by Samuel Gonzalez

The September 12 march on Washington was more than a huge Tea Party event. D.C. police and network news organizations estimated the throngs of civic-minded Americans of between 1.5 to 2 million people. But, this sea of humanity walking down the heart of our nation’s capital was more than citizens fed up with out-of-control government spending, or Obama Care.

What happened on Saturday was only a glimpse of the awakening of what Richard Nixon once called the Silent Majority. To characterize this event as a seismic shift of attitude towards President Barack Obama’s policies would be a serious miscalculation.

This was no shift!

Truth be told, a sleeping giant who may have taken some concepts of liberty, self determination, a free market economy, and the benefits of small government for granted, have responded to a new call. Many of these people who participated in the protest have never done anything like it in their lives.

This is a very good thing.

These people of many different walks of life were not responding to a cult of personality. Conservatives don’t operate that way. We don’t need too. And for as much as some Conservative writers and politicians tried to mistakenly argue that Conservatism needs to be redefined, or reshaped, or repackaged, or the age of Ronald Reagan is dead, I say look at the amount of people who showed up to make their voices heard.

This is a reformation movement because the people are responding to Conservative ideas that don’t need to be tweaked one bit. They only need to be properly represented. And this is exactly what President Obama and the rest of the Democrats are desperately afraid of.
 
 
by Dacia Nichol

We've all had enough of the debate already, wouldn't you say so? "Trudge along" is still the order of the day unfortunately. While yours truly would love to just pick a side, one cannot merely dismiss the chaos and inherent lack of logic found in both arguments.

If polls mean anything to you, it seems the country is not in the mood for a few things:

1) more debt;
2) more government;
3) the partisan attitude of Congress; or
4) socialized medicine.

Unfortunately for Democrats this health care bill, lovingly coined "Obamacare", appears to contain all four elements. After the administration threw us some bread crumbs suggesting socialized medicine could be removed, they had to come quickly back around with a dust buster to clean up after the backlash.

A couple of backlashes actually - one from the hard left demanding that socialized medicine was not an option open for discussion (this one even had Jon Stewart questioning Barry's testicular fortitude), and the other one claiming that the public option was such a huge part of Obama's campaign platform, that turning back on the promise to push for one was a sign of shortage in political capital.

Thus far, the administration has been bombarded with unsolicited advice from every nook and cranny in the literary world. Every study presented has had zillions of anecdotal evidence and stories brought to counter against it. Lists upon lists have been drafted to offer solutions....some even of the familiar "12-step" variety. From the looks of it, one might conclude that this phenomenon could be useful for the White House, meaning they can rest well knowing that yes, the American people DO want health care reform. Er...health "insurance" reform rather? Or whatever...we'll see what the winds bring tomorrow.

That being said, we'll move onto the topic of who is most evil in this debate.

First, let's start by acknowledging the bipartisan conclusion that health care needs fixing.

Second, let's define what exactly we agree on:

1. Health care costs are outrageous;
2. Insurance companies are profit ventures and conduct business as such - even at the expense of human life.
3. Medicare is an implosion waiting to happen;
4. The poor and middle class are the most vulnerable and under-served in the health industry;
5. Things like transparency, a good doctor-patient relationship, coverage for pre-existing conditions, and portable care are highly desirable features; and
6. Tort law is out of control.

In sum, we all want health care to cost less, be more accessible to individuals, and have lots of choices like our doctors, our hospitals, and our coverage options.

So what's getting lost in translation? The role of government. This entire debate is winding down to the fundamental differences between the parties - big government vs. small government. Here's the other kicker - instead of reaching for compromise, both parties have fallen back to semi-yellow-journalism tactics (sensationalist journalism dating back to the pre-Revolution days).

Democrats - "We can't do nothing - nothing isn't an option! If we don't do this now, people will die! It's all the evil insurance companies' fault!"

Republicans - "If this plan goes through, government will take over your lives! They'll ration your care! They'll decide who lives and who dies!"

Democrats point to long lines at medical clinics in poor neighborhoods with countless video testimonials to justify their points. Republicans point to the histories of any and all countries with similar systems to what is proposed as examples of the failure of the social medicine side of the bill. Their claims also come with complimentary video footage.

Question - with all the advice and proposals and ideas circulating around America, with public support for reform high, but support for this reform in its current state low, why aren't the necessary nips, tucks, and alterations being made?

The Republicans have decided to take the approach of being stalwarts. Apparently, Obama is not doing so hot in the "bringing people together" promise, and that means he's built himself a loyal opposition. Not good news when you're trying to overhaul a major system in the country that will affect every single American...oh and most Americans don't identify with your party either. In fact, a new Gallup poll says that Vermont, Hawaii, and Massachusetts would be your only solid supports in the end.

The Democrats aren't taking a very "group-hug" approach either. Some want to drop the public option for the sake the country for the time being, but others - far louder than the compromise crowd - demand that no concessions shall be had, and want the bill pushed through regardless of its popularity. The "we won" mentality still runs strong, but now it also appears to be tainted with the acknowledgment that political winds do change and a rush job is needed to preserve the social justice they live, breathe, and would die for. Well...at least they act like they would.

Then there's the president himself. Strangely, he continues to stay in campaign mode, generating more questions than answers with each appearance in the public forum. It's not the questions - some of them have been phenomenal. It's the overall candy coated shell slick smooth talk that still doesn't give the hint as to whether we're talking peanut, plain, or crunchy.

In another stroke of irony - one of the only things we all agree on in this country about health care also happens to be the one thing Obama is not interested in addressing: tort reform. Further, Democrats are trying to marginalize anything and everything Republicans object to with the argument "Republicans have no alternative". Except they do. And demanding that the minority party devise an entire plan of their own that they know has no chance of passing is just an avoidance strategy - avoiding the debate that is.

See, the idea behind a president who campaigned on being "bipartisan" and "reaching across the aisle" kind of centered on the notion that you know...you'd include the opposition party in whatever it is you're doing. Sure, politics-as-usual wouldn't find any of this current fiasco surprising, but that's the downside of having promised to get past all that in exchange for a new beginning if elected. We all must have forgot about the reasons why we don't get along to begin with, for they are certainly on display now.

So - who's most evil? It wouldn't be accurate to paint Republicans in any kind of saintly light, but they are there, with ideas, now using stalling measures in response to being shut out (or so it seems). If the health situation really is as dire as Democrats claim it to be, they'll agree to gamble pulling the public option, reducing costs by working with Republican ideas, have sweeping reform, then hope that the cost of health insurance will have lowered so significantly, there is no longer a need for a federal health insurance option. Or perhaps the public would be open to a much smaller price tag on a public option after said reform takes place? No…apparently the public option is a sticking point not worth sacrificing for all the poor that are being used as pawns in their quest for socialization of our country.

Verdict: Democrats.
 
 
by Terence P. Jeffrey

Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.
 
At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”
 
Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

During Republican President George W. Bush’s second term, the number of self-identified conservatives as measured by Gallup dropped, riding at a low of 37% as recently as last year.
 
According to new data released by Gallup on Friday, conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states--including President Obama’s home state of Illinois--even though Democrats have a significant advantage over Republicans in party identification in 30 states.
 
“In fact, while all 50 states are, to some degree, more conservative than liberal (with the conservative advantage ranging from 1 to 34 points), Gallup's 2009 party ID results indicate that Democrats have significant party ID advantages in 30 states and Republicans in only 4,” said an analysis of the survey results published by Gallup.

“Despite the Democratic Party's political strength-- seen in its majority representation in Congress and in state houses across the country--more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal,” said Gallup’s analysis.

“While Gallup polling has found this to be true at the national level over many years, and spanning recent Republican as well as Democratic presidential administrations, the present analysis confirms that the pattern also largely holds at the state level,” said Gallup. “Conservatives outnumber liberals by statistically significant margins in 47 of the 50 states, with the two groups statistically tied in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts.”
 
Massachusetts, Vermont and Hawaii are the most liberal states, even though conservatives marginally outrank liberals even there. In Massachusetts, according to Gallup, 30% say they are conservative and 29% say they are liberal, a difference that falls within the margin of error for the state. In Vermont, 29% say they are conservative and 28% say they are liberal, which also falls within the survey’s margin of error for the state.  In Hawaii, 29% say they are conservative and 24% say they are liberal, which falls within the margin of error for that state.

In one non-state jurisdiction covered by the survey, liberals did outnumber conservatives. That was Washington, D.C., where 37% said they were liberal, 35% said they were moderate and 23% said they were conservative.

Even in New York and New Jersey, conservatives outnumber liberals by 6 percentage points, according to Gallup. In those states, 32% say they are conservative and 26% say they are liberal.  In Connecticut, conservatives outnumber liberals by 7 points, 31% to 24%.
 
Alabama is the state that comes closest to a conservative majority. In that state, according to Gallup, 49% say they are conservative and 15% say they are liberal.
 
In President Obama’s home state of Illinois, conservatives outnumber liberals, 35% to 23%.

Gallup's results were derived from interviewing 160,236 American adults between Jan. 2, 2009 and June 30, 2009.
 
Even though conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states, in 21 of these states self-identified moderates outnumber conservatives, and in 4 states the percentage saying they are conservative and the percentage saying they are moderate is exactly the same.

The two states with the highest percentage of self-identified moderates are Hawaii and Rhode Island, where 43% say they are moderate.
 
For a ranking of all 50 states by the advantage that self-identified conservatives have over self-identified liberals see the Gallup analysis here.
 
 

by Harrison Price

It seems as though when the Obama administration gets into PR trouble they pull out the Bush playbook as in “blame Bush.”  We saw it after fanning the flames of the AIG bonuses got out-of-hand (it produced the populist reaction the Democrats sought until it became counter-productive) and we’re seeing it now to distract us from North Korea/Iran/Cap and Trade/Healthcare.  The current distraction is about the wireless wiretapping under Bush (even though Obama might still be getting intel from it).

With Liberals we get into a subject, take “torture” for example.  Republicans say it produced useful intelligence.  Democrats say under “torture” people will say anything so it’s useless.  Yet actionable intelligence was produced in the example of the attempt to blow up the Library Building in L.A. (there is no library there).  So Democrats take a step back and switch gears saying: “Well we didn’t know.”  Then we learn Nancy Pelosi knew.  Democrats change their angle again and suggest the public is being lied to (so now the CIA is run by liars).  When that doesn’t stick Pelosi goes into hibernation.

In an article I found at The Patriot Room The National Review has a different take:

“Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located.”   Another Friday night, another dump by the Obama administration of a report underscoring the vital importance of President Bush’s post-9/11 national security tactics.

The above quote about Midhar and Hazmi and is from Gen. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director who was director of the NSA when that agency ran Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”  It is a bombshell mentioned in passing on page 31 of the 38-page report filed by five executive branch inspectors general (from DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) pursuant to Congress’s 2008 overhaul of FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

There are a couple of interesting things about this.  The first thing that caught my eye was the “mentioned in passing” part.  Since the report was produced by the Obama administration they wouldn’t want to readily admit what sane people already know: good intelligence saves lives and good intelligence techniques allow for good intelligence.

The report also has more interesting revelations:

When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn’t lying — but they also knew he couldn’t discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified.

Between the time the time the collection intelligence activities that came to be known as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was first authorized after the 9/11 attacks until the warrantless surveillance aspect of the program was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, the Bush administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of the congressional intelligence committees 17 times about the activities involved in the program.

How Democrats see Obama.

These facts once again reinforce my belief, backed up by example after example, that Democrats are very willing to play politics with matters of national security to appease their Liberal supporters.  It will be remembered that The New York Times exposed this vital and lifesaving program in 2005 gravely damaging the United States’ ability to learn what our enemies were up to.

For his entire time in office (and still to this day when Obama stumbles) Democrats blame Bush for raping the Constitution, ruining the world, wrecking the economy, and for the rising price of oil.  When the facts are analyzed, however, it is almost always the Democrats who have tofu on their faces but, like Obama’s report it appears buried in the back pages.

It may take years, but eventually we will get to the point in time when Democrats can’t blame Bush for all of the world’s ills (though we may be a few generations away from this moment).

In a way, this report is a swipe at former President Bill Clinton and his virtually complete lack of interest in fighting al Qaeda even though Osama bin Laden declared war no fewer than three times against the United States.

But that is the subject for another time.

 
 
Picture
by Dacia Nichol

There are two stories in the news today that actually exemplify the stereotypes of each party that are worth considering:

On the liberal side, there's the kid-ditching dad.  In Nebraska, a man with 9 children abandoned them at a hospital under the state's Safe Haven law after his wife died.  He couldn't handle the burden of taking care of all of them, so he just dumped them like garbage.  You can't have sympathy for this man - he must have figured out his tolerance levels around...oh...4 children or so ago.  There were options for him and he took the wrong one, and to top it all off (the news of the day), his girlfriend is now pregnant with twins.  This exemplifies the liberal view that the state knows what's best for you and with that hubris passed a law that allowed this.  It also exemplifies the liberal idea that responsibility for your actions is a nice idea, but if you can't deal with it, good old government will come in and fix your life for you.

On the conservative side, there's the 15-month old little girl that died after her parents would not allow doctors to treat her pneumonia.  They belonged to a congregation that believed in Faith Healing, thereby shunning doctors from their members.  In sum, these folks let a child slowly die of a perfectly treatable disease, choosing prayer over science.  This exemplifies the conservative views that seem to go against science in favor of religious belief.  There is a large faction of the right that seems stuck in ancient ideas and decries anything that goes against them, including bringing arguments against evolution and some even questioning the existence of dinosaurs.  Naturally, one would extend this to include the global warming argument - of course conservatives are against it...they don't believe in science, right?

This author thinks that it's fair to say that both articles do not represent either party constituency as a whole...or anywhere near a majority for that matter.  Both parties do however, use these types of articles and events to demonize the other side.  When we think that the types of people that these articles describe represent the behavior of our opposition, well, no wonder we don't get along.  We'd like to think that our reasoning goes much deeper than just cherry picking examples to help our cause, and for some of us this is true.  For most of us though, or rather the bulk of voters that loyally choose one side over the other in each election, it really does come down to these nasty stereotypes.

So who has the worst stereotype?  Let's have a look:

Liberals - free love, abortion on demand, no responsibility, the system is at fault, atheist, down with the rich and/or successful, race hypocrisy, communist, socialist, fascist, tax and spend, micro-management, power to the labor unions, pay to play, animals before people, anti-business, anti-competition, anti-American, hard work is bad, anti-military.

Conservatives - anti-science, Bible thumpers, homophobic, war monger, hate monger, fear monger, fascist, witch hunters, to heck with the poor, secessionists, hicks, racists, unfaithful spouse hypocrisy, non-intellectual, party of "no", stuck in the past, cling to guns and religion, big business first, screw consumers, protect the status quo.

Or does it even matter what the other side really meant to say?  It seems that no matter how the phrase is worded, something negative can be derived from it.  Rush Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail,” is one beaming example along with any other remark made by a right winger that may allude to race.  Any time there’s an objection to religious symbolism in the public forum, the “left-wing atheists” are blamed along with the claim that their influence has been what has brought about entire downfall of societal values.

Who’s right?  Well, statistics can prove anything, and fact checkers are just as politically motivated as anyone else.  We can find hope by acknowledging that the other side is not as horrible as we think they are - at least one would suppose.  Unfortunately, there are agendas to be seen to and as long as billionaires are funding them - God help us all.

Despite the enraging battles, these are what will always remain as the guiding principles of this nation: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness (“LLP”).  We’ve got the know-how (the Constitution), and we’ve got the means (We the People).  Time to stop the BS with these stereotypes and get down to the root of the problem:  the evil that would have this nation become something it was never intended to be.
 
 

by Thomas Proulx

What does it mean to be a Republican? Left wingers will assert that they are fascist and only concerned with amassing money, power, and influence. To a certain degree I would have to capitulate, but I posit that the synonymity between the Republican politician and the average citizen is more divergent than people acknowledge. I, myself, am not a Republican in the party sense. I would have to refer to the term republicanism, which is the doctrine of governing a nation as a republic, and not a democracy. To explicate further, democracy has the characteristic dimension of majority rule, and that majority rule can become tyrannical and abuse the rights of the minority if the governmental aspect supersedes its authority. And in my opinion, we currently embody that description. As for my political complexion, I believe an intrinsical element of a republic is negative liberty; “the freedom from interference and coercion by other people,” or in Isaiah Berlin's words, “liberty in the negative sense involves an answer to the question: 'What is the area within which the subject — a person or group of persons — is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by other persons.” Any restrictions that are self-evident are imposed by a person or authority, and not by some innate incapacity or causal agent in nature. However, as with most things in creation there are counterparts, and the obverse of negative liberty is positive liberty.

John Jay, in agreement with positive liberty, would disagree with me, as he states in Federalist Papers No.2: “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of Government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers.” Tibor Machan, who is a Libertarian, ripostes with the following in support of negative liberty: “...required for moral choice and, thus, for human flourishing," claiming that it "is secured when the rights of individual members of a human community to life, to voluntary action (or to liberty of conduct), and to property are universally respected, observed, and defended.” In furtherance, Isaiah Berlin eloquently stated that the unchecked advancement of positive liberty could invariably lead to a condition whereby the state could force upon its citizenry a certain way of life. The state would judge what was the most rational course of action and therefore determine that it's what the people should desire, whether or not it was actually coveted. In response author David Kelley wrote this about positive liberty, “...imposes on others positive obligations to which they did not consent and which cannot be traced to any voluntary act.”

When positive liberty surpasses negative liberty you have a condition paralleling Thomas Hobbes', Leviathan, which was a book that postulated a social contract and rule by an absolute sovereign. The citizenry mired in such a compact have ceded all of their rights under the auspices of monarchic rule. According to Hobbes the sovereign has twelve principle rights:

  1. because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government.

  2. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from the covenant because of the actions of the sovereign.

  3. the selection of sovereign is (in theory) by majority vote; the minority have agreed to abide by this.

  4. every subject is author of the acts of the sovereign: hence the sovereign cannot injure any of his subjects, and cannot be accused of injustice.

  5. following this, the sovereign cannot justly be put to death by the subjects.

  6. because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published.

  7. to prescribe the rules of civil law and property.

  8. to be judge in all cases.

  9. to make war and peace as he sees fit; and to command the army.

  10. to choose counsellors, ministers, magistrates and officers.

  11. to reward with riches and honour; or to punish with corporal or pecuniary punishment or ignominy.

  12. to establish laws of honour and a scale of worth.
Do you see any similarities with our government? I will concede that the relationship may appear to be hyperbolized, but when viewed peripherally connections do begin to manifest themselves, so long as you orientate your attention towards the legislation instituted by governmental action. Meaning, the actions taken by our government have increased their power and influence, and the vehicle that manufactured this egregiousness has been noxious legislation. Their value, if any, is minute compared to the encroachment upon individual liberties. We have let them amass their puissance by removing ourselves from the equation, and sadly, has relegated us to a social contract void of any benefit. One only has to look at the actions of Congressman Waxman from California, as another example of the government superseding its boundaries. The Democrats hired a speed reader to read the “Energy and Climate Change bill,” a document in excess of nine-hundred pages. There is one caveat, he didn't finish it, and there was no real intent to do so (only reading an amendment). Jocularity ensued and all at our expense, are you still laughing? The bill went on to pass, as every other Democrat enforced legislation. Another act of a leviathan.

Still unconvinced? Immediacy of action has initiated governmental intervention, and our government has our best interests at heart, right? Inefficacy in government is well documented and to deny this principle infers a "disingenuousness". I believe, through introspection, an individual can come to the conclusion that they know what's best for themselves, and through self-actuation, will themselves into a reality that aligns with their own principles. Such an individual repudiates the idea of imposing coercive action to cultivate their ideals, because they know negating the liberty of another makes you no better than the government. A Republic would do well to have a constituency such as this as its base composition.
 
 

by Sean Overpeck

Coming from a man it is simple. Men are pigs, all men, no exceptions. Especially the Politicians. We can't keep our Dic!!!! in our pants. Not that that is an excuse, but this guy isn't doing anything to his girlfriend that the average politician hasn't done to the average taxpayer. It is however an interesting story. First the Governor of South Carolina goes "missing." Then there is a period of days where he is staff "thinks" he is hiking in the Appalachian Mountains. Then he shows up yesterday and admits that he has been "clearing his head" in Argentina ...... with his Argentinean lover. Then we here that his wife had kicked him out of the Governors mansion weeks ago.

So much for the man that stood a chance to defeat Obama in 2012. This pretty much ends his chances for a run to the White House. Besides ... don't we have a wonderful history of this sort of stuff? John F. Kennedy comes to mind. Then there's Bill Clinton. The Democrats, you will remember, were telling us that this Clinton thing didn't matter ... it was his private life after all.

Then we had John Edwards who's wife was dying of Cancer go off and screw around. Yet because Sanford is a Republican, the media have decided to take off on this story and make it part of the top items to cover in their news cycles. Why didn't they do that with Clinton, Edwards, Kennedy, or others...Because they were Democrats.

The one thing that bothers me the most about this whole ordeal is not the fact that he cheated on his wife, because that happens all to often unfortunately. It is the fact that he disappeared "Hiking in the Appalachians" on Fathers Day. (Hence the picture up top). He has four kids, and I'm sure they would have loved to have been with Daddy on Fathers Day. That to me makes hm a Scumbag. Have trouble with your spouse, okay. But don't let it get in the way of your kids.

All in all this is just another step backward for the Republicans. How the hell are going to face down the Democrats in 2010-2012 with this kind of crap going on. Republican claim to be high on morals, yet this happens when they are at their low points. Do want to use your Second Amendment rights to shoot yourself in the head to get it over with, because hell, you've shot your feet enough times. Times like this I'm glad that I'm a Conservative Independent. Both parties are crap.

 
 
Picture
by Thomas Craig

I tried to stay quiet on this, I really did.  I honestly thought that this "feud" between Gov. Palin and Dave Letterman would simply pass and we can all move on with our lives.  Evidently, I was wrong.  I can understand why Gov. Palin got upset about the joke, after all, she is a Mother.  Unfortunately, I don't really believe that this is a case of a Mother defending her child as much as it is a case of a desperate politican trying to stay relevant and in the news for the sake of an unrealistic dream of becoming President one day.  I'm sorry Governor, but it's just never going to happen.

We all have our opinions of why John McCain lost the election.  Some Republicans believe that it was McCain's move to the center on many issues which lost him the election.  Others think that he lost because of President Bush.  Then there are many, including myself, who believe that his choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate was the reason he lost.  I don't know if I would attribute 100% of the reason to this but I do think it was a large part.  I truly believe that Sen. McCain's centrist views on many subjects could have won him the Presidency.  American's were tired of the extreme far-right controlling the Nation and the Party.  In a bid to woo far-right Republicans, McCain chose a far-right Governor who completely dismayed any centrist voters who were considering McCain. (And there were MANY!)  The media's portrayal of Gov. Palin did not help but her inability to convey a serious message to the public helped nail in the coffin for the campaign.

Gov. Palin's experience, or lack thereof, was constantly brought up.  While it was mentioned, it was not hammered into the public's mind that she had as much if not more experience than the Democratic candidate for President.  Why this was not emphasized more is a mystery to me. 

Gov. Palin's image, and again, perhaps the media IS to blame for this, was not good to say the least.  She came off uneducated and awkward.  Her Katie Couric interview will go down in history as the gold standard of how Journalists can humiliate a Politician and make a name for themselves. 

Most people I spoke to during the campaign said simply that they could not imagine if something were to happen to McCain and Palin becoming President.  The fact that people were more concerned about the possibility of Palin being a step away from the Presidency over JOE BIDEN being a step away says a lot! 

I have never had the pleasure of meeting Gov. Palin and I sure hope that I have the opportunity to meet her one day.  I respect her as a Governor and I appreciate her rallying supporters just like I admire any politican who can rally support behind them.  I think that Gov. Palin would make a fine political commentator but the Republican nomination for President will never be hers.  It's time to move on to real issues and real debates.  Arguing with Letterman over a stupid joke that nobody would have even remembered the next day had she not started this foolishness, is a waste of time and a ridiculous distraction from the true arguments that the GOP should me making.
 
 

by Thomas Craig

Okay, I'm the first to admit it.  After writing a post about how Cheney should shut his mouth and creep back into the shadows, I am now intrigued by this increasingly vocal man.  I believe his opinions on Guantanamo Bay and the use of torture are valid (I don't necessarily agree with them though) and I can understand his desire to defend his legacy.  My problem is that I don't believe he is the right messenger to be taking center stage and representing the GOP.  Dick Cheney is a symbol of all that America is tired of and voted against in the last election.  It is apparent now that during the last eight years, like a good Vice-President, he was stifled by Pres. Bush and was forced to keep his mouth shut.  Now that he is free to do as he pleases, he is coming out guns blazing. 

In his latest revelation to the world, yesterday the former VP took on the issue of gay marriage and truly surprised me.  Accompanied by his daughter, Cheney described how he feels that gay marriage is a state issue, not a federal one.  This strikes at the heart of what the new Republican movement should be about; returning power to the States rather than the Federal Government.  Cheney even let his "inner-libertarian" through when he said to the National Press Club "I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."  This was a big step for him, I'm sure.  In this statement, he has proved to me that he does indeed have an understanding of the Constitution and the comprehension of individual rights. 

Gay Marriage is controversial and anyone can understand why.  I do agree with Cheney that if the issue is to be a legal one, the States should have the power over it.  Personally, I don't think this topic should even be determined by voters, just like I don't think voters should be allowed to vote on whether they want interracial marriages or marriages between members of different religions.  If two consenting adults wish to get married, it must be allowed since it offers no harm to anybody's life, liberty, or their pursuit of happiness.  Now, I want to be clear about this.  I believe that under the rights granted to all Americans, Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.  I do NOT think that anyone must be forced to betray their religious beliefs and approve of this.  You don't have to condone it, like it, or even support it.  You do have to accept it.  You might not agree with a black man marrying a white woman, but you DO have to accept it.  You might not like a Catholic man marrying a Jewish woman but you DO have to accept it.  You must accept it because as much as you disagree with it, their union in marriage does not affect you whatsoever.  The only people affected are the ones who enter into the marriage.  Dick Cheney, thanks to his Daughter, understands this and let's face it- if he can understand it, ANYONE can understand it.  Now let the argument begin...

 
 
Picture
by Dacia Nichol

“We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of this earth. We’re the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in that fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit.”  - Dick Cheney

The April 28th, 2009 edition of the New York Sun had an editorial column titled, “Sound Familiar?”, in which the future of the GOP was debated in terms of “what if” Cheney had run in the 2008 presidential election.  Since Cheney has been popping his head up as of late, this author has decided to put her two cents in on the matter:

Why is Dick Cheney such a controversial figure?  Was it his role in the Bush administration (read: quintessential Darth Vader)?  His Chief of Staff’s penchant for revenge?  Wait...it has to be his striking similarity to Satan himself, right?  Perhaps all of these, perhaps none.  On some sides of the conservative fence, he represents strength and the gall to do the dirty work when it needs to be done.  On other sides, he’s everything that’s wrong in this country today - the complete lack of held sanctity for human life, the dissipation of civil liberties, and American values thrown out the window in the ultimate display of shame.

What do you think?

That leads to the next issue at hand...

The topic of fiercest debate in our “Overseas Contingency Operation” is over the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, and this debate undoubtedly had its deepest impact on the GOP.  What led the U.S. to hold such a high moral standard to begin with?  A feeling that ultimately has lead us to feel sympathy for those who would not hesitate to kill any one of us while taking their own lives in the same instance?  Is there suddenly no jungle to which certain rules must not apply as a matter of necessity in this world?  A shining city on a hill can only shine as long as it can defend itself against its enemies…or can it?  Teddy and Reagan seemed to think so, but Powell sees a different direction for their party.

Where do you stand?

Not to excuse the modern American practice of waterboarding (maybe to defend it instead), but the idea that waterboarding as was practiced at Club Gitmo bears any resemblance to that practiced by the Japanese is laughable.  The distinction is simple - one you can survive 266 times and walk away without harm, the other you can’t.  Ms. Coulter describes it best in her article, Watching MSNBC is Torture:

"The Japanese version of "waterboarding" was to fill the prisoner's stomach with water until his stomach was distended -- and then pound on his stomach, causing the prisoner to vomit.  Or they would jam a stick into the prisoner's nose so he could breathe only through his mouth and then pour water in his mouth so he would choke to death…Or they would "waterboard" the prisoner with saltwater, which would kill him.”

Do you think there’s a difference?

These questions seem to be causing a great stir in our party.  Perhaps the words of the Editor of the New York Sun can help us remember our direction:

 “...What the country, and the Republicans, sorely need at this point is not nostalgia for Mr. Cheney but the emergence of a new generation of leaders that will make the case for a strong national defense and a modest government that respects property rights and the rule of law.”

We concur!
 

    RSS Feed

    Picture

    Recent Posts

    Categories

    All
    America
    Auto
    Bobby Jindal
    Climate Change
    Congress
    Credit Crisis
    Economy
    Education
    Energy
    Federalism
    Geithner
    Generational Warfare
    Gop
    Healthcare
    Homeland Security
    Iran
    Israel
    Jefferson
    Kennedy
    Liberalism
    Libertarian
    Lincoln
    Michael Steele
    Mideast
    Military
    New York
    North Korea
    Notable Quotables
    President Obama
    Racial Issues
    Rnc
    Samesex Marriage
    Senate
    Social Security
    Socialism
    Stimulus
    Term Limits
    Unions
    United Nations

    Archives

    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009

    About Us

    American Tusk is a site devoted to those amongst us who put Country before Party. We are true Republicans.  American Tusk is dedicated to a smarter, stronger and better GOP.  Together we can make our Country better and move forward optimistically into the future!

    Picture