George W. Bush has the previously unimaginable opportunity to achieve the most amazing resurrection since Lazarus. The Democrats in Congress are flailing for an answer to the current gas crisis which in large part is due to the constrictions that they have placed on oil companies. The environmentalists have had their willing lackeys in Congress place so much red tape on any and all attempts to create or expand domestic energy that it would require executive orders to reverse. Whether the question is offshore oil, offshore natural gas, coal to oil, oil from shale or nuclear power the answer is always the same: litigation from the environmentalists to make the process so expensive and time consuming that energy companies look elsewhere. Is anyone surprised that we now import 70% of our oil and haven’t built a nuclear plant in decades. Even with plans on the table for getting some of these projects towards production, the legal hurdles ensure that relief is nowhere in sight.
So how does Bush pull a Lazarus? Well first let’s look at what is not news anymore. The war in Iraq must be going better than expected at this point. The proof? It has all but vanished from the lips of every talking head on network news and only sees the light in newsprint after the foreclosure notices. The surge has been a success and President Bush is even hinting of a troop withdrawals ahead of expectations. How much credit can Congress take when they have said they support the troops in the same breath as they tried to implement their “slow bleed” policy to leave our soldiers twisting in the wind? The answer is none. What else is not daily news is President Bush’s approval rate. Why not? Could it be because the Congressional approval rate has now hit single digits? How can you condemn as unpopular someone whose approval rate is nearly 700% higher than yours?
Bush has little time left in office to begin to build a legacy. Like a boxer who has taken an early beating but comes on strong in later rounds can steal a decision, it is still possible. After Hurricane Katrina, President Bush allowed refineries freedom from the custom ,state by state, special blend they are forced to make in order to fill demand. He could do it again to bring supply up. Though he has been loathe to wield executive power in this manner, the nation needs it. He could also use the airwaves as Ronald Reagan did to rally people to pressure Congress to act quickly to approve domestic production of all our recourses on an accelerated pace.
The Democrats in Congress are once again on the opposite side an issue with the majority of Americans due to their slavish allegiance to the extreme left. The more of a spotlight the President can focus on Congressional ineptitude, the more people will rally to the cause. The majority of Americans favor domestic drilling, oppose losing the Iraq war, oppose the proposed national 55 mile per hour speed limit, oppose illegal immigration, … the list is long and these are all platforms of Conservatism. Though Bush is certainly no rock ribbed Conservative by any stretch of the imagination, he could use our ideals to mitigate or turn back the perceived Democratic successes in November. In doing so, he would emerge from the tomb that has encased him since the “Mission Accomplished” debacle.
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Rejection 08
Rejection 08
Where did we go wrong? Conservatives have a lose/lose dilemma in November. The odds are a Liberal will be elected as our next president. Oh sure there is a difference among the three remaining choices. We have Barak Obama the most Liberal member of the Senate according to his voting record. We have Hillary Clinton the malleable Liberal/Moderate/Experienced/Change candidate (depending on the current polls or audience members). Then we have the Liberal Light candidate John McCain: Everything you always wanted in a Liberal and less.
The field will be narrowed to only one of the two remaining Democrats by summer. But regardless of which of them faces McCain, for Conservative voters the choice is between second class and steerage tickets on the Titanic. Oh sure, we know the boat’s going down but at least we can choose the level of amenities.
With either Democrat as president, evil corporations will be taxed at a higher rate as well as the “rich”. The problem is that only individuals pay taxes. Taxes levied on business are a cost of doing business and are thus transferred to the consumer. As far as punitive taxes on the “rich”? Well, the top five percent in this country pay almost seventy percent of the taxes. Can anyone say “fair share”? The resulting climate for business will strangle any chance of a quick recovery from the current economic situation. While we are on the subject, the unemployment rate has finally reached the horrible level that it held during the economic boom years of the last Clinton presidency…hmmm. We’ll have to look into that. There are few real differences policy wise between Clinton and Obama. Do you want the upper or lower bunk in steerage? It boils down to the scandals we all knew and loved, or the new and exciting ones we don’t.
Which brings us to John McCain. Except for his current (and getting nuanced by the minute) stance on the war, there is no difference to be seen from any other Liberal. He was against making the tax cuts permanent, tried to force feed his Amnesty Bill through the Senate and consistently co-sponsors bills with the most Liberal wing of the Democrat party. Today’s rumor is that Condeleeza Rice may be the VP. While this leans the ticket a little to the right, it is no guarantee that she can steer policy.
Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos may be succeeding in prolonging the Democratic fight but if it is too successful, we may end up with a Democrat candidate too scarred to win. So if we are determined to have a Liberal president I for one would rather have a Democrat. The Republican party could then take the loss as a lesson and start a shift back to reality.
Where did we go wrong? Conservatives have a lose/lose dilemma in November. The odds are a Liberal will be elected as our next president. Oh sure there is a difference among the three remaining choices. We have Barak Obama the most Liberal member of the Senate according to his voting record. We have Hillary Clinton the malleable Liberal/Moderate/Experienced/Change candidate (depending on the current polls or audience members). Then we have the Liberal Light candidate John McCain: Everything you always wanted in a Liberal and less.
The field will be narrowed to only one of the two remaining Democrats by summer. But regardless of which of them faces McCain, for Conservative voters the choice is between second class and steerage tickets on the Titanic. Oh sure, we know the boat’s going down but at least we can choose the level of amenities.
With either Democrat as president, evil corporations will be taxed at a higher rate as well as the “rich”. The problem is that only individuals pay taxes. Taxes levied on business are a cost of doing business and are thus transferred to the consumer. As far as punitive taxes on the “rich”? Well, the top five percent in this country pay almost seventy percent of the taxes. Can anyone say “fair share”? The resulting climate for business will strangle any chance of a quick recovery from the current economic situation. While we are on the subject, the unemployment rate has finally reached the horrible level that it held during the economic boom years of the last Clinton presidency…hmmm. We’ll have to look into that. There are few real differences policy wise between Clinton and Obama. Do you want the upper or lower bunk in steerage? It boils down to the scandals we all knew and loved, or the new and exciting ones we don’t.
Which brings us to John McCain. Except for his current (and getting nuanced by the minute) stance on the war, there is no difference to be seen from any other Liberal. He was against making the tax cuts permanent, tried to force feed his Amnesty Bill through the Senate and consistently co-sponsors bills with the most Liberal wing of the Democrat party. Today’s rumor is that Condeleeza Rice may be the VP. While this leans the ticket a little to the right, it is no guarantee that she can steer policy.
Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos may be succeeding in prolonging the Democratic fight but if it is too successful, we may end up with a Democrat candidate too scarred to win. So if we are determined to have a Liberal president I for one would rather have a Democrat. The Republican party could then take the loss as a lesson and start a shift back to reality.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sally Field: Sister Bertrille or Sister Betrayal?
Sister Bertrille or Sister Betrayal? Sally Field has become the latest celebrity to dive off the list of people I thought I knew. After watching people portray certain characters, you begin to identify them with that role and form opinions about them on that basis. I have been a fan of Sally Field from the Flying Nun days, through the Smokey and the Bandit days right up until the current medicinal ads. I have no problem with someone holding an opposing viewpoint. When I taught high school almost without exception all my friends and colleges were Liberal Democrats. When it comes to celebrities however, they are paid to entertain not interject their personal politics at nonpolitical events. With her hysterical, stuttering tirade at the Emmy Awards, she joined the likes of Danny Glover, Sean Penn and Charlie Sheen all of whom I was naïve enough to believe had at least a nodding acquaintance with reality. If she truly believes that the world would not have war if it was run by mothers, she is more deluded than the aforementioned triumvirate combined.
She has the right to her opinion as do all Americans. (Unless they have a Conservative opinion in which case they are to be muzzled and ridiculed at all costs) However to come to her erroneous conclusion, she would have to be ignorant of some of the great mothers in history. How about Russia’s Catherine the Great or England’s Queen Victoria, both of whose expansionist wars would rival any man’s. We can’t include Queen Elizabeth I due to her non-mother status as the “Virgin Queen” Or how about the more recent examples of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir? These two modern mothers were iron willed leaders who led their respective nations into successful campaigns against formidable opponents.
I happen to believe that women are just as capable leaders as men in peace or war. The only problem is that the most prominent female “leaders” in American politics are all well left of center. Whether it’s the scarf wearing, Axis of Evil member Basher Assad cuddling, Sen. Nancy Pelosi or the heavily medicated, second grade schoolteacher sounding drivel of alleged Republican Sen. Susan Collins, there is a serious lack of gravitas exhibited by the current crop of leaders who lack a y chromosome. Hillary? If she can be so easily fooled by George Bush into voting for the Iraq War, how would she fare when pitted against world leaders who truly wish to destroy our way of life?
In the current times in which we live with Al Queda, North Korea, Syria and a revitalized Russia vying for the chance to topple the United States from the sole superpower status, we can ill afford to vote for the next president solely on the basis of gender. However show me a viable conservative, experienced and tested mother and she would get my vote every time.
She has the right to her opinion as do all Americans. (Unless they have a Conservative opinion in which case they are to be muzzled and ridiculed at all costs) However to come to her erroneous conclusion, she would have to be ignorant of some of the great mothers in history. How about Russia’s Catherine the Great or England’s Queen Victoria, both of whose expansionist wars would rival any man’s. We can’t include Queen Elizabeth I due to her non-mother status as the “Virgin Queen” Or how about the more recent examples of Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir? These two modern mothers were iron willed leaders who led their respective nations into successful campaigns against formidable opponents.
I happen to believe that women are just as capable leaders as men in peace or war. The only problem is that the most prominent female “leaders” in American politics are all well left of center. Whether it’s the scarf wearing, Axis of Evil member Basher Assad cuddling, Sen. Nancy Pelosi or the heavily medicated, second grade schoolteacher sounding drivel of alleged Republican Sen. Susan Collins, there is a serious lack of gravitas exhibited by the current crop of leaders who lack a y chromosome. Hillary? If she can be so easily fooled by George Bush into voting for the Iraq War, how would she fare when pitted against world leaders who truly wish to destroy our way of life?
In the current times in which we live with Al Queda, North Korea, Syria and a revitalized Russia vying for the chance to topple the United States from the sole superpower status, we can ill afford to vote for the next president solely on the basis of gender. However show me a viable conservative, experienced and tested mother and she would get my vote every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
