“Our God given unalienable rights are given to us all as individuals. They tell us what we may do for ourselves, and they are the embodiment of liberty.
The so-called rights that government gives to some of us are parcelled out to select groups as classes. They tell us what one class of people may require another to do for them, and they are the very essence of slavery.”— Perri Nelson, February 9, 2010
A bheil Gàidhlig agaibh?
I am a conservative...
Published Mon, Oct 20 2008 9:40 AM
Technorati Tags: Conservatives
Douglas V. Gibbs has an excellent post explaining why he's a conservative. I agree with every single one of his reasons. He puts it all together succinctly, and far less verbosely than I am capable of.
I am a Conservative, rather than a Republican, because…
Go. Give it a read!
Comments (1) | Trackbacks (0)
Popularity contest?
Published Mon, Oct 20 2008 9:11 AM
Technorati Tags: Elections, Democrats, Iraq, Politics
“Recently I asked for reasons to vote FOR our candidates and our parties. While this isn't all I got, nor all I gave, the essential breakdown of the reasons amounted to these.
- A man of character
- Understanding
- Compassionate
- Experienced
- Inspirational
- Energizing
If these are the reasons to vote for a candidate for president, then truly the contest is nothing more than a popularity contest and might as well be the equivalent of a glorified contest for student body president in high school. The only substantive issues remaining in the lists that were given had to do with reforming government and understanding the reasons for going to war and the reasons for finishing a war properly.
I disagree strongly with the contention that Iraq was a mistake, which was put forth as the reason to vote for “that one”. While Iraq was not directly involved in the attack on our nation on September 11, 2001, the dictator of that nation was a rhetorical as well as financial supporter of international terrorism, did have relations with Al Qaeda, had terrorist training camps in the northern regions of his country, was involved with the manufacture and the threat of using weapons of mass destruction, and had violated every term of his cease-fire agreement with the United States in the “first” gulf war.
The policy of regime change that we took into the “second” gulf war was not a new policy. That had been the policy of Congress, and of the previous Democratic administration. On August 14, 1998 Congress declared that Iraq was in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”. Iraq, lead at the time of the “second” gulf war (based on the continued violations of the terms of the cease-fire, I consider it merely the conclusion of the first, and only, gulf war) by Saddam Hussein had been holding an American serviceman prisoner for years, had persisted in violating the terms of its cease-fire agreement as well as several United Nations Security Council resolutions, continued to “engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace”, had used “weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”, and on “many thousands of occasions” fired upon “United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council”.
It was clear in 2002, not just to the President of the United States, but to Congress as well that we either had to finish what we started in 1991 or continue to be distracted by Saddam Hussein while we waged war on other fronts against Al Qaeda. Sixty four percent of Democrats voting in the House of Representatives voted to approve H.J. Res 114 (later Public Law 107-243). The following Democratic Senators all voted for H.J. Res 114, later Public Law 107-243, on October 11, 2002.
Senator Baucus – Democrat, Montana
Senator Bayh – Democrat, Indiana
Senator Biden – Democrat, Delaware
Senator Breaux – Democrat, Louisiana
Senator Cantwell – Democrat, Washington
Senator Carnahan – Democrat, Missouri
Senator Carper – Democrat, Delaware
Senator Cleland – Democrat, Georgia
Senator Clinton – Democrat, New York
Senator Dodd – Democrat, Connecticut
Senator Dorgen – Democrat, North Dakota
Senator Edwards – Democrat, North Carolina
Senator Feinstein – Democrat, California
Senator Harkin – Democrat, Iowa
Senator Hollings – Democrat, South Carolina
Senator Johnson – Democrat, South Dakota
Senator Kerry – Democrat, Massachusetts
Senator Kohl – Democrat, Wisconsin
Senator Landrieu – Democrat, Louisiana
Senator Lieberman – Democrat, Connecticut
Senator Lincoln – Democrat, Arizona
Senator Miller – Democrat, Georgia
Senator Nelson – Democrat, Florida
Senator Nelson - Democrat, Nebraska
Senator Reid - Democrat, Nevada
Senator Rockefeller - Democrat, West Virginia
Senator Schumer - Democrat, New York
Senator Torricelli - Democrat, New Jersey
Notice that emphasized name… If as one commenter has claimed “Obama realizes you can't win a war by invading the wrong country” then why did he pick a running mate that voted to authorize the President of the United States to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”?
Either Barack Obama “realizes you can't win a war by invading the wrong country” AND he hasn't got a clue who he's running with OR he's merely saying what he thinks people want to hear because to him (and his supporters) he's really running in nothing more than a glorified student council election — a national popularity contest.
Personally, I believe he chose his running mate because Senator Biden's voting record is only slightly to the right of his own. The man with the most solidly liberal voting record in the United States Senate chose as his running mate the man with the most solidly liberal voting record in the United States Senate that also appeared to have Presidential ambitions, Joe Biden. The only Senator (other than Barack Obama) with a more liberal voting record than Joe Biden was Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island. I don't recall hearing that name listed among the Democratic candidates for the party's Presidential nomination. Even the Senate's avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, doesn't vote as far left as Barack Obama and Joe Biden do.
If you want to choose a running mate that won't oppose your policies, choose an ideological match. That's what Barack Obama appears to have done. Of course, if you're truly intelligent, wise, and understanding you don't want to choose a running mate who belittles your experience . For example, how wise can it be to choose a running mate that has said, when talking about your experience “I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training.”
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked, "Is he ready?"
You said, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the- job-training."
BIDEN: I think that -- I stand by the statement.
Now that's a ringing endorsement from the man Barack Obama chose as a running mate. Of course, that's not what Joe Biden says now. In fact, many of the things that Joe Biden has said in the past he won't say now that he's Barack Obama's running mate. For example, Joe Biden once said “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.” Of course now he'll agree with Barack Obama that “we invaded the wrong country.”
According to the Huffington Post (I can't believe I'm quoting them) “Biden declared 2007's troop buildup in Iraq a failure” — pretty much echoing his (future) running mate's views. This when “Biden offered an early rebuttal to next week's testimony by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador there.”
Tell me something please… how can you rebut a statement that hasn't even been made yet? Doesn't this show an inflexibility of attitude? Doesn't it demonstrate a closed mind? When you aren't even willing to at least listen to the statement before disagreeing with it, you're not basing your statements upon facts or information, but rather on ideology and partisanship. When, before even allowing a person to give testimony to you, you berate and lecture them on the testimony they're about to give you're certainly not willing to objectively consider that testimony are you?
It seems obvious to me that for purely partisan reasons, Senator Biden is willing to change his stance on major issues facing the world today. After netting only two percent of delegates in the Iowa Caucus on January 3, Senator Biden abandoned his Presidential campaign. Once he was free from the need to distinguish himself from his Democratic opponents in the campaign, he was free to once again toe the Democratic party line. And when Barack Obama selected him as his Vice Presidential running mate, he quickly abandoned his attitudes regarding Obama's experience.
Senator Obama's running mate is a pure partisan. He's almost as liberal as they come. And he'll say anything to get elected, even if it means contradicting his own running mate — whether the subject is sitting down with the leaders of rogue nations without preconditions (Biden said that Obama never said he'd do that), or contradicting Obama's convention speech about “clean coal”…
Yes sir! Barack Obama sure showed intelligence, wisdom, and understanding when he picked his running mate. He picked a man that knows how to say what the people he's talking to want to hear (just as Obama does). A man of character and honesty (you know, traits exemplified by saying one thing to one audience and another to a different one). He chose a running mate that understands politics as well as he does.
He chose the perfect running mate for a popularity contest. He chose a man like himself.
Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0)
Blogs Against Nancy Pelosi
