As reported on http://www.obama-wire.com/ and in the UK Telegraph, Bill Clinton reportedly told close friends that Obama will have to "kiss my ass" in return for his support. This comes as Senator Obama plans to make a call to President Clinton to ask for his support.
The former President was notably absent during an Obama campaign moment with Hillary Clinton in Unity, NH (unity - get it?) Apparently all is not united in the Democrat Party household.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Obama's link to Elian Gonzalez
Barack Obama, a far Left nominee of the Democrat party, is just running out of boots for all the crap he's stepping in. Here's another one.
Remember Elian Gonzalez? The then 6-year old Cuban refugee risked his life coming to the United States, losing his mother in the process. A political battle ensued when Attorney General Janet Reno and the Clinton Administration became involved, forcing the child to go back to Castro's Cuba, where he has now reportedly joined the Young Communists League.
Obama's current foreign policy adviser Greg Craig was the lawyer who represented Elian's father in the custody dispute that returned the child to the communist island. Eric Holder, a member of Obama's vice-presidential selection team, was deputy U.S. attorney general in the Clinton administration when government agents seized Elian from his relatives' home in Miami's Little Havana. Read more here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/elian-gonzalez.html
I guess when you're on the far Left, you run out of people you can associate yourself and your campaign with.
Remember Elian Gonzalez? The then 6-year old Cuban refugee risked his life coming to the United States, losing his mother in the process. A political battle ensued when Attorney General Janet Reno and the Clinton Administration became involved, forcing the child to go back to Castro's Cuba, where he has now reportedly joined the Young Communists League.
Obama's current foreign policy adviser Greg Craig was the lawyer who represented Elian's father in the custody dispute that returned the child to the communist island. Eric Holder, a member of Obama's vice-presidential selection team, was deputy U.S. attorney general in the Clinton administration when government agents seized Elian from his relatives' home in Miami's Little Havana. Read more here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/elian-gonzalez.html
I guess when you're on the far Left, you run out of people you can associate yourself and your campaign with.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Crist joins McCain, supports drilling!
Well, I can't say it isn't a 180, but Florida Governor Charlie Crist followed McCain's lead and now supports off-shore drilling to help increase the supply of domestic oil resources.
Crist, who has been on the short list to become join McCain's ticket as the nomination for Vice President, endorsed John McCain's plan today to let state's decide for themselves. This is a complete reversal from his previous stances against drilling 50 miles or more off of Florida's coast. But, at least he's moving in the right direction. Read more here:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/06/17/ap5125840.html
"I mean, let's face it, the price of gas has gone through the roof, and Florida families are suffering," Crist said. "And my heart bleeds for them." (don't liberals usually say that? This is great!)
And then he used a tourism argument to support drilling: "We're a tourist state," Crist said. "We have to protect the beauty of Florida, but we also need to have people have the opportunity to drive here and be able to afford to do that too."
.... it's about time. Elect McCain and let the drilling begin. But keep Crist off the ticket, and make him sign the bill when the Florida legislature gives the green light to let our state decide to take our energy future into our own hands - and out of the hands of terrorist regimes and environmental extremists.
Crist, who has been on the short list to become join McCain's ticket as the nomination for Vice President, endorsed John McCain's plan today to let state's decide for themselves. This is a complete reversal from his previous stances against drilling 50 miles or more off of Florida's coast. But, at least he's moving in the right direction. Read more here:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/06/17/ap5125840.html
"I mean, let's face it, the price of gas has gone through the roof, and Florida families are suffering," Crist said. "And my heart bleeds for them." (don't liberals usually say that? This is great!)
And then he used a tourism argument to support drilling: "We're a tourist state," Crist said. "We have to protect the beauty of Florida, but we also need to have people have the opportunity to drive here and be able to afford to do that too."
.... it's about time. Elect McCain and let the drilling begin. But keep Crist off the ticket, and make him sign the bill when the Florida legislature gives the green light to let our state decide to take our energy future into our own hands - and out of the hands of terrorist regimes and environmental extremists.
McCain: Let's Drill
Can I say it? Can I say it? It's about time!
Senator John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months, the Washington Post reports.
Yesterday, McCain released a statement saying: "Tomorrow, I'll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, the form of gasoline, and the form of threats of inflation, and indeed indications of inflation. We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternative energy sources. And, as I said, exploration is a step toward the longer term goal. And, I will repeat my advocacy of a gas tax holiday, which is impacting low-income Americans on a fixed income who are driving automobiles that consume gasoline at a greater rate, and they're driving further, and I think that they deserve a break."
This is common sense. I encourage you all to go to the http://www.americansolutions.com/ website and sign the petition to tell Congress: "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Senator McCain got the message and I believe it is a winning message. It's common sense.
Almost two years ago, The James Madison Institute (where I work) has been advocating to open up drilling in Florida's Gulf coast in this Backgrounder article (PDF). A decade ago, Congressional Republicans advocated drilling in Alaska. President Clinton vetoed that. If either of these options would have been explored then, we wouldn't be having the energy crisis we're facing today. Environmental extremists have determined our energy future and they want to continue doing so. It's time we said, "Enough is enough."
I applaud John McCain for this excellent decision to wage a campaign that will directly contrast the Leftist policies of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
Senator John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months, the Washington Post reports.
Yesterday, McCain released a statement saying: "Tomorrow, I'll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration. I think that this, and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts, would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. We've seen the impact of it in the form of food prices, the form of gasoline, and the form of threats of inflation, and indeed indications of inflation. We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternative energy sources. And, as I said, exploration is a step toward the longer term goal. And, I will repeat my advocacy of a gas tax holiday, which is impacting low-income Americans on a fixed income who are driving automobiles that consume gasoline at a greater rate, and they're driving further, and I think that they deserve a break."
This is common sense. I encourage you all to go to the http://www.americansolutions.com/ website and sign the petition to tell Congress: "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." Senator McCain got the message and I believe it is a winning message. It's common sense.
Almost two years ago, The James Madison Institute (where I work) has been advocating to open up drilling in Florida's Gulf coast in this Backgrounder article (PDF). A decade ago, Congressional Republicans advocated drilling in Alaska. President Clinton vetoed that. If either of these options would have been explored then, we wouldn't be having the energy crisis we're facing today. Environmental extremists have determined our energy future and they want to continue doing so. It's time we said, "Enough is enough."
I applaud John McCain for this excellent decision to wage a campaign that will directly contrast the Leftist policies of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Jonah Goldberg: Conservatives, fear not
There was an excellent op-ed by Jonah Goldberg that was published in papers across the country, including in the Orlando Sentinel. He tells conservatives, "fear not." I would recommend this piece: orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/right/olr-syn-gold0609,0,3299991.story
An excerpt:
"... People need to remember that there's a difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans." One reason the Republican "brand" has been so badly tarnished is that Republicans lost credibility as conservatives. They spent money like a pimp with a week to live. They got comfortable with power and the perks that come with it, and they tolerated cronyism and incompetence. And while the GOP is the more conservative of the two parties -- and hence the natural home for the American right -- it needs to be remembered that Republican failures are not synonymous with conservative ones."
"Also, the strength of the conservative establishment shouldn't be discounted. In 1964, Goldwater was almost alone, relying on a couple of magazines to champion his cause. Today, there is an enormous conservative intellectual infrastructure, largely independent of the Republican Party. From proliferating state-level think tanks to massive organizations based in Washington, D.C., such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, the causes of limited government, defending life and promoting free markets are hardly without champions. And thanks to talk radio, Fox News and a general acceptance of conservatism as a legitimate viewpoint, it has never been easier for conservatives to get their arguments to the public .... "
".... Moreover, if conservatives are right about their ideas -- and I think they are -- then socialized medicine won't work, high taxes will be counterproductive, and Obama's promise to mesmerize foreign leaders with his listening skills will not survive contact with our enemies. Al-Qaeda will not defang itself into a Muslim version of the Shriners simply because our president's middle name is Hussein."
"T.S. Eliot was right. There are no truly won causes because there are no truly lost causes. Conservatism's got a lot of life left in it, in part because conservatism is simply a part of American life. And because conservatism has always done better on offense than on defense, the coming liberal maelstrom might be carrying with it the seeds of a conservative revival as well."
Well said, Mr. Goldberg. Well said.
An excerpt:
"... People need to remember that there's a difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans." One reason the Republican "brand" has been so badly tarnished is that Republicans lost credibility as conservatives. They spent money like a pimp with a week to live. They got comfortable with power and the perks that come with it, and they tolerated cronyism and incompetence. And while the GOP is the more conservative of the two parties -- and hence the natural home for the American right -- it needs to be remembered that Republican failures are not synonymous with conservative ones."
"Also, the strength of the conservative establishment shouldn't be discounted. In 1964, Goldwater was almost alone, relying on a couple of magazines to champion his cause. Today, there is an enormous conservative intellectual infrastructure, largely independent of the Republican Party. From proliferating state-level think tanks to massive organizations based in Washington, D.C., such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, the causes of limited government, defending life and promoting free markets are hardly without champions. And thanks to talk radio, Fox News and a general acceptance of conservatism as a legitimate viewpoint, it has never been easier for conservatives to get their arguments to the public .... "
".... Moreover, if conservatives are right about their ideas -- and I think they are -- then socialized medicine won't work, high taxes will be counterproductive, and Obama's promise to mesmerize foreign leaders with his listening skills will not survive contact with our enemies. Al-Qaeda will not defang itself into a Muslim version of the Shriners simply because our president's middle name is Hussein."
"T.S. Eliot was right. There are no truly won causes because there are no truly lost causes. Conservatism's got a lot of life left in it, in part because conservatism is simply a part of American life. And because conservatism has always done better on offense than on defense, the coming liberal maelstrom might be carrying with it the seeds of a conservative revival as well."
Well said, Mr. Goldberg. Well said.
Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty"
Ron Paul is transitioning his campaign for the Presidency to his “Campaign for Liberty.” You can read about it at their new website here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com
I think this is a good call. Ron Paul's campaign for the Presidency has obviously reached an end point, and hopefully most Ron Paul supporters will not stay home, and will not vote for a wasteful third party candidate like Bob Barr. Hopefully they will recognize how much more disastrous Barack Obama will be compared to John McCain. If they don't, they will prove that libertarianism is just as much an ideology as socialism. Conservatives, on the other hand, act prudently, given the realistic choices available.
Once McCain is elected, then we can continue a grassroots effort to pull him and other elected officials towards liberty, rather than towards big government. But it is obvious that Barack Obama wants a big government program for just about everything, including more American involvement overseas through programs such as the "Global Poverty Act." This is more government than any Republican (including John McCain) can stomach.
The Ron Paul campaign may not have won very many delegates, but it captured the hearts and minds of many Americans in a true campaign for liberty. In his new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul reminds us:
“In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them.”
I think this is a good call. Ron Paul's campaign for the Presidency has obviously reached an end point, and hopefully most Ron Paul supporters will not stay home, and will not vote for a wasteful third party candidate like Bob Barr. Hopefully they will recognize how much more disastrous Barack Obama will be compared to John McCain. If they don't, they will prove that libertarianism is just as much an ideology as socialism. Conservatives, on the other hand, act prudently, given the realistic choices available.
Once McCain is elected, then we can continue a grassroots effort to pull him and other elected officials towards liberty, rather than towards big government. But it is obvious that Barack Obama wants a big government program for just about everything, including more American involvement overseas through programs such as the "Global Poverty Act." This is more government than any Republican (including John McCain) can stomach.
The Ron Paul campaign may not have won very many delegates, but it captured the hearts and minds of many Americans in a true campaign for liberty. In his new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, Ron Paul reminds us:
“In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves. If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties, squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how indispensable it is and how lost we would all be without it, there is no force that can stop them.”
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
JMI: Climate Policies would impose high costs on state
Margo Thorning, an adjunct scholar of The James Madison Institute and senior vice president and chief economist for the American Council for Capital Formation wrote an article that was recently published in the Panama City News Herald.
The article, "Climate Policies would impose high costs on state," brings up a great point: "As our nation's federal and state governments rush to enact far-reaching legislation on climate change, there has been far too little discussion of the economic costs such policies would impose."
She continues: "Make no mistake: The financial burdens on individuals would be heavy - especially in Florida, where the summer heat and humidity keep energy usage high. In addition, Florida has lots of senior citizens, some in frail health and temperature-sensitive and on a fixed income."
Read on: http://www.newsherald.com/common/printer/view.php?db=newsherald&id=4245
The article, "Climate Policies would impose high costs on state," brings up a great point: "As our nation's federal and state governments rush to enact far-reaching legislation on climate change, there has been far too little discussion of the economic costs such policies would impose."
She continues: "Make no mistake: The financial burdens on individuals would be heavy - especially in Florida, where the summer heat and humidity keep energy usage high. In addition, Florida has lots of senior citizens, some in frail health and temperature-sensitive and on a fixed income."
Read on: http://www.newsherald.com/common/printer/view.php?db=newsherald&id=4245
Charlie Crist "a proponent of nuclear energy"
Well, we're not sure what Governor Crist's task force on climate change is going to produce for Florida's taxpayers, but at least we now have Lt. Governor Kottkamp on record saying: “The governor, like me, is a proponent of nuclear energy. We believe it may have an important role to play in Florida’s energy future,” Kottkamp said. “We must consider, as we continue to grow as a state, how we address our growing energy needs while protecting that natural beauty that draws so many people to the Sunshine State.”
Read more in the Naples Daily News: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/10/kottkamp-goes-nuclear-french-energy-company-naples/
* Last week, at the monthly Capital City Republican Club meeting here in Tallahassee, Lt. Governor Kottkamp spoke. I asked him a question about when Florida was going to start drilling off the Florida coast (China and India are going to) and start building some nuclear power plants. He only answered the nuclear power plant part of my question by saying that the Governor was planning a trip to France to learn about how France supplies 80% of their country's energy needs with nuclear power. It is encouraging to see this story, but it's only a start of what needs to happen...
Read more in the Naples Daily News: http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/jun/10/kottkamp-goes-nuclear-french-energy-company-naples/
* Last week, at the monthly Capital City Republican Club meeting here in Tallahassee, Lt. Governor Kottkamp spoke. I asked him a question about when Florida was going to start drilling off the Florida coast (China and India are going to) and start building some nuclear power plants. He only answered the nuclear power plant part of my question by saying that the Governor was planning a trip to France to learn about how France supplies 80% of their country's energy needs with nuclear power. It is encouraging to see this story, but it's only a start of what needs to happen...
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Stop Obama from taking Florida
I have been of the feeling that I don't think there's any way Barack Obama can win in Florida. But, this morning I came across a story in the Tampa Tribune that is making me a bit more nervous about the Obama machine: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article615083.ece
The story says: "Starting next week, some 400 specially trained Barack Obama campaign "fellows" will fan out across Florida, including the Tampa Bay area, for an intensive six weeks of registering voters, mobilizing volunteers, as well as working to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters into the fold."
Yikes. This is a sign to all conservatives and true patriots of this country that we must get out there and spread the word about Obama. There are plenty of places to get this information. One good place to start is: www.obama-wire.com which has "the good, the bad, and the ugly," on Obama. Take that information and spread it like wildfire across this state (ok, in a period of drought, that probably wasn't the best analogy). But seriously: it is up to us to STOP Obama from taking Florida. Don't allow his henchmen to spread socialist ideas across this free-market state.
The story says: "Starting next week, some 400 specially trained Barack Obama campaign "fellows" will fan out across Florida, including the Tampa Bay area, for an intensive six weeks of registering voters, mobilizing volunteers, as well as working to bring Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters into the fold."
Yikes. This is a sign to all conservatives and true patriots of this country that we must get out there and spread the word about Obama. There are plenty of places to get this information. One good place to start is: www.obama-wire.com which has "the good, the bad, and the ugly," on Obama. Take that information and spread it like wildfire across this state (ok, in a period of drought, that probably wasn't the best analogy). But seriously: it is up to us to STOP Obama from taking Florida. Don't allow his henchmen to spread socialist ideas across this free-market state.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Terry Jeffrey: Our Own Oil Cartel
Terry Jeffrey's article yesterday in CNS News talks about why oil prices are so high. And, points to the United States government as the culprits. We are our own cartel.
Here's an excerpt:
Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.
This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.
It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels). It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels).
So, where is all this oil? And why aren't they pumping it? What cartel is holding it off the market, to drive up prices at American gas stations and American supermarkets? What insidious power is stifling the free market for this vital commodity and thus threatening the vitality of our economy?
It is us, of course. We are the culprits. We are responsible for artificially increasing oil prices. It is our oil that sits untapped beneath our deserts, our forests, our swamps and our oceans. It is our politicians -- the ones we freely elected, and re-elected, and re-elected -- who are not allowing our oil to be drilled by us and sold to us.
Read on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html
Here's an excerpt:
Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.
This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.
It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels). It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels).
So, where is all this oil? And why aren't they pumping it? What cartel is holding it off the market, to drive up prices at American gas stations and American supermarkets? What insidious power is stifling the free market for this vital commodity and thus threatening the vitality of our economy?
It is us, of course. We are the culprits. We are responsible for artificially increasing oil prices. It is our oil that sits untapped beneath our deserts, our forests, our swamps and our oceans. It is our politicians -- the ones we freely elected, and re-elected, and re-elected -- who are not allowing our oil to be drilled by us and sold to us.
Read on: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200806/COM20080604c.html
Thursday, June 05, 2008
George Will: The gasoline prices we deserve
If you haven't seen or read it yet, there is a great column by George Will in today's Washington Post. You can read it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403052.html
An excerpt:
One million barrels (of oil) is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including (Chuck) Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice ...
... America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy
Read on.
An excerpt:
One million barrels (of oil) is what might today be flowing from ANWR if in 1995 President Bill Clinton had not vetoed legislation to permit drilling there. One million barrels produce 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel. Seventy-two of today's senators -- including (Chuck) Schumer, of course, and 38 other Democrats, including Barack Obama, and 33 Republicans, including John McCain -- have voted to keep ANWR's estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil off the market.
So Schumer, according to Schumer, is complicit in taking $10 away from every American who buys 20 gallons of gasoline. "Democracy," said H.L. Mencken, "is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The common people of New York want Schumer to be their senator, so they should pipe down about gasoline prices, which are a predictable consequence of their political choice ...
... America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy
Read on.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Obama-Wire.com just launched!
I am excited to announce to all my avid readers, that www.Obama-Wire.com just launched. I would announce who has put it together, but let me just tell you it is a friend of conservatives everywhere. No, he's not famous, but maybe some day he will be.
The site is a Drudge Report-style website with lots of news links - most of which expose the truth about Obama. The creators of this website were urged to do this because they can't believe the media hasn't exposed this guy yet. Well, Obama made it pass round one with a pass. But www.Obama-Wire.com will do what they can to make sure he doesn't get a free pass into the most powerful political position in the world.
Please do what you can to promote it, especially in key swing states and swing counties. This is the information age. The battle will be won by those with the most intelligent information.
The site is a Drudge Report-style website with lots of news links - most of which expose the truth about Obama. The creators of this website were urged to do this because they can't believe the media hasn't exposed this guy yet. Well, Obama made it pass round one with a pass. But www.Obama-Wire.com will do what they can to make sure he doesn't get a free pass into the most powerful political position in the world.
Please do what you can to promote it, especially in key swing states and swing counties. This is the information age. The battle will be won by those with the most intelligent information.
Monday, June 02, 2008
The battle for conservatism is being waged
The battle for the future of conservatism is being waged. The question is are we paying attention? In my last blog post, I cited Senator Tom Coburn's recent WSJ Editorial in which he criticized "compassionate conservatism."
Now, Michael Gerson of the Council of Foreign Relations is taking Coburn to task in a recent Washington Post editorial.
Gerson first puts the substance of the argument on the table for all conservatives: "Compassionate conservatism began with some questions: Is it possible to apply conservative and free-market ideas -- school vouchers, the promotion of community and faith-based institutions, the encouragement of wealth-building and social mobility -- to the task of helping marginalized Americans? In the wake of liberal failures, do conservatives offer any hope to addicts and the homeless, to disadvantaged children in need of mentors and adequate education, to people living among the broken glass of durable poverty?"
Then he begins his defense: "But compassionate conservatism has come under criticism for a variety of reasons. For some, it is fundamentally at odds with fiscal conservatism -- no social priority is deemed more urgent than balancing the budget. For others, it is a violation of their vision of limited government -- the state's only valid purpose is to uphold markets and protect individual liberty. But by drawing these limits so narrowly, such critics would relegate conservatism to the realm of rejected ideologies: untainted, uncomplicated and ignored. And by leaving great social needs unmet, they would grant liberalism an open field and invite genuine statism."
I think the term compassionate conservatism is not only flawed, it is offensive. Is conservatism itself not compassionate? If liberals are for helping the poor, then why do we still have poverty? Liberal policies don't work. When conservative policies have been tried, it has not only worked, but proved popular. Remember welfare reform? We were all told then that welfare-to-work programs were not compassionate. The results have proved the opposite. Meanwhile, we have gone through decades of socialist policies that have not worked and only created more poverty.
In my opinion, Tom Coburn is right that we need to dump compassionate conservatism overboard. Conservatism was working plenty well before we added the so-called compassionate policies to our agenda. If people want big government policies, they'll seek the professionals: the Democrats. Let's get back to our brand of limiting government, and providing free-market solutions.
Now, Michael Gerson of the Council of Foreign Relations is taking Coburn to task in a recent Washington Post editorial.
Gerson first puts the substance of the argument on the table for all conservatives: "Compassionate conservatism began with some questions: Is it possible to apply conservative and free-market ideas -- school vouchers, the promotion of community and faith-based institutions, the encouragement of wealth-building and social mobility -- to the task of helping marginalized Americans? In the wake of liberal failures, do conservatives offer any hope to addicts and the homeless, to disadvantaged children in need of mentors and adequate education, to people living among the broken glass of durable poverty?"
Then he begins his defense: "But compassionate conservatism has come under criticism for a variety of reasons. For some, it is fundamentally at odds with fiscal conservatism -- no social priority is deemed more urgent than balancing the budget. For others, it is a violation of their vision of limited government -- the state's only valid purpose is to uphold markets and protect individual liberty. But by drawing these limits so narrowly, such critics would relegate conservatism to the realm of rejected ideologies: untainted, uncomplicated and ignored. And by leaving great social needs unmet, they would grant liberalism an open field and invite genuine statism."
I think the term compassionate conservatism is not only flawed, it is offensive. Is conservatism itself not compassionate? If liberals are for helping the poor, then why do we still have poverty? Liberal policies don't work. When conservative policies have been tried, it has not only worked, but proved popular. Remember welfare reform? We were all told then that welfare-to-work programs were not compassionate. The results have proved the opposite. Meanwhile, we have gone through decades of socialist policies that have not worked and only created more poverty.
In my opinion, Tom Coburn is right that we need to dump compassionate conservatism overboard. Conservatism was working plenty well before we added the so-called compassionate policies to our agenda. If people want big government policies, they'll seek the professionals: the Democrats. Let's get back to our brand of limiting government, and providing free-market solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
