcher took criticism head on, notice how she didnt portray herself as a weak woman, victim of attacks by men. Feminism will always be understood in the pop-culture way it is. Thatcher is the real Feminist as Hillary is just a big talker. As someone who considers himself a feminist, Im ok if most people never understand this. But Im not ok with a cynical, losing politician attempting to pose as an Iron Lady.

As a side note, Hillary's point was that Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to warn about global warming. This is proof to me that you dont have be have to be a flat-earther that denies global warming in order to be conservative. It looks that way in America but lets look globally for a second. Virtually every center-right political leader in the world accepts global warming. David Cameron in the UK, Canada's Stephen Harper, France's Nicolas Sarkozy. We can accept the greenhouse effect but look at free-market, private property, pro-growth methods to combatting it.

I think this concludes my monthly attempt to sound smart. i.e. my blog.

Chavez power grab fails

2007-12-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

reports A Venezuela blogger.

Lets hope this is true, and lets hope the Anti-American jackass resigns after the voters expressed desire for a competent government. He promised to accept the result. While the spectacle of Chavez being a lame duck will be delightful, the country needs to get moving and start digging out of Chavez's mess.

The Venezuelan people should not have to wait until 2013 to get rid of this man.

Venezuela should vote for capitalism, limited Government, and property rights. At the same time, those in charge of government services, top ranking officials to bottom should get jobs based on merit.

The Romney/Log Cabin Republicans Row

2007-12-01T16:33:00.000-08:00

Your favorite mooney newspaper has a great story on the ads that the Log Cabin Republicans have been running against Mitt Romney. They've been attacking Romney on his right flank as they see him as their biggest enemy. They probably dislike Romney the most given his pro-gay past. This seems to be strong reasoning. In Romneys political past he promised to be more for gay rites than Ted Kennedy. He distributed pink lit. for his Gubernatorial run at Boston's Gay pride parade. If he reached out to the gay community before, why not now? Why is he now acting as if "gay issues" dont exist? Why avoid the issue like the plague?

Because Mitt Romney's a panderer. Hes a Massachussetts flip-flopper. Everything about his personality exhudes fakeness. (The hair, the speech style, the constant upbeat happiness. Ill take grumpy old John McCain any day.) The sad thing about American Politics is that its political suicide for the Republican Party to attempt to Get the votes of homosexuals.

Heres Romney flack Kevin Madden's response:"Rudy Giuliani is the Log Cabin Republicans candidate of choice." Besides the fact that LCR's has not endorsed Giuliani this ad is dirty politics. Romney wants voter to know that there are gay people that support Giuliani. "Hes their candidate, maybe Giuliani himself is gay", Romney would love primary voters to reason.

Why should homosexuals join a party that beats them and their lifestyle over the head for political gain? Maybe I've got it all wrong. Its likely an issue of Republican strategists deciding they just dont need them.

Josh4viceprez doesn't make endorsements...

2007-11-25T00:17:00.000-08:00

He tells you how you're going to vote.

And you're going to vote for John McCain. Out of all the silly people running for President, could you really imagine anyone else as Commander in Chief? Ok, military service doesn't equal foreign policy experience. If it did, Admiral Stockdale would be qualified to be President. (Yes, Stockdale wass Ross Perot's running mate and the same dude that fell asleep during the debate.) But we know something about McCain's foreign policy worldview. He boasts serious foreign policy establishment endorsements from Realist types like Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Hague and James Woolsey. This is a break from Bush/Perle/Wolfowitz and their Utopian Democracy promotion vision of foreign policy. Declaring that everyone, even the Radically Muslim Middle East has a "universal" desire for freedom and elections are the way to unleash it and spread it across the region ending the recruitment of Terrorism is just about the most left-wing foreign policy weve had in quite some time. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said that Governments can not change nations and only cultures can. Weve seen the Bush foreign policy ignore this advice and have seen America's military get figuratively slammed down in a cold back alley in the third world bringing us back to reality. Bush Republicans don't understand that limits to Government's power don't end domestically. Yes, Senator McCain supported the Iraq War and still does but never was enthusiastic about the Idealist Democracy promotion understanding that throughout history mere elections have created undemocratic Democracy. The Bush 41 types supporting McCain very much take the latter worldview. We know a lot about McCain's foreign policy.

The Bush/Rumsfeld foreign policy was one of ignoring the Generals. Rumsfeld's vision of the military is a small, pared down, technological, special forces type of force. The decision to go into Iraq with a limited force seemed to be for the purposes of proving Rumsfeld's ideology. Ignored were Tommy Franks and Colin Powell who were opting for the strategy of overwhelming force. This Jacksonian approach is the most logical foreign policy. If one wants to fight a war, one better fight it to win it. Or don't fight it. Americans have typically opted for option C. Take the easy way out. Avoid casualities. Half-way it. We saw this strategy fail in Korea, Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs and now in Iraq. The McCain/Petraeus plan was constantly shrugged off by Bush/Rumsfeld and is now showing success leaving your humble blogger more optimistic about Iraq than hes been in a long time. Attacks in Baghdad are down 70%, gee imagine if we had went in with a large force. Who was arguing for that? Who was arguing for an increase in troop levels after that advice warning was ignored? The McCain plan is working whereas others have had tragic, humiliating consequences. The McCain foreign policy is detailed, coherent, and it works.
There is one Republican in the country who has authority with the American people on the subject of Iraq. Someone who literally bears the scars of war will be in a better position to argue against withdrawal in Iraq whether this is fair or not. John McCain is able to argue this point in a non-combative, but serious and convincing way that is unrivaled. Rudy Giuliani throws out talking points like "the Terrorist war aginst us." Nice talking point, but it lacks substance. Thompson argues for "Unity". Ok, Americans opposed to the war should shut up and not criticize? Again no substance. Romney, well barely said anything about foreign policy in his announcement speech. When you announce your canidacy, you should not leave major problems to deal with out of your acceptance speech. Im not going to forget that, and he cant take the opportunity back.

Rudy Giuliani continues to have a campaign of barely any ideas. Ok, he did a good job handling 9/11 and running New York, but hes not running for Mayor of America. Anyway, Giuliani has a very authoritarian streak. I believe th quote was "Freedom is authority. Freedom is about ceding a great deal of individual autonomy to lawful authority." What a sick worldview. I hope to God this does not represent todays Conservatism. John McCain opposes torture. He opposes King George's claim that he can take away Habeus Corpus in the name of Terrorism. I wonder how the Bushies react when they learn that Winston Churchill's Conservative Party campaigned on Habeus Corpus rights while the socialist Labour Party wanted to revoke that right for the greater good. The McCain stance would help heal America's broken reputation in the world

David Brooks recent article on McCain sums up alot of my thinking on him. It is an issue of character. A candidate like Romney changes his political identity depending on which election he is running in. John McCain is a conviction politician. Vote for McCain because nobody else has the balls to go to Iowa and oppose Ethanol Subsidies. All of the supposed Conservatives running for President think its great not because it is but because taking the McCain route is political suicide. (hench the Senator's current situation in Iowa.) He is acting on conviction because Ethanol subsidies support an energy that can not make it on its own. If it was at all viable, that wonderful thing we call the Market would make it an alternative energy source. This issue is not insignificant. If Ethanol is viable, entrepreneuers would put up big cash for it knowing that there are a lot of consumers who will buy the wonderful product, with the entrepeneuers knowing they can get rich off the consumers. This is Capitalism ladies and gents. We now know which candidate believes in it.

John McCain would rather lose a war than an election. He gives his answers without spin and useless rhetoric. He is very real and genuine. He has a maverick streak that I can admire and identify with to the core of my being. McCain's military service makes him a personal hero of mine. I will admit this alone does not make him a political hero. However, it all adds up to something I qualify as "character". It indeed is not something not qualified by quick answers to issue questions. It is not achieved by a good speech or slick debate soundbyte. We should take the character issue into account whenever choosing candidates. When someone has character they have a backbone of steel but also humility. The evidence suggests that John McCain has these rare qualities. This is what makes someone a leader, and sometimes Presidential Timber.

Ive disagreed with some things John McCain does. He was on the wrong side of the tax cuts issue and he now is a believer in the Laffer-Curve. This is admittedly a U-turn. However, McCain does a lot less of this than the rest of the pack and usually does it poorly. Which is endearing. McCain took the Bush/Kennedy side of the immigration debate. The Amnesty-first solution is wrong, but dont think the other side will get off easy. Those who criticize Amnesty as a Terrorism issue are some of the worst demagogues Ive heard of. The Tom Tancredos of the world who pimp the Terrorism-Illegal Immigration for political benefit know that most people will never hear that the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally not through the Mexican Border. And of course, Campaign Finance Reform protects incumbents and is anti-democratic.

McCain has the best chance to win the General Election. I know nobody knows that because the media hasn't pounded it into your head yet. However, his General Election numbers are surging. He is ahead of Hillary nationwide, outperforms Giuliani against the Dems in Virginia,(Rudy loses against her here) Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio,Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. Rudy makes blue states closer but not close enough whereas John McCain wins swing States. Looking at recent polling, GOPers would be foolish not to nominate John McCain.

John McCain deserves the Republican Nomination for President of the United States.

George Will takes on King George

2007-09-22T14:23:00.000-07:00

Read it. It shows that not all of us conservatives bow at the altar of concentrations of power. In fact some of us would like to tell Dick Cheney where he might want to shove his unitary executive theory.

He quotes James Madison here."Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws."
Mr. Bush asserts that we have to stay in Iraq because thats what the Generals say. "We have to let them finish the job." As if thats an argument against withdrawal. Anyway, thanks to George Will for showing us that one of the main authors of the constitution disagrees. No doubt Bush will continue to hide behind the military who dont make policy, but have the duty to support the orders of their Commander in Chief. Why can't he defend his own policy without trodding out victims?

Media bias against Sarkozy

2007-09-22T13:50:00.000-07:00

Heres some "Journalism" from the AP's Elaine Ganley.

Just in case your too lazy to click and read, Ill give you the lead. A Russian boy suffers head injuries after falling from a window while trying to elude police. A North African man slips from a window ledge and fractures his leg while fleeing officers. A Chinese woman lies in a coma after plunging from a window during a police check.

You wanna bring up these instances, fine thats completetely fair. But you'll find that Ganley never puts these instances into context. She goes on to list several complaints she can quote aginst Sarkozy's crackdown. We are left with opinions from Socialist Party officials and union bigwigs.

Maybe Ganley can talk to the citizens in the Paris suburbs who are having their cars burned and enduring riot like conditions. We know many of the perpetrators are illegal immigrants. If someone is in the country illegaly and gets injured running from the police, its not anyone elses fault but their own. Heres one guy who agrees with me. It aint Jaques Chirac.

Gordon Brown's Brilliant Move

2007-09-15T22:14:00.000-07:00

Gordon Brown's rendezvous with Lady Thatcher would make Machiavelli proud. His praise of her as a "conviction politician" and his recent comment of hanging her portrait in 10 Downing Street will deliver a good punch to David Cameron's nascent Conservative Party.

Going right for the bait, Cameron flack Rob Wilson said "Whilst some of my weak-minded colleagues are fair game for Mr Brown, Baroness Thatcher at 81 - we know she's frail, we know she's lonely, and she does have difficulty, without going into too much detail, with her memory," What a tosser.

Conservative party supporters are a seperate entity than Cameron's Conservatives. (By that I mean the way the leadership of the party is not neccesarily, and in fact is not, in fact a representation of the Party's grassroots.) Although I have noticed that the Tories want rid of the Labour Government no matter how pathetic and incoherent their Tories are, Cameron keeps poking the eye of the Traditionalist base of the Conservative Party. To patronize Baroness Thatcher the way they did will only flare up these tensions. It will create infighting that will dominate the media cycle taking Cameron off his message.

If you ask me, Cameron has had some really good moments lately. His support for getting rid of the marriage penalty, his recent BBC interview, his focus on crime using the term "broken society" and promising a "bare-knuckled fight" over Gordon Brown's cuts to the NHS, were all very positive politically. Oh, and dont forget him going after Gordo for lying about the EU referendum. But then he always does something to, well... screw himself over. Why would you ever propose a tax hike on alchohol in England? Talk about electoral suicide. Why offset your proposed tax cuts with "green taxes"? I admire Dave's effort to retake the environmental mantle from Labour, but why not do something progressive and offer tax cuts for behavior that cuts down on pollution? That could be completely unique and a policy model for the rest of the world! ugh.

A journalist frien of mine once said "politics is a guessing game". How insightful is that? Gordon kissed Maggie's ring and generated a few negative press releases from the Unions. But he has capitol to spend. Cameron doesn't. Brown guessed right. He got Team Cameron to criticize Thatcher. Brown 1 Cameron 0.

Discussion on Infrastructure

2007-08-05T23:08:00.000-07:00

In the wake of the I-35 tragedy my hometown newspaper(Madison, WI) recently ran an editorial placing blame on the federal government for the nations failing infrasture. Im not buying it.

Money quote:If the federal limits were not applied with an eye toward denying needed infrastructure funding to states, if the federal government accepted its responsibility to maintain the bridges, roads, levies and sewers of the United States, the death and destruction that come from neglect might well have been avoided. So under the Cap Times' constructed reality, State and local governments are waiting with baited breath as they are too incapacitated to do anything about their crumbling infrastructure. Perhaps this is why in 2004 Minnesota spent over $900 million on a light rail project. Or maybe the Cap Times wants to talk about about the Governor they endorsed using Wisconsin's powerful veto pen on a massive raid of the transportation fund.

The article goes on to "explain" that the Federal Government does not focus on basic services like infrastructure. Lets have some fun with that one, shall we? The Capitol Times has one of the most left-wing editorial boards in the country. They are always in favor of activist and progressive government. If America truly had limited Government and didn't go further and further beyond their basic responsibilities we would achieve the intentions (safe roads) of the Capitol Times.

If the editorial boards and the politicians want to get serious about improving the nations's infrastructure they should look to privatization. Jack Kemp once said "No one washes a rental car." Government has shown its ability to provide upkeep to its property. Private ownership would have every reason to keep their roads clean, sturdy, and safe.

With toll roads collecting revenue, we would have a superior system to the gas tax. First of all,toll roads are paid by the user rather than coerced from everyone who pays at the pump. Interstate users will largely be trucking companies and out of state visitors. A very progressive "tax". Second of all, we have a hard time knowing how much to charge in gas taxes. Fuel economy standards change over time and largely improve. Federal gas tax money comes with strings attached. That is why I say the toll road route looks more efficient. With improved technology, we do not need toll booths with large lines. It is now completely possible to put a detector on a car's windshield and charge them later. It is also possible to take photographs of every vehicle's license plate that passes.

I understand that private roads will by nature be somewhat of a monopoly,(impossible to build a competing road) and the apprehension of losing public control over roads to private companies. At the risk of sounding like a bumper sticker, I have more trust in those closest to the ground than I have in the central planners at the DOT.

What will come of Sarkozy?

2007-07-29T23:44:00.000-07:00

U.S. News and World Report gives us a report on President Sarkozy's brief time in office and his prospects for success.

According to the story, Parliament has already passed the initiative to allow for overtime. I did not catch this reading the wires, but good news nonetheless. This would water down the 35-hour workweek. The other intitatives I am interested in are the 50
% tax ceiling and the measure to curb public strikes. This agenda could just as soon be derailed by the "street veto". France has a history of the Unions, the students, and the scum of striking, marching, and generally raising hell simultaneously which has forced previous governments to repeal laws.

The President has also promised action on Darfur. Apparently he is going the route of an AU peacekeeping force through the United Nations.

On the political front, there is reason for optimism. Sarko enjoys about a 66% approval rating. His bipartisan cabinet strategy is looking wonderful. He is taking talent away from the Socialist Party, and surely providing headaches down at SP headquarters. It also looks good because it fulfills Sarkozy's rhetoric about the value of merit. Let me say also of the cabinet, it is the most diverse in French history. The Left in France has given lip service to diversity and they have called Nicolas Sarkozy a racist. It is apparent now that the Socialists flap their gums, while Nick Sarkozy follows through on his promises. Back to the point, this is a leader with great political skill.

Sarkozy's team has already given up a key provision on his higher education initiative- to give the national Universities the right to deny applicants to study more elite fields. In order to secure the release of the Bulgarian Nurses, "compensation" to the families of those affected by the dirty medical devices was given in the form of half a massive bribe. Its hard to say which way things will go. This summer will determine the President's success. France is in the middle of his emergency summer session. We shall see how he holds up in the face of expected huge demonstrations and strikes. If President Sarkozy retreats on his reforms, fails to do anything short of saving Darfur, or gets stalled in parliament, he could end up being a straight up bust.

Sullivan's Sloppy Thinking

2007-07-21T06:36:00.000-07:00

Apparently Andrew Sullivan has a little extra time on his hands, so he is looking for conservatives to attack whether warranted or not. Sully accused Ramesh Ponnuru of subscribing to the divine command theory. Ponnoru makes clear that he does not subscribe to the theory, and only believes that with God there are no human rights because with God there is no universe.

I largely share Andrew's interpretation of conservatism, but this is not the first example of sloppy thinking. He is becoming a caricature of himself, and more and more annoying to read. Andrew has really backed himself into a corner (no pun intended) on this one. When will he apologize?

my kind of political party

2007-07-11T11:39:00.000-07:00

Onatrio Alternative has cropped up in our neighbors to the North.

But Silvestro said the new party aims to field 50 candidates or more in the 106-seat contest on a platform that, among other things, calls for smaller government, an end to "enforced" bilingualism and multiculturalism, across-the-board tax cuts, and allowing municipalities to de-amalgamate.
Abortion and gay marriage? "We are not going to get bogged down in social issues," Silvestro declared, adding he does not want the new party to become a magnet for single-issue groups and voters. I get annoyed when the American Republican Party offers boutique tax cuts to their contributors and special interests instead of offering across the board tax cuts that actually help the common man, and that voters can identify with. One thing I admire about Canada is that the center-right can actually have a debate about social issues. That is something that is missing in America.

I like Stephen Harper. He is an intellectual and a man of the right. He used to talk about how Von Mises and Hayek were his heroes. After all this is a man who once said this, "Conservatives need to reassess our understanding of the modern Left. It has moved beyond old socialistic morality or even moral relativism to something much darker. It has become a moral nihilism - the rejection of any tradition or convention of morality, a post-Marxism with deep resentments, even hatreds of the norms of free and democratic western civilization.
This descent into nihilism should not be surprising because moral relativism simply cannot be sustained as a guiding philosophy. It leads to silliness such as moral neutrality on the use of marijuana or harder drugs mixed with its random moral crusades on tobacco. It explains the lack of moral censure on personal foibles of all kinds, extenuating even criminal behaviour with moral outrage at bourgeois society, which is then tangentially blamed for deviant behaviour. On the moral standing of the person, it leads to views ranging from radical responsibility-free individualism, to tribalism in the form of group rights.
Conservatives have focused on the inconsistency in all of this. Yet it is actually disturbingly consistent. It is a rebellion against all forms of social norm and moral tradition in every aspect of life. The logical end of this thinking is the actual banning of conservative views, which some legislators and "rights" commissions openly contemplate." (Hat-tip to Robert Jones of CoPunk)

When Harper was out of Government he criticized the "jackasses" running his party for running the opposition the same way Harper is governing. Harper has forgotten his roots. It is his own fault that Ontario Alternative has sprung up. Harper's budgets have been tremendously irresponsible and are transparently used as a way to score better poll positioning. If Canadian voters ultimately give Harper a majority rather than minority government Im not sure it would do any good.

New Republic rips The Nation

2007-06-03T12:08:00.000-07:00

via The Corner:

"While violence among Palestinian factions wages on in Gaza (from which, as even The Nation concedes, Israel de-occupied nearly two years ago), Israel is of course to blame. The editors contrast stubborn Israelis (most of whom "viscerally, emphatically oppose both the binational and secular democratic models") with the more reasonable Palestinians. Apparently, "The mainstream of the Palestinian liberation movement, for its part, has for three decades supported the two-state solution, and even the Islamist Hamas has indicated that it would acquiesce." The first contention is outright delusion, and the second reconfirms the magazine's long history of being useful idiots for totalitarians. Whether shilling for Fidel Castro or insisting on Alger Hiss's innocence (yes, publisher Victor Navasky is still at it), the oldest journal of opinion in the United States has yet to find an anti-American cause with which it cannot sympathize. "

New

2007-06-03T12:07:00.001-07:00

Allez Sarko

2007-06-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

Françoise Fressoz, a political commentator for Les Echos newspaper, wrote that as if by magic the habitually gloomy country had assumed a far more rosy outlook following Mr Sarkozy’s election on May 6. “At all levels of society confidence is back. All that because a new man has entered the Elysée palace and promised his people that everything is possible. The miracle of Sarkomania!”

65% approval ratings, an ally of the US at the United Nations, an infectious optimism... I think I might be right after all.

Answering Justin

2007-05-31T22:16:00.001-07:00

Justin at RightontheRight.com asks us if FDR was a socialist. Heres my response:

I think your question needs to be clarified. Theres no question his programs were socialistic. Another problem I have is that your question seems to imply that if your readers answer "yes" it is a refutation of Roosevelt. Too much of political debate today labels somebody something as an argument in and of itself. By asking this question I think you are obligated to critique socialism. Plus, this question asks us to bite off more than we can chew. But Ill try. Enough of criticizing your question, I get the point anyway and Ill answer it.
If you technical about political philosophy I would say FDR was a "reform liberal". I use the term liberal in the Hobbesian sense that we are all liberals. Think of the "classical liberalism" that our country was founded on. (legitimate government, free markets, individualism, limited government, and individual rights) Reform liberalism basically says that the market is not sufficient enough to provide for people and laissez-faire capitalism is chaotic and does not work. This can be distinguished from socialism in that it still loosely maintains a market based economy unlike pure socialism. But for the sake of the discussion I will refer to it as socialism.
The only way I will say that FDR was a socialist is you are saying that any intervention in the market is socialist. If we are using that definition every elected official is a socialist. So the only way somone cannot be a socialist is if they support pure laissez-faire economics.
Herbert Hoover's laissez faire ideology was outdated. It had a place in 18th and part of 19th century America but not after the industrial revolution. Adam Smith and the early capitalist thinkers dreamed up capitalism before the industrial revolution. In the early 1900's because of technology there was pollution and more of it than anyone could of ever imagined. The economy was now production based with people working for wages instead of working on farms. Airplanes were invented. Regulation of airplanes was very practical. Air traffic control prevented planes from crashing into one another. My point is that with all the massive changes going on in America it is ridiculous to expect our economy to go completely unregulated.
Another point I want to make is that regulation is good for capitalism. Regulation gives consumers greater faith in the economy making them more likely to invest. For example, post ENRON, the TECH industry really really wanted regulation so people would trust the tech sector once again. FDRs regulation of banking and other industries actually helped them. Regulation is not always the nemesis of business. If your like me and are a capitalist you should thank FDR.
I think Justin brings this point up because of recent books being written about how the New Deal made the economy worse and the economy was set to heal itself under Hoover, and FDR only had a good economy because of the War buildup. I dont buy it. The laissez-faire framework was outdated and was a cause of the depression. FDR brought the economy into the 19th century. (by the way, the original definition of neoconservative was somebody who basically accepts the New Deal as neccesary but fights aditional regualations and supports some deregulation. Irv Kristol is the original neoconservative in this regard, whereas Bill Buckley represents the old right. Of course God only knows what neoconservative is supposed to mean today. So color me a neocon.) Bigger Government was a neccesary evil.
The New Deal did a lot of good things. I really like the programs that employed people. During the depression as we all know it was impossible for many to find jobs. When so many able-bodied people are unable to work the public (government) has got to move.That isnt to say everyone in the country should be employed. A conservative understands this is impossible. FDR understood this as well. (Contrast that with the Bush crucible of "When someone hurts, Government has got to move")Yes folks, thats our "conservative" President George W. Bush) Anyway, it is unacceptable to have millions and millions of people not working. Hey, if someone has no source of income, what kind lifestyle do you think they'll choose? Very likely crime and degeneracy. I like his regulation of business because it gave them a stability and restored faith in our economy.
What is wrong with the New Deal? To answer my own question, a lot of things. The minimum wage has the opposite effect of what it is intended to do. Social Security taxes are levied from the employee and passed on from the employer. That is money workers could be using themselves to retire. Also Social Security is a crazy promise to begin with. It demands perfection. "Nobody should fall into the cracks," they say. Even if we didnt have Social Security, very few retirees would be in extreme poverty. They would know they have to plan for it. Even if a few do fall into hard times, I do not believe heaven and earth should be moved to save a couple of people. No matter how many Government programs are created there will always be poverty. As Rudy Giuliani recently said, "The Democrats want a society with no risk." Roosevelts programs however were mainly intended to be temporary assistance. That idea did not last long.
Was FDR a socialist? In a sense. But our economy is capitalist with a small degree of socialism which makes it the best in the world.

A quote that should be forever enshrined

2007-05-25T21:33:00.000-07:00

I think one of the main problems with punditry and politics is the idea of team spirit - that people feel they are on one team or another, and that they have to do what serves that team. And that is the death of honest thinking.

-David Brooks
I guess Ive always felt this and am glad to see it expressed in a clear way that I am incapable of. Since Ive started blogging Ive found that I mostly attack right-wing opinions and opinion-makers. But I also try to point out why these opinions dont fit my interpretation of conservatism. The fact remains, Im more interested in attacking the nonsensical right. Why is that?

Most conservative bloggers do seem like team players, going after liberals while holding off on their comrades. Theres nothing wrong with attacking the left, God knows its a target rich environment. If I was a more competent blogger I would do the same. To begin my psychoanalyis, I guess I resent the way right and left wing pundits tell you day after day how their side is great and the other side is just horrible. Probably evil too. Ive always admired those who have the courage to criticize their own side.

Maybe the cause of my one-sided criticism is that most liberal arguments are already so far from my worldview that I just shrug my shoulders and move on. For example, I already know that leaving Iraq is a horrible idea. Ive just never been compelled to write all sorts of angry posts calling the Democrats traitors. They simply have a different take. The fact that liberalism is the nemesis of so much of what I think actually makes me think about it less. It angers me less, and inspires my thoughts less. Let me use the example of Tom Delay. Ive let my thoughts on Mr. Delay be known several times. He has used his office to offer extreme partisan hatred. Delay's rhetoric about "tax and spend liberals" met the most obvious hipocrisy. I can talk about several appropriations bills that had 4000+ earmarks. I care about limited government and fiscal restraint. Delay never did. I was amazed that guys like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity gave him a free pass. I respected those conservatives that were the square pegs in the round holes. and called Delay on his big spending ways. He will always be vindictive, nasty, self-absorbed and represent everything wrong with the Republican Party. The point is, Im more likely to go after those their tear down conservatism from the inside. Liberalism will never represent me. As a man of the right, my concern is the intellectual health of my side.

This doesnt mean liberals never get under my skin. A lot of liberals I talk to drive me nuts. This is merely an explanation of my style and a salute to intellectual honesty.

Why Im moving away from Giuliani

2007-05-18T11:10:00.000-07:00

I was ready to sign up with Rudy. I was ready to give him money. But as the campaign progressed he dissapointed.

My reasoning isnt for any of the arguments that are popular in the media. You know, (he isnt pro-life, etc.) if you want to read that go look at what everybody else is saying. I have a different take.

Rudy's campaign started out with a coherent position on abortion. It was the classic Goldwater/libertarian argument:-personally opposed
-oppose public funding
-Governmnent does not have a role
Im not romanticizing this view. In fact, Im pro-life. Also, Ive decided a long time ago that I can support somebody who I disagree with on abortion, but agree with on other issues. And do it enthusiastically. Rudy's position on abortion unraveled into incoherence in the ensuing days of that infamous Hannity and Colmes announcement of his run. He said he supported public funding. In the debate he was all over the map on Roe V Wade. This did not upset me because his view was pro-choice but because of how poorly communicated his position was. If Rudy's communications game, and his message control are this bad, he would be a disaster as General Election candidate.

Second of all, Rudy has proven to be just another politician. Im looking for a candidate that has specific, detailed pro-growth policies. Rudy has failed to give us a plan on entitlements like Social Security and Medicaid. He has failed to explain to us how he would reform the tax code. It is a personality-cult rather than a campaign of policy proposals.

Thirdly, can you actually imagine a President Rudy? I cant. John Chait's TRB article a few weeks ago points this out, "In recent weeks, Giuliani mistakenly said that it was unclear whether North Korea was further along toward a nuclear bomb than Iran, casually lumped together Shia Iran and Sunni Al Qaeda, and confessed he didn't know enough about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism detainees to take a position." This does not affirm the view that Rudy somehow knows how to fight the War on Terror. Let me go out on a limb and say he lacks the intellectual fortitude to be Commander in Chief. Also, look at his confronation with Ron Paul. Paul made the argument that U.S. foreign policy is a cause of resentment and a cause of terrorism. Rudy said he was "unfamiliar with that argument" Do we really need another President that lacks intellectual curiousity?

Rudy always had a problem with his socially liberal views. He could play them down by doing a number of things: 1) play down your support for abortion while promising to appoint conservative judges (fails on one count) 2) be fantastic on Economic issues (fails on that) 3) Be Rudy on the War on Terror (Problem is weve overplayed his skill on that issue.)

If the Rudy '08 campaign would have handled his socially liberal views well, while being a champion of pro-growth, free market economics it Rudy would be my man. Instead of swinging for the fences, Rudy's lackluster campaign has chosen to bunt. Very, very dissapointing. This campaign is not what it could be.

Sarkozy closes it out

2007-05-05T21:02:00.000-07:00

Nick Sarkozy is now up 55-45. Madame Royal is now finding out that xenophobic, anti-american rhetoric aren't enough to win. Her left-wing economics do not garner enough support to put her over the top. They are just not popular anymore. Sarkozy should treat his mandate as one for pro-growth policies. I think Sarko's law and order mentality will make it clear that immigrants are expected to be part of France. I think he understands the dangers of extreme multiculturalism.

Heres my prediction. Sarkozy will turn France around. It will boast one of the best economies of the third world. The 85% voter turnout in the first round says that the French are mad as hell and they arent gonna take it anymore. He will have a mandate for change. Sarkozy will go down as one of the great statesmen of the 21st century, and others in Western Europe will follow his lead.

I hope Sarkozy can make France proud of itself again. I love France I always will. I remember learning the language and how its architecture and culture are the envy of the world. Vive le France!

Royal Flush

2007-04-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

The sick man of Europe

2007-04-24T13:23:00.000-07:00

A quote for the past six years

2007-04-05T16:49:00.000-07:00

This expresses my thoughts better than I can/

"Imbeciles like Ann Coulter play to the basest instincts of the conservative movement to give the president a blank check to grab whatever power he wishes... Neither party has shown the courage to assert the power of Congress as a coequal branch of government. Congress should be telling the president it's not OK to detain people without trials, to grab people off the streets and 'render' them to other countries to be tortured, to listen in to our telephone conversations, and to issue signing statements that nullify laws he doesn't like,"

Who said it? Pelosi? Reid? Clinton? nope Bruce Fein, true conservative

Is high voter turnout a good thing?

2007-03-04T19:41:00.000-08:00

How do we increase voter turnout? How do we get young people to vote? Well, do really want to?

Many nations give you a national holiday on election day. Arizona instituted a lottery for one lucky voter. Personally, I dont want people that dont care enough to take a few minutes out of they're day to decide the fate of the country, and I certainly dont want some schmuck to vote for no other reason than to win the lottery.

It is popular to say that we have low voter turnout because were so appalled by the negative ads and our do nothing representatives. yeah, piss off. Any political scientist can tell you negative ads number one- work and number two- dont have a depressive effect. If you tell me you are not politically active because you are so turned off by the process, again Im calling bullshit. It has been demonstrated over and over that the more knowledgeable you are about government the more active you are. If you arent voting, chances are it is because you dont have a clue.

If you are a citizen of legal age and not a felon you absolutely have the right to vote. But you dont deserve special privileges. Why do we bend over backwards for students and give them same day registration opening up the system for fraud? They have the exact same "rights" senior citizens do.

Right now the most informed citizens come to the polls. For whatever reason, the voter turnout fetishists wish to change this.

Coulter follow up/open thread

2007-03-04T18:49:00.000-08:00

Thank you to all who visited and especially those who commented. Feel free to use this post as an open thread

Coulter's comments

2007-03-03T13:46:00.000-08:00

This

is infuriating.

CPAC is a gathering of conservatives from across the country. The opinions of those at the conference is in all likelihood a good sample of grassroots conservatives. What troubles and confuses me is that the base of the movement I consider myself apart of is ok with using this kind of hate speech. Judging from the YouTube video, the audience liked it when Ms. Coulter called a former U.S. Senator and major Presidential candidate a faggot. They are thrilled with hate being directed towards homosexuals. This is a telling fact of where the movement is right now. I think this is a sad day for Conservatism. The message sent is that homosexuals are not welcome in the conservative movement. Maybe that is the intention, and maybe conservatives are ok with that.

Rod Dreher point us to this analysis in The American Conservative that is deadly accurate.The young men and women of the Right aren’t reading much Richard Weaver these days—nor much Robert Nisbet or Russell Kirk, to name two other seminal conservative thinkers critical of modern warfare. The time when Young Americans for Freedom wore badges blazoned with the slogan “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton” has long passed. Now College Republicans parade in shirts proclaiming “George W. Bush Is My Homeboy.” The campus Right has almost always been more activist than intellectual, just as the wider movement has been more political than cultural. But where once students were at least familiar with the names Kirk and Weaver, or Mises and Nock, today they look to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for guidance. They’re little acquainted with the wisdom of the contemporary Right’s founding generation, and it shows.

The truth hurts. It is uncomfortable for me to face this fact. I don't see a lot of intellectualism among young conservatives. If you asked them, they would tell you Reagan is the greatest President without knowing why. It is what they are told to think. I don't think classical conservative thought plays any role for most young conservatives. They probably dont know any of the thinkers listed above, or Edmund Burke, or probably even Milton Friedman. I do count politicians like Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan as intellectuals, but most young conservatives I come across have not read they're books.
People like Rush Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, are not serious thinkers. If someone were to talk about "The Limbaugh Doctrine" in an academic setting they would be laughed out of the room. (I know the response will be that academic types are liberal and attack anything conservative, but aside from that being a lame absolutist argument that requires a massive burden of proof, people like Burke or Russel Kirk are taken seriously in academic settings and various settings of higher dialogue.)

This leads me to my larger critique of the discourse on the conservative blogosphere. The hope for blogosphere a few years ago was that it would provide a massive market of opinion and a rigorous debate of the issues. The "debate" is largely ad hominem attacks. Blog readers read blogs that affirm their beliefs and they get in informational ghettos. It is hard for people to get outside of their ideological comfort zone. Sites like free republic attract kooks that use stupid little phrases like the "DemonRats" and other childish comments we see on conservative blogs all the time. This from a comment on Mark Foley: ""One more queer gone from leadership. A good thing even though he wasn't a dimorat." I see this echoed in opinion journalists like Coulter.

What I hope to see is that conservatives distance themselves from Coulter. I dont want to hear that these comments are bad because they hurt the GOP politically. I dont want to that Ann's delivery was off. I want to hear conservatives face the fact that this is the state of the conservative movement today.

Immigration Amendment

2007-01-27T18:53:00.000-08:00

The Democrats

sold out

and sided with big business over workers.

Jeff Sessions (who I like) proposed an amendment to the minimum wage hike toughening penalties on employers who hire illegals. The Democrats voted the amendment down, showing depressed wages among the working class is not a concern of theyre's. With the Dems in charge, the fatcats still rule the day.

Hannity's America

2007-01-27T18:39:00.000-08:00

Sean Hannity has a new show on Fox News called Hannity's America. It is a decent show minus one weekly segment. This is called "Enemy of the State." The graphic for the segment has prominent Hollywood folks along with the leader of Iran, UBL, and Saddam. A few weeks ago, Sean Penn was labeled enemy of the State. This is just a lame, stupid tactic. More telling, Hannity uses the word "State" not even Country, Nation or what have you. Sean's belief that the Democrats hate America and want the Terrorists to win, certainly would affirm the viewpoint that he is infact a Statist who does not like dissent and sees Government's role as being Omnipresent.

Sean - Drop the shtick.

Jack Kingston is an idiot

2006-12-06T12:15:00.000-08:00

I fell off my chair when I read

This

"Keeping us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- that's what this says."

I feel SO bad that he has to actually work 5 days a week. Its a strain on your family? Don't run. Your a phony Republican anyways. Kingston, like the GOP generally only cares about catering to the extreme right on social issues, while going squishy on spending.

Good job to Steny Hoyer for expanding the work week.

Padilla

2006-12-04T12:26:00.000-08:00

This

is inexcusible.

I speak in pretty simple terms. The Government ran a foul of habeas corpus rights and held a man in a military brig indefinitely. He was held without charge. I dont know if Padilla is guilty or innocent but a federal judge has said the charges of conspiracy are unsubstantiated.

Because of the fact that Padilla was kept in solitary confinement he has now gone insane. Torture changes the way someone acts.

Personally, I hold the Government to a little higher standard than this.

RNC Reshuffling

2006-11-25T13:10:00.001-08:00

Why is Mehlman out and Rove still in? I have not seen a shred of evidence that pointed out how Mehlman in anyway contributed to the loss. Just like in 2004 -Rove was the architect, Mehlman as campaign manager os BCO4 is the man who puts the plans to work.

For all that can be said about Rove's style which is squeeze out as many of our guys as possible to win, (contrast with Clinton/Reagan strategies of getting large swaths of the public) I would also classify the boy geniuses strategy as incrementally eating into groups of the Democrat Party's coalition. Rove tried to appease senior citizens with the prescription drug entitlement. He tried to win over hispanic voters with amnesty. In short, Rove tried to win over groups that just dont fit in the party's tent. And the tent collapsed on him.

Mehlman was an effective manager. He was extremely competent. He was good with the media, memorizing statistics and talking points.

Rove as the architect was the one who contributed to the reputation the GOP now has. Rove contributed to the political environment that realized the GOP defeat. If the GOP is looking for a head to cut off look for Rove. (figuratively of course)

why does pop culture side with Liberals?

2006-11-23T11:22:00.000-08:00

Charlie Rangel wants to draft me. Wasnt it George Bush that was supposed to do this? In fact its now been 672 days since the election and no plans have been drawn up for the draft. The White House must be moving slowly. So how is it that everyone that was my age that I talked to thought that if George W. Bush won re-election the draft would be brought back? Thats because pop culture has a bias towards Liberals. MTV, websites young people frequent, celebrities were all saying that you can either vote for John Kerry or go to Baghdad.

Liberalism has an appeal to it. Its easier to argue. Its easier to argue for do-gooding Socialistic policies in the marketplace. Why not raise the minimum wage? It would be great to give those poor people a pay raise. Why not ban smoking in restaurants and bars? Those poor workers are at a health risk. Conservatives have to argue that these do-good attempts to help the masses dont help.

It is always easier to call for more spending. Liberals always rationalize spending on programs because they would be great to have. Universal access to College for example. A Conservative argues that deficit spending cannot be afforded, and it is irresponsible to shirk the burden to the next generation. But the emotional appeals and the nice idea are often more appealing.

It is easier to have a culture of "whatever" than to be responsible. It seems insensitive to have English as the legal language. What if Immigrants can not read signs or legal documents? The argument of emotion is easier than the argument of long-term consequences of immigrants that are not assimilated.

The pop culture elite has always sided with Liberals. What can be done when pop-culture uses its ability to speak to mass audiences to wage a campaign of disinformation?

More With Less

2006-11-19T20:37:00.000-08:00

Cross posted from http://www.americasvictory08.com/

The night of November 8th was a rough one. My Nancy Pelosi hangover would not have been as bad if Republicans would have governed as Conservatives and ran as Conservatives. But they didn’t. Republicans were too timid to reform entitlements that are ticking time bombs; they forgot that their “budget” is money the IRS had to forcibly take in order to maintain a civil society, giving it away to their contributors, meanwhile
funding bridges to nowhere. This is a party that cannot secure its own nations borders because the Chamber of Commerce wouldn’t let them. The ’06 GOP loss would never have happened without the degeneration of a party I once loved. To look forward to ’08 we have to find out what went so wrong. My argument is that it is because of a lack of a guiding philosophy.

The philosophy that led the American Conservative movement was that of less Government. The questions that should be asked when approaching policy decisions are:
What is the least we can do to solve the problem? Are we overreaching? Is it our role to solve this problem? This philosophy led the GOP to what I would say was their finest our: The class of 1994. That period in which a Democrat President was forced to proclaim the era of Big Government “over”. The philosophy of less Government led to the GOP unified in demanding the elimination of Government agencies, across the board tax-cuts, and balanced budgets. The absence of this philosophy resulted in less freedom and less prosperity. The Executive Branch has expanded its role, the Congress has banned online gambling, they even held back funds for Montana forcing it to have a speed limit. The list is endless and is a result of a Government that acts as a social worker. But the economy has grown and taxes were cut so how I can I say we are less prosperous? The reality is that the formerly Republican Congress facilitated no wealth creation, and cut no taxes, they merely passed the bill to the next generation. I will be footing the bill when Medicare and Social Security explode. I will be paying for the prescription-drug entitlement. And yes, for your bridges to nowhere.

In ’08 I will be supporting candidates whose philosophy is guided by less Government. This governing philosophy identifies the few problems that Government has the ability to solve while preventing unintended consequences. Let me provide examples. National Security and fighting the War on Terror fit this test. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. The way to do that is to fight a robust War on Terror. In 2008 and slightly afterward we will be facing entitlement programs with insufficient funds. We should ask if they are necessary. We should ask what the most prudent way to fix them might be. Do we simply tax these programs into solvency shying away from the uncertainty of the market, or opt for less government and more freedom, finding ways for individuals to invest, create their own capital and become less dependent.

I will be skeptical of candidates who say they will take a “practical” approach to the issues. I will not trust candidates who say they will solve all problems. Those who understand that less government brings more prosperity and more freedom deserve our support.

Waste at WI Dept. of Corrections

2006-11-19T12:42:00.000-08:00

Phillip Trostel in the State Journal

points out

that Wisconsin's per inmate spending is 40% above the national average. Im not even saying this should be spent on education, or health care, frankly Im not sure what I would do with $300 million dollars. The State could begin to pay down its debt.

I guess Im just sick of Legislative Republicans posing for holy pictures when it comes to waste at the University system which is far less than Corrections. Its easy to bash the University as elitist, far-left, and from (gasp!) Madison.To question unexpalained spending in the prisons would be soft on crime.

GOP Leadership Elections

2006-11-17T20:31:00.000-08:00

Heh.

House GOPers elected John Boehner AND Roy Blunt to their leadership. It couldn't matter less to them that what is neccesary for the party is to send a message with change at the top. Youve got Blunt whose basically a Delay clone who just last week gave a spirited defense of earmarking. Then theres John Boehner who displayed a pure lack of leadership during the run up to the elections. In an election where voters had ethics on there minds and rightly or wrongly so thought the Republicans where worse on this issue, the GOP caucus elects its leader a man who passed out checks on the house floor on behalf of the tobbacco industry.

Mike Pence and John Shadegg were a couple of bold Conservative reformers who have not forgotten why they are in Washington. These two congressmen are loved by the grassroots. I do not see a better articulator and leader of Conservatism than Mike Pence. Its a shame hes not in leadership.

Basically, were still being spit on and I dont know how others feel but Im sick of it. Im not sure if theres anything anyone can do about it.

Am I American?

2006-11-17T19:50:00.000-08:00

You Are 78% American

You're as American as red meat and shooting ranges.
Tough and independent, you think big.
You love everything about the US, wrong or right.
And anyone who criticizes your home better not do it in front of you!

How American Are You?

H/T Liberalism is a mental disorder

Developments

2006-11-16T21:57:00.000-08:00

I am done w/ the old content everything else will be new. This blog is getting off the ground

Old Content (conspiracy theories)

2006-11-16T21:53:00.000-08:00

Im sure we've all seen the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. You can see it on Im sure we've all seen the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon. You can see it on Judicial Watch

Whats really righteous about this is that it debunks the conspiracy theories. To say that somebody other than the Islamofascists are responsable insults the victims and their families. Its the equivalent of Ward Churchill saying "little Eichmans".

First of all, lets look at conspiracy theories generally. When somenone tells you that a various incident is a government do a little exercise. Imagine all the people that would have to know/be involved. If the CIA really did kill Kennedy and the Secret Service stood down, how many thousands would have to be complicit? No leaks? So when our kooky friends talk about the direction Kennedys head went and the hospital he was taken to, don't let them get down in the weeds! That goes for any theory.

Back to the Pentagon. If it really was a missle of some sort that hit the Pentagon, what about all the passengers on board the flight that were killed? Were they taken out back and slaughtered? Why in the hell would the twin towers actually be attacked by terrorists (and the White House for that matter) but the Pentagon under fire by the Government?

I love the fact that even the most mainstream liberals suggest through innuendo that Bush knew about 9/11. Not only is it hurtful, its just stupid.
There was a time when the right was the black helicopter crowd.
I for one, will never don the tin foil hat.

Old Content (Immigration)

2006-11-16T21:52:00.000-08:00

I am tremendously supportive of english only laws. English is the common laguage that unifies our country. I fear if we continue down the path of bilingualism- part of the mushy-minded multicultural movement the Left is pushing on us we will become balkanized. There will be enclaves of Spanish speakers and english speakers and any language for that matter, the America I knew will be no more.

Second of all, I am surprised that the Senate had the political will to do this. Im sure the charges of racism and cultural sensitivity will leveled faster than Teresa Heinz-Kerry can say "shove it"

In many communities ballots are printed bilingually, road signs are bilingual, court interpereters are hired, all at the taxpayers expense. The tail is wagging the dog.

Assimilation is important. Dont believe me? Look at Britain and France.

Old Content (Abortion)

2006-11-16T21:49:00.000-08:00

This

is what I mean by culture of death.

After Roe V Wade the Pro-Abortion crowd laughed at those who said it would lead to aborting the mentally ill, or abortions because of a preferred gender. Apparently Great Britain is one step ahead of us:

Late terminations have been performed in recent years because the babies
had club feet, official figures show.
Babies are being aborted with only minor defects.
Other babies were destroyed because they had webbed fingers or extra digits.

Disgusting. How anyone could support taking life because it is not perfect is beyond me.

Don't let anyone tell you you're radical if you're pro-life. The Abortion on demand position is the one that is out of step. If you really believe that a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason OF COURSE THAT WILL LEAD SOCIETY TO HAVE DEGENARATING VIEW OF LIFE.

I really think abortion is one of the greatest stains on human history. 44 million deaths is holocaust. This continued devaluation of human life is truly Orwellian.

Old Content (Gay Flagburning)er...

2006-11-16T21:48:00.000-08:00

It looks like the Senate will vote next week on the Constitutional amendment next week defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is no way this thing will get the votes needed. Team Frist is dragging it up anyway, it really is all politics.

I really don't care if the definition of marriage is changed. If a gay or lesbian couple move down the street, it does nothing to affect me or my family. I am absolutely opposed to using the coercive power of government to deny tell law abiding citizens they cannot do something will only affect them.

As someone who believes in federalism, I do not think this should be done at a federal level. If the states are worried about a gay or lesbian couple married in a state not barring same sex marriage moving into one without a ban, that state has the right to amend their constitution to pre-empt this from happening. The jurist Robert Bork supported federalism by once saying something like "thats the beauty of federalism- if a locality passes a stupid law they are the ones forced to live with it". I do support individual states rights to define marriage for themselves. This is basically the Dick Cheney position.

Im not going to call anyone who disagrees with me a bigot. I've gotten into this debate in College (they all make no distinction and I often hear that the 60 million people in America who voted for George W. Bush are a bunch of Archie Bunkers) and I've defended those of you who are opposed to same sex marriage. Bigotry is part of any political coalition, I understand you have legitimate concerns. I don't think this is a 14th amendment issue, if it were we woud be guilty of discrimination if we were to ban beastiality. And I do not liken this to Civil Rights because it does people like my hero Martin Luther King injustice.

However the biggest problem I have with this whole thing is that we are at war, Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, the cost of health care is exploding, we have an oppressive tax code, Social Security is soon to go bankrupt, American jobs are being sold to the lowest bidder, and we are talkiing about gay marriage. America's greatest problem today is not homosexuals. Two summers ago, the Republicans brought this amendment up before we had appropriations set for Homeland Security. There is no excuse for that. I see many of these social issues as distractions from the ones that matter, and I probably would not be so upset if the GOP had been on the ball the past year and a half.

My position on same sex marriage is that I do not see a need to entitle homosexuals to it, or to ban it.

Old Content (Nanny State)

2006-11-16T21:43:00.000-08:00

"Doctors will this week declare war on America's soft drinks industry by calling for a 'fat tax' to combat the nation's obesity epidemic. Delegates at the powerful American Medical Association's annual conference will demand a levy on the sweeteners put in sugary drinks to pay for a massive public health education campaign. They will also call for the amount of salt added to burgers and processed foods to be halved."I hardly see how what I eat is the government's business. Yes, people have grown obese by eating too many Big Macs or drinking sodas from the local gas station that offers cups so big that you can fall in and dround. Who's fault is that? YOUR OWN! You know darn well if something your eating is healthy or not. You do have the power to make the choice to eat in moderation and get a reasonable amount of excercise. (I say this as a teenager who is realizing he has lost his metabolism)

The other big problem I have with the health police is that they want to punish (through higher taxes) those who choose to eat fatty foods. If someone has a lifestyle problem that is unfortunate, but Government is not a parent. Adult, law abiding citizens in our society should not have their privacy violated by a bunch of busy-bodies. You have no right to take more of our hard-earned money for your never-ending quest to socially engineer and perfect society. You also have no right to force fast food restaurants to change their formulas. The cost of doing so may not be significant relative to their total profit, but any monetary loss that accumulates that would not have in the natural market is theft as far as I'm concerned. The free-market is already dealing with the problem, as many are offering healthy alternatives at little extra cost.

The most persuasive part of this piece is the argument about health-care costs. More operations = higher costs for all. Where does Government look to when it has budget shortfalls? Ciggarettes and alchohol of course. Doing this does not deter a significant amount of the population from smoking and drinking, and not to mention runs up costs on the poor. Taxes on food will do the same thing. The minor savings on health insurance premiums are not worth the cost in taxes, the cost in liberty, and the cost in American values.

H/T Drudge (lost link)

Old Content (Delay's farewell speech)

2006-11-16T21:41:00.000-08:00

I am a little late on this, but Tom Delay's farewell speech really struck me. What he says about partisanship is politically incorrect but it is important. I only heard excerpts from the speech previous to listening to it in its entirety on americanrhetoric.com
Here are a few of the lines that I thought were right on.

... "partisanship, Mr. Speaker, properly understood, is not a symptom of democracy's weakness but of its health and its strength, especially from the perspective of a political conservative."

"You show me a nation without partisanship, and I'll show you a tyranny."

"...partisanship is the worst means of settling fundamental political differences -- except for all the others."

"It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."

"But we must never forget that compromise and bipartisanship are means, not ends, and are properly employed only in the service of higher principles." Did you catch that? Means not ends. Your goal is not to have a watered down solution to a problem. You identify a problem, come up with a solution, and get a majority to go along with your solution. If that doesn't work then you compromise. You don't negotiate backwards in a fetish for bipartisanship.

Partisanship is seen as bad, very bad. If there was not viscious, divisive, partisan debate I would be worried. That would mean free speech would be stifled. Like Delay said, debate moves both poles closer to the center, it is really a check on government. When I hear someone get all soft and say "its so unfortunate that political discourse gets so heated nowadays" I say, good! If we are having raucous debates that points to the health of our democracy and makes me prouder to be an American. Countries like North Korea don't have raucous debate and alas, have no liberty.

My favorite quote, "And if given the chance to do it all again, there's only one thing I would change: I would fight even harder." Say what you want about Tom Delay. Im by no means romanticizing HIM. He has taken the Republican Party away from the spirit of Reagan, Goldwater and Gingrich in many ways, but that is not the point of this post. To say he would fight harder is uniquely American. It is American in the sense of liberties,free speech. It defies and sneers at the popular concept of bipartisanship. It is a line worthy of the Fourth of July.

p.s.: If your looking to be patriotic this Fourth of July, join the marketplace of ideas. Start a blog, write a letter to the editor, become more informed. Be proud of your strong beliefs, dont let anyone frown upon that, because it makes you a good citizen.

Old Content (School Choice)

2006-11-16T21:39:00.001-08:00

Education is extremely important. Its not just taxes that help you compete in the global marketplace. You will be bypassed if you have low-skill workers. This happened with a car plant that was planning to locate in South Carolina (bear with me I forget the details) but the workers couldn't read instruction manuals, so it would have been more expensive to train all of these workers. They then located in Canada - a less friendly tax and regulatory country. I care about education not because it is important not for altruistic purposes neccesarily, but because its good for the country, you will be dependent on those you educate when you are old.

This is why I support school vouchers. Yes, being able to get out failing schools is important, but forcing schools to compete is the biggest advantage. The fact is too many public schools are in a shambles. The way you get schools to move into action is to create a marketplace. The idea that education is too important to be part of the market is ridiculous. Like this article says, education is too important to be a monopoly. I envision public schools competing with other public schools, competing with private religious schools, with charter schools, with virtual schools, with parochial schools. If we break the monopoly, and schools need enrollment as a means of survival they will improve. In Milwaukee test scores for the public schools after the choice program was started improved.

Using the Milwaukee program as an example, their is a an enrollment cap. Last year the business community launched a tv and radio campaign to get the Governor to lift the cap. Why would the business community care? Because they want educated, high-skilled employees. There is a shortage coming out of the Milwaukee public schools.

Arguments we hear against choice are that schools will not provide special education. While I do think if you are cognitively disabled and not able to learn there is no obligation on behalf of the public to school you, this argument is nonsense. Most schools acting in the self-interest of profit will provide special ed. There is the argument that schools will deny troubled children who act out and misbehave. Again, same argument. They will still be provided for if schools are handed a voucher. We also commonly hear about how private schools are unnacountable because they don't have to be tested. Do you really think the teachers unions who argue this point care about testing students they don't teach? Why should they? They don't profit from them. The reason this argument is disingenuous is that out of all the schools who fail standardized tests, show me one principal who was fired. One administrater, one teacher for that matter. With schools competing, and parents having the option of voting with their feet, accreditation is not neccesary.

How can the Democrats claim to be the party of education? How can the teachers unions claim to have the interests of the kids in mind? They don't want to allow parents to send kids to a school of their choice, they don't want to allow you to sign your kid up to go to a virtual school, they just want to keep their monopoly safe. Not only do public schools get better with choice but they get more efficient. They roll back salaries and ridiculous benefits and give it to the kids. The Democrats are able to sound good on education by talking about more funding which forces the Republicans to look like the bad the bad guy. The Democrats and the unions are not so consistent when it comes to choice. The Democrats are so beholden to the teachers unions they can not do anything about the public school monopoly. Really talking about school choice will give the GOP the issue of education. We can take it back. We can expose the Democrats for what they are. Want to hold on to the Congress? Start talking about school choice non-stop. Not only will you do that, you could create a long term Republican majority. The Democrats are standing in the school house door just like George Wallace did. Fellow Democrat.

Old Content (Union Dues)

2006-11-16T21:29:00.000-08:00

This

is a sleeper issue.

The Supreme court is set to rule on whether or not unions can force workers to pay dues. Washington state tried to give workers the right to opt out thereby saying you cant be forced to subsidize union-friendly politics. The Washington Supreme Court in a terrible decision struck this law down on first amendment grounds.

Unions are trying to make up for the fact that more and more workers realize that the free market is the best path to prosperity. I just think that a free country can not allow individuals to be forced to pay for politics.

Think of the upside. In the 2004 presidential election cycle, organized labor raised a reported $199.5 million for their own political organizations. The AFL-CIO said it spent $44 million on voter mobilization; the Service Employees International Union spent $65 million. The National Education Association spent nearly $25 million on political activities and lobbying in 2005. When given a choice, union members overwhelmingly refuse to support the union's political activity. When Washington's law went into effect, voluntary political contributions by teachers dropped 85 percent. In Utah, where union membership is voluntary, a similar law resulted in a 90 percent dropoff in teacher contributions. Think about it. This would absolutely cripple the Democrat party! I guarantee you will a lot about this issue in the near future.

Old Content (Terror +Democracy)

2006-11-16T21:28:00.000-08:00

A thought: Muslim youth are tought to believe that they will receive 72 virgins upon martyrdom and will have absolute bliss and freedom in heaven. A society that represses any sexuality and just about any kind of freedom generally is the type of society that hatred of ones life and hopelessness will flourish. What better environment is their to recruit suicide bombers?

This brings you to the conclusion that Democracy is the long-term cure for terrorism. Democracy does not equal liberty but is certainly the best way to achieve it.

Old Content (Un Treaty on Children)

2006-11-16T21:20:00.000-08:00

WOW

I saw this being discussed on the all to happy-perky Fox News morning show today. This treaty would essentialy give children the right to sue their parents for being parents which would make them child abusers. Let me explain. The rights enumerated in this treaty include religion, privacy and expression. This sounds nice, but if your smart you will say "wait a second." Our constitution limits Government not parents. These rights are for law-abiding adults." If thats what comes into your mind your not only smart your a good Conservative. Wary of "group rights" you support the traditional structure of the family. Secondly lets look at the different rights that would be granted. Religion-meaning parents are criminals if they force their children to go to church. Privacy-Parents are criminals if they arbritrarily search a child's room. Expression-This means you can say things that violate the values of the family and your parents can't do a damn thing!

This treaty gives an unfunded mandate of some form of secondary education to governmnents. The treaty contains this (States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.) which is impossible to achieve without universal health care. I can go down the list of problems with this treaty but the point is that it does not square with our values, mandates unreasonable standards, and tells parents they can not raise their children the best way they see fit.

The treaty bans things like torture, and cruel punishment all perfectly honorable. But would any of the nations that sign on to this already allow these injustices? Probably not. This is what makes most a lot of international law pointless. The thugs never sign on.

Old Content (FCC)

2006-11-16T20:54:00.000-08:00

This

shouldn't be happening in America.

This 9/11 documentary will be censored at the threat of a fine. I have seen this fantastic documentary before. Making this film politically correct is going to do injustice to events on 9/11.

Any station that shows this documentary in its pure form before 10pm, this film which so well portrays the events of 9/11, will have $325,000 stolen from them. The FCC is stomping out free speech rights. The FCC is a pork-barrel project for modern day puritans. They may not like "bad words" but in America they should have to butt out of everyone elses life and turn off the TV. Monitor your kids. Lets do something Conservative and eliminate this god-awful, useless federal agency.

Old Content (Iraq-Al-Qaida)

2006-11-16T20:46:00.000-08:00

I will posting my content from GenR in the next few posts. I have cherrypicked my favorite.

The Senate Intel Commitee concludes that there was not an Al-Qaida-Iraq connection. If you read the report the claim isnt even thoroghly researched. The argument that Saddam saw Bin Laden as a threat is not new and something nobody disputes.
The Clinton administration saw a connection. The Clinton Administration made two indictments detailing Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaida. One is anindictment of Al-Qaida for the embassy bombings in Africa. It said that there was a close relationship between the two parties. Iraq had provided specialists on explosives to work with the terror network. Another indictment was to justify the U.S. bombing of a supposed Sudanesechemical weapons facility. The plant manager had traveled to Baghdad to meet with scientists provided for by the regime.
The idea that Iraq did not have ties to Al-Qaida is just not true.

Milton Friedman dies

2006-11-16T20:32:00.000-08:00

Milton Friedman has passed away. He was an amazing man and one of history's greatest intellectuals. I am not familiar enough with Dr. Friedman, I am still reading and watching his stuff, so I'll refer you to Larry Kudlow.

Ideas matter.
So it is with great sadness to report and mourn the passing of Milton Friedman, whose lifelong writings on the paramount significance of freedom, free-market capitalism, and liberty helped overturn the evil tide of communism and socialism in the 20th century.
His great books Capitalism and Freedom in 1962, which was morphed into Free to Choose in 1980, and subsequently serialized on public television, reached literally tens of millions of people and influenced events in the U.S. and across the world.
He explained to us the failures and flaws in government interference in the economy through overspending, over-regulation and over-taxation.
He extolled the virtues of free trade.
He explained that the root cause of inflation is excess money creation.
Rather than Keynesian state planning, Milton’s mantra of free markets, free prices, consumer choice and economic liberty is responsible for the global prosperity we enjoy today.
In fact, we take it for granted nowadays, but Friedman’s was a long, uphill battle, fought over decades to persuade politicians and business people that government is the problem, not the solution.
He was a senior advisor to President Ronald Reagan who put these ideas into play during his transformative presidency.
When you look around the world, at newly capitalist economies sprouting up in Russia, Eastern Europe, China and India, you can’t help but see the hand of Friedman.
When you review twenty-five years of virtually uninterrupted prosperity and near zero inflation in the U.S, you can't help but see the hand of Friedman.
Milton Friedman is one of those few people about whom it can be said that he truly left the world a better place.
May he rest in peace.

Well said. I am very saddened by this. He was ageing, but never lost his sharpness. H/T Kudlow @ The Corner http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTI1MWFiZWEwNjY3MTg2MTdhZjE0MDYzYTEzMTQxMzc=

Developments

2006-11-16T20:27:00.000-08:00

I have joined a site called http://www.americasvictory08.com/. This is a site dedicated to supporting Conservative candidates for the '08 elections. The launch date for that site is the 20th

Welcome!

2006-10-29T19:56:00.000-08:00

Hey folks Im Josh, I did some blogging before this at a site called www.generationr.us/ but Im going indy now. I may post content over there from time to time.

I am a 19 year old college student. I may get arrogant sometimes, but wont pretend to know the answer to subjects I dont know enough about. Im open to any political idea. Im open-minded, ( atleast I like to think) and my beliefs are right of center overall. I consider myself a small "l" libertarian. Some of my views are moderate, some fit in the mainstream left, some far-right. I do consider myself a Republican.

This is not a blog that serves as a summary of the news everyday, or a linkfest. I will try to keep most content my own.

Talk at ya later