Winning the Present with TR and Civility
It might seem like an odd pairing, but what the GOP field needs is TR and civility to win the present — and defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.
TR, of course, refers to larger-than-life Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who served as president from 1901-1908, then ran on the Progressive Bull Moose ticket in 1912.
While he was a rock-ribbed Republican, when theory ran afoul of doing what’s right by the little guy, he always chose the latter.
His brand of politics is perfect for slaying today’s dragons that have gutted the middle class and precipitated runaway spending.
Take, for example, housing prices. The Case-Shiller index recently revealed they’ve declined more steeply than during the Great Depression. The fact that 75% of consumers can’t even get loans to purchase a home, let alone refinance, is a big reason why.
Investment banker Christopher Whalen, whose father served in Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” says the way around this problem is to raise the FHA loan cap and help small and medium size banks increase lending. This would mean giving more power and money to community banks. Obama prefers letting Wall Street call the shots — in spite of its role in precipitating the 2007-08 housing meltdown — while the little guy gets slammed.
But, Republicans, Whalen says, should out-progressive Democrats and do what is right, which is TR writ large. TR basically stared down Wall Street, thus saving it from itself; so should today’s Republicans.
One hundred years after TR’s Bull Moose gambit, many in the GOP field seem well-positioned to take up his mantle.
For instance, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty emphasizes Main Street production over Wall Street consumption. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has that “can do” spirit. And Texas Governor Rick Perry shares TR’s tough-as-nails persona.
Then there’s Mitt Romney, who, like TR, favors universal health care as the key to economic stability, signing it into law as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007).
Many conservatives deride the 2006 Massachusetts law as ObamaCare’s twin and Tea Party poison — a comparison Obama smugly reinforces. But, in fact, ObamaCare and RomneyCare are apples and oranges. Whereas ObamaCare reduces what doctors are paid; RomneyCare ensures that doctors are, in fact, paid when a patient, who could otherwise afford it, lacks insurance.
Also, as Romney underscored in Monday’s CNN debate in Manchester, RomneyCare did not raise taxes, whereas ObamaCare does — to the tune of $500 billion — in addition to shifting $500 billion out of Medicare to fund it.
Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts residents favor the law, according to a recent poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe, up 10 percentage points in the past two years, with only 21 percent opposed.
The fundamental question is whether the government or the individual is responsible for health care. If you believe the government is responsible, then RomneyCare or ObamaCare are equally palatable – even if one may be marginally better than the other. If you think the government should butt out, then neither is acceptable. Compromising on this essential question will get the Republicans neither respect nor the White House.
Lincoln’s “civility” forced a civil war which ended slavery but also killed 625,000 Americans and devasted Southern states for decades. Reagan destroyed the Soviet’s Evil Empire by military and economic confrontation, and essentially daring it’s leaders to start a war. TR waged a full-scaled political assault on the “trusts” and wall street moguls. Civility took a distant second place to strong adherence to firm principle with all three.
Actually, only 364,000 American troops were killed in the Civil War. The 260,000 cowardly traitors of the rebellion were not real Americans.
Those damn Yankees did deserve to die. The South will Rise Again, it’s called Right to Work States.
re:nickel
Actually, the Real American troops did not deserve to die. The cowardly traitors of the rebellion did. As far as the “South” rising again, you’re right but not for the reasons you think. The southern states of the USA will and are rising as more and more Americans reject the anti-Americanism that the so-called “Confederacy” represented.
The South is prospering because the culture there remains similar to the principles of the Confederacy — mind your own business. The fact is the the North was determined to decide how people in the Southern States were going to live — as their program of Reconstruction demonstrated. The Blue Staters of today continue the tradition of meddling in the most picayune aspects of everyone else’s life. By God, you’re gonna accept gay marriage, and like it. This was no problem for our Founders, as sodomy (and blasphemy) were common-law crimes in their time.
Re: jacobite
Actually, the South in not prospering; Texas is.
During the Civil War, the Real Americans were determined not impose “how people in the Southern States were going to live” but that the anti-americans of the South would not be allowed to deny the rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution.
Keep in mind that most of the Southern soldiers were enslaved members of the local militia, send off in there tens of thousands to risk their lives to make the world safe for slavery. Some, when wounded, were sent home to heal, and were rounded up by the local government and shipped off again to meet the next quota of cannon fodder for the wealthy plantation owners.
Watch what you write, Jack. Some of us from the South have ancestors that fought for the Confederacy, not because there were slaves sold in the market down in New Orleans, but because they wanted to defend their lives, property, and whatever else they cherished. Your post is a bit vague, so I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Were you referring to the Southeners who fought against Lincoln? If so, you should know that there were sound reasons for many of them to fight, slavery or no. What they did was distinctly American: they exercised their 2nd amendment rights and decided to tell Uncle Sam good bye, I want a divorce. It’s what we said to the English, after all. Slavery has little to do with the American civil war-the abolitionists were used politically by both sides, and were pawns in a larger struggle: Washington, DC versus the states.
I think both are oversimplifying. Our civil war was uniquely American, both Union and Confederacy, but slavery was indeed the most important factor in causing the war. It certainly wasn’t billed that way by the southern Democrats, and they never ever EVER tried to urge on their men to save slavery. Yet that was the only reason for war, because all the other attempts at coming up with a real casus belli were ridiculous fictions. The southern Democrats felt surrounded, yes, but why? Because there were more free states than slave states. They tried to make it illegal to call free states ‘free’ as opposed to slave. Did Abraham Lincoln threaten to do away with the Constitution or Bill of Rights in a stump speech? To remove all state’s rights? Of course not; he was a semi-abolitionist, that is all. That was the entire reason for the war, but not the one used to motivate the men in the lines.
Slave owners controlled the legislatures of all the states, and it’s not hard even now to inflame the ignorant against the merchant class. The Confederacy is a perfect and classic example of the Democratic party in action; wealthy elites bent on keeping their privileges use false but compelling arguments to get poor and ill-educated people to do their dirty work. If they had held plebiscites in every state before seceding, and allowed six months or so for arguments to be made, there would never have been a war. Instead they voted in the legislatures as quickly as possible and began seizing federal property and then fired on Fort Sumpter. The Slavocrats WANTED a war. As Adam Smith wrote, “He is a bold surgeon, they say, whose hand does not tremble when he performs an operation upon his own person, and he is often equally bold who does not hesitate to pull off the mysterious veil of self-delusion which covers the deformities of his own conduct. Rather than see our own behavior under so disagreeable an aspect, we too often, foolishly and weakly, endeavor to exasperate anew those unjust passions which had formerly misled us, we endeavor by artifice to awaken our old hatreds, and irritate afresh our almost forgotten resentments, we even exert ourselves for this miserable purpose and thus persevere in injustice merely because we were once unjust, and because we are ashamed and afraid to see that we were so.” Rather than admit that slavery was the travesty it was, the elites of the South decided instead that the best course was brother against brother.
I do not despise the men who fought for the South, from General Lee on down. Many of them fought for what they considered good reasons, and many fought because they simply couldn’t fight against their own kin and had to choose. The governors, legislatures, Democratic Party, and slave owners I despise thoroughly as the rotten scum they were. There may have been a few among them naive enough to be fooled by all the high-flown rhetoric, just as today many are fooled by Democratic pretensions of ‘we just want to help you.’ It doesn’t follow that the deceivers are good guys, just because they know how to parrot noble ideals. Every villain from Cain to bin Laden knew how to do that.
I disagree. Secession was the issue. The issue of slavery had already been politically resolved by various pieces of legislation. There was no actual warring until several states seceded and some seized federal armorys in so doing.
Secession was and is their right. Texas, for instance, joined the union with the express proviso that she could secede. There is no anti-secession proviso in the Constitution.
It may be that, at this very moment, there are states in which the majority would vote to secede. And for good reason.
I agree with Renaissance Nerd. But even more interesting than the understandable loyalty to ancestors of some neo-Confederates, is the use by left-liberals today regarding the memory of the American Civil War. They are using that conflict to support the Democratic Party in its most leftist manifestations, calling upon liberal guilt for more reparations. I wrote about some of them here: http://clarespark.com/2011/02/20/are-we-still-fighting-the-civil-war/.
re: Renaissance Nerd
There were quite a few mistakes in your last post. I think the most important one was your apparent misunderstanding of the politics of the time. The Democratic Party of the Civil War era, was the Conservative party of the time. That misunderstanding on your part, leads you to make incorrect assumptions about the causes and consequences of the Civil War.
re: white tiger
The issue of slavery had in fact not been resolved prior to the beginning of the Civil War.
As per the Supreme court ruling ‘Texas vs. White’, secession is unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
Furthermore, the fairy tale that Texas “joined the union with the express proviso that she could secede” is nothing but another birther/truther fantasy of the uniformed.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/
re: Clare Spark
Well then I agree that you are misinformed, just like Renaissance Nerd.
re:john turner
Hey Jack, I’m from Texas; the state that contributes more to this country than any other state. I also have ancestors that joined and fought for the rebellion. They were cowardly traitors too. This fantasy that many on the southern right have about the Civil War would be funny, if it weren’t so pathetic. The Civil War was not a war of “northern aggression”. It was a war between those who support and defend the U.S. Constitution and those who were cowardly traitors. Secession is unconstitutional BTW.
Texas: the state whose governor has been dropping veiled threats to secede from the Union for the past three or four years now. The state who most of us will be moving to, if the predictions of economic meltdown come true. The state that has Tex-Mex, some of the best food in the nation-and an enormous amount of uninhabited land. I have relatives living in Texas now, and I love the place. Jack.
re:john turner
So you don’t disagree with anything in my last post?
Rick Perry can opine about secession all he wants, it’s still a joke and so is he.
Finally, you might want to think twice about moving to Texas if you’re planning on living in any of our cities. Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio all have no tolerance for the ignorance that you so clearly are proud of.
Hold on there, Texas, you’re going way too fast for me. What ignorance are you referring to? Do you really think that if some state, let’s say Texas, decides to secede from the Union, then, all the people in Texas that voted for it are…? Ignorant? Stupid? Why? Because they divorced you? Because they would rather not live under the prevailing political climate? Why would you or anyone else with your view on this topic think negatively against a group of people who would rather live on their own? As for the Civil War, (19th century): There’s no question that the old South had to go…and what we have now is a different type of civil strife: people are starting to realize that the present policies of the Democrat Party are doing harm to their lives in so many significant ways. This is a conflict between the good of capitalism, the American Way, and the evil of collectivism. People are being duped, lied to, manipulated and outright ignored by the Left: we are seeing, on a grand stage, the old, ancient battle we humans have seen for millenia. Good versus evil…Anyway Texas, I don’t hold what you wrote against you, mostly because I understand where you’re coming from. And I own a house in Dallas, near Garland and Mesquite. Great place.
The Founding Fathers would not have agreed. In fact, Lincoln’s “compact” view of the Union was a novelty, springing up only a short while before the Civil War. Prior to that, it was general knowledge that any state could leave the Union any time it wanted to. Just like the basic right to life, it wasn’t specifically written in the Constitution because it was just too obvious.
During the first decade of the 17th Century, several of the northernmost states toyed with the idea that they might secede. The editorials of the day discussed at length why this was a good idea, or a bad idea, depending on the view of the writer. NOBODY argued that they COULD NOT, because everybody knew that they COULD. Lincoln’s view had not been heard of.
By the way, you might try reading that Constitution. Remember the 10th Amendment? Unless the federal government is specifically granted a power in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power. Nowhere in it is the federal government granted the power to compel the sovereign states to remain part of the Union.
You are not well informed, sir. You know neither history nor the principles on which our country was founded.
re: john turner
Actually no, I do not think that the very enlightened citizens of Texas are ignorant or stupid. Nice try on that bait and switch but unfortunately for you, Texans tend to be quite a bit brighter than anti-americans. The only ignorance that I referred to, was yours. Specifically, your belief that Texas or any state has the ‘right to succeeded‘. Texas vs. White declared succession unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
I do agree with you that people are being duped and lied to by the left; they are also being duped and lied to by the right. Thankfully we in Texas reject the failed policies (for the most part) of socialism and libertarianism. I think a big part of the reason why Texas is so successful, is because it is home to so many Independents.
re: mark v
It’s interesting that you claim to know what the founding fathers would or would not have agreed with. Especially since you cited no text(s) to support your claim.
Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept of research, I would suggest you read the following:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
Article 3 gives the final judicial power of the government to the Supreme Court; and Texas vs. White declared secession unconstitutional.
Finally young man, I would suggest that it is you who do not understand our countries history or the principles that define us.
I was raised on the Northern view of the Civil War which is taught in our public school system. I was a Lincoln loving, Johny Reb hating, Free the slaves and hang the traitors Northerner for the first (more than) twenty years of my life.
Then I started learning some history. I started reading for myself, and learning for myself, and I found out I was all wrong.
There are three things a person cannot do simultaneously, and maintain any kind of intellectual honesty:
1. Call oneself a conservative.
2. Support what Lincoln did.
3. Have anything resembling an adequate knowledge of the principles of the Founding Fathers, and the events leading up to the Civil war.
Abraham Lincoln did more violence to the principles on which this country was founded than any President we’ve ever had, and YES, that includes Clinton and Obama, who are outright traitors.
re: mark v
Yeah, your last post was so uniformed, I didn’t know if I should feel amusement or pity for you. Read the information on the links I provided and try to learn something.
Real Americans are the descendants and relatives (national) of the original colonists and immigrants — nobody else. A Chinaman or African who’s born in the UK is no more an Englishman that his family members back home. You can bet your boots that no European born in Japan is considered by anybody to be Japanese — it’s ridiculous. The War of Seccession was the prototypical struggle between those who want to be left alone do their own thing and those who want to tell you how to live. No Confederate was fighting to impose anything on the North, while the Radical Republicans were the anti-white crazies of thier day, as demonstrated by their program of Reconstruction, which basically made whites second-class citizens.
re: jacobite
Actually, Real Americans are citizens who support and defend the U.S. Constitution. The nativism and ignorance of your last post does not do that.
The real greatness of America is that our one and only true “ethnicity” is PATRIOTISM.
And anyone, from anywhere, can be my blood-brother, if we hold the same principals.
I served in the Marines with Blacks who hated the likes of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. I served with mixed hispanic guys who’s Cubans grand parents fled Castro or the Sandinistas. Chinese guys who’s parents fled Communism. Guys with Polish, Slavic and Central European last names I couldnt pronounce who definitely WERENT “english” but knew what the price of freedom means.
We were all brothers…and every single one of us believed we each had a place, side by side, shouldering muskets behind the rocks and trees at the Concord Bridge…The guys who were ACTUALLY there just happened to be (mostly) English Colonists at the time…but they were me, and I was them, and so were all my buddies in the Corps.
Thats what America is.
The only place on earth where you can CHOOSE your bloodline.
You can CHOOSE your ethnicity.
Any white liberal of English decent who votes for socialism, welfare, bailouts, stimulus, gun control, affirmative action, tenure, and Unions is no American to me.
re: The Root ’83
Thank you for your post. I’m with you except for your disdain of Unions. In my opinion you cannot be anti-union and pro-America at the same time. Unions represent democracy in the work place. Virtually all of the labor freedoms you and everyone enjoy in this county were fought for and won by unions. The best government programs in this country were advocated for by unions; like the GI Bill.
Other than that, great post.
Jacobite
Hey, glad to see you finally realized what cowardly immoral bastards the Confederate were.
In your own words:
“The War of Seccession was the prototypical struggle between those who want to be left alone do their own thing and those who want to tell you how to live”
Good for you!
By saying ‘To be left alone” I assume you mean….to loose those chains?
Stopping the forced, unpaid, working all your life under threat of death labor?
Defeat the dainty “rights obsessed” cowards who were “telling them how to live” under the shackles of an imposed slavery, and condemning their CHILDREN to the same??
You’ve finally realized the harm that humiliating stain put upon this nation, and how it allows all others to perpetually condemn us as “flawed in creation”?
You’ve finally realized the cost of that perverted sense of Southern Vanity “to do their own thing” without any moral concern for the ones being “done to”?
Finally realized how that “way of life” was incompatible with the notion of limited self government, and inalienable rights one can demand to be respected?
And how the fact EVERY SINGLE confederate officer and politician, who deserved to be executed after Lincolns assasination, but wasnt, proves “them Yankees” treated those treasonous bastards better than they deserved? Better than any other place on earth, where purges, pograms, liquidations and mass executions of combatants (and their FAMILIES!)on the losing side was an absolute certainty?
Good for you!
Glad you finally see the light!
Excellent!
Hey, I got your back!
But as far as unions go, my beef is that TODAY, union membership is almost excusively made up of GOVERNMENT STOOGES with full-on communist leanings.
Just go a union protest and see all the red star shirts, the hammer and sicle shirts, the Che’ and radicals posters…I dont see any hard-hat coal miners and iron workers anymore, I see lefty professors, illegal immigrants, and grievence hustlers
Teachers Unions, AFSCME, Cops…Thats where the majority of Union membership is…Overpaid toadies performing “make-work” nonesense with benefits packages that no solvent business could possibly provide to its workers.
The teachers in my district are arrogant snobs making (no bull!) average 100k a year for just 180 days worth of work. No retirement “contributions” either, they just keep “getting paid” as long as they live.
And they just went on strike… STRIKE…because the 2.5% increase wasnt enough, when most companies in our area are frezing salary or laying off. They refused to write letters of recomendation for college bound seniors, and took down all the artwork and projects from the classroom walls during negotiations because it was “beyond contract” to show how much “extra” they do.
Show who? I’m at work 6 days a week…they punish the KIDS by refusing the simple courtesy of a letter, they punish the KIDS by making the school a drab prison, harming the KIDS pride by removing projects and artwork they created, as if its garbage.
To me, when I hear “union” I see Obama.
When I hear “union” I see deficeit spending.
When I hear “union” I see stimulus funds for Police equipment we dont really need today, billed to my sons future.
When I hear “union” I remember being a 15 year old kid, with a busted lip, beaten up and threatened with being thrown of the roof of MY OWN FATHERS HOUSE just because we dared to repair it ourselves…
So WHAT if we couldnt afford to hire THEM?
They own our house? They decide?
They use Violence and intimidation to line THEIR pockets?
Sorry buddy, I have such a long beef with “unions” in my life it unfortunately poisons my perspective such that I tend not to notice there are a few good guys that are members.
“But, as Romney is at pains to say, the Massachusetts law was a state solution to a state problem. He vows to rescind cost-prohibitive, one-size-fits-all ObamaCare if elected president — granting a waiver to all 50 states on Day One.”
If he ever really thought it was solution of any sort, he’s too dangerously unprincipled–or possessed of the wrong principles–to be permitted to be President. I would rather have an Obama who can do nothing at worst and whose vetoes were regularly over-ridden that someone like Romney who would actually be able to make further progress in the wrong direction.
Romney is a non-starter. He signed Romneycare, he’s either too stupid, evil, or ignorant.
“Inspired by TR’s overflowing common sense in making life better for the little guy, now suffering under the weight of Obamanomics.”
That is, of course, assuming that life CAN be made better for the “little guy” by 2012. If we keep spending money the way we are we may go over the edge to bankruptcy, regardless of our intentions. The key is to stop spending money NOW. That’s why this “debt ceiling” issue is so important. Are we going to just raise the limit and allow Congress and the President to get us in even deeper debt, or are they going to do the right thing and raise the limit AND cut spending at the same time? They had better cut A LOT of spending, or else there will not be much left to save for the “little guy” by 2012.
Look up the federal budgets for 1919,1920,1921,1922,&1923. Wilson’s war spending and progressive agenda were cancelled in short order. Spending was cut in half within two years, and cut further after that. The period following those spending reductions were called “the roaring twenties”.
Just listen to who the media (including Bill O’Reilly) tell you to vote for, and don’t.
Mary Claire:
Nice! Thank you. We still have plenty of time before November, 2012. Let’s make informed decisions, indeed.
>> Where it gets tricky is that an insurance mandate only make sense if, as in the case of automobiles, having coverage doesn’t encourage crashes, whereas standard health insurance increases utilization.
Well then, learn from the automobile example. They don’t cover oil changes and routine tuneups. Apply the same principles to health insurance. Cover catastrophic accidents, true emergencies and illnesses. In fact you’d find a broad consensus on that point. Very few people believe we should leave people to die outside emergency rooms if they can’t pay. The same goes for a child with cancer when the parents can’t afford the treatment.
Start applying basic insurance principles – high deductables and prohibitive cost to insure routine maintenance.
Did I miss something or is this writer saying the solution to progressivism – that which has destroyed what this country was founded to be and made it great once upon a time; is for republicans to be more progressive? You gotta be kidding me. Perhaps you should see your Romneycare Dr. and demand a cure for your rectal-cranial insertion syndrome. No thanks.
i think i missed it too
i couldnt get over this point:
“Then there’s Mitt Romney, who, like TR, favors universal health care as the key to economic stability…”
No, you didn’t miss anything. You are right on target. This writer is a RINO.
What planet is the author from?
TR was one of the political founders of Progressivism. TR formally pioneered the Progressive ideal of collusion between Big Government and Big Business. He engaged in the classic Progressive political ploy of rewarding his friends in business and “regulating” his political enemies. Meanwhile he oversaw the usual expansion of Big Government, interventionist foreign policy, and creeping socialism on all fronts.
Meanwhile, it is Progressive Liberal Democrats who constantly call for “civility” from Republicans…all the while screaming epithets like “racist”, “sexist”, and “Jew”.
Thus I ask…what planet is the author from?
Because that’s what we need from Republicans in America – more Populist Progressivism. Let’s get the “little guy” (which is who, exactly? The author obviously does not consider herself in this category so how does she presume to speak for such folk?) out in the streets to shout and riot. Then we’ll string up a few token Big Business leaders while “regulating” the rest of the economy. For the good of the people, of course. The “little guy”. Who, obviously, can’t be trusted to make his own decisions. We’re from the government, and we’re here to help…
“This means civility — honestly assessing opponents’ positions and presenting your own — will be critically important, lest we destroy ourselves from within.”
Calling for civility among opposing campaigners would normally cause me to spew coffee onto the computer and roll my eyes heavenward with such unexpected intensity as to sprain my eyeballs. However, I think these guys and one or two gals may have already decided to focus on solutions to our biggest woes instead of in-fighting, as evidenced by their unanimous stubborn refusal to fall into the pathetic traps thrown their way during the CNN debate. What a fantasy campaign if they could maintain solidarity on those 2 points: OweBama and the Old Media are the enemies, not the other candidates.
A candidate chosen on stances on issues. How novel. If they are the patriots I think many of them are, they just may be able to pull off the most intelligent campaign ever during our most important election ever.
Juxtapose that with images of OweBama and his fellow Damneds attempting civility, either amongst themselves or towards the conservative candidates. Send in the clowns.
Nice job! If Chris Whalen is urging Republicans to outprogressive the Democrats – someone of impeccable conservative credentials – we should probably listen try and and figure out what he’s saying.
What I think he’s saying is, this is the way to grow the economy – to increase demand, since the lack of demand is at the crux of our economic travails.
So, “with eyes on the prize,” let’s be smart, focused and win this election – not just for narrow interests – but for America, which is made up mostly of “little guys…”
As George Bailey in “It’s a Wonderful Life” memorably put it:
“… Just remember this, Mr. Potter, that this rabble you’re talking about… they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath? Anyway, my father didn’t think so. People were human beings to him…”
I’m not particularly thrilled with the choice of Republican candidates as of late – but it is still early. The most striking comment of the entire debate was from Mitt Romney.
Romney accurately stated, “Any one of the people on this stage would be a better president than President Obama.” And he was right.
Our first priority needs to be to be to remove the Epic Failure from the White House and fumigate the place.
No, he was NOT right. The enemy within is always more dangerous. In Obama we have an open enemy. There’s no mistaking him.
IN Romney, we’d have a Trojan Horse in our midst. He would do far more damage than Obama.
Before we can really talk about winning the Presidency next year, we have to know who the dems are running. Sure, it is assumed that their candidate will be Obama. But, the unions and the other left-wing, anti-American groups that own the dem party don’t want to make a gesture and lose the world. I think that both Biden and Hillary would make a much better candidate. As our economy continues to tank, the dem future gets worse. No American trusts Obama or his word; most of us will vote ABO (“anyone but Obama”) and they know it (but won’t admit it).
Obama will be the loser and they know it. Let’s see who is running first.
Too bad this is off-topic. We got a serious debate going here.
I am pretty disgusted with the authors take here. T Roosevelt was the first progressive president. He was way into new roles for the federal government to adopt and he grew the size of the central authority at the expence of the states.
Roosevelt was also a eugenicist and a racist. He shared these traits with people like Sanger and Wilson. I find him to be an unattractive figure although I will admit I admire his choices in firearms, especially repeating rifles.
We don’t need the likes of Roosevelt right now which is why we don’t need Romney or Gingrich. We need a smart, tough, witty candidate who can smile and stick the spear in really deeply at the same time. Obama needs his nose rubbed in the dog crap he left on the lawn repeatedly. He needs to be held accountable by someone who is not a progressive and has command of the facts. That eliminates Romney and Gingrich.
A good article. Opens the debate up as to what is needed to correct current administration’s “left leaning” agenda. First, laws. Congress makes laws. America has many bad laws needing urgent attention. Itemize all “bad” laws and repeal them, one by one (per our Constitution and Judeo-Cristian beliefs). Second, national defense. Have a comprehensive short term and long term national defense planning DRAWN UP BY KNOWLEDGEABLE military personnel (no bureaucrats)h a budget. Thirdly, economic. A comprehensive economic policy borrowing heavily from Mr. Laffer’s ideas put into a one year (short term) and five year (long term) road map. Fourthly, All societal plans slowly phased out (from government)and phased into IRA-type (private) accounts for retirement, medical, and emergency type future planning. Fifthly, itemize all national departments of critical interest to America’s future. Those Departments not meeting established criteria (empanelling experts composed of government and privete sector individuals)are placed on the chopping block for a two year “phasing out” type program,i.e., employees are put on notice. This includes Administration’s Cabinet members, too and their staffs. Lastly, tighten up all government RFP procedures. Remaining Departments budgets are cut to the 1950′s level. This will have the effect of reducing and eliminating an ELITIST structure permeating Washington DC. Lobbyists are confined to a single individual with one day per week to meet with one congressional staff…no more special treatments. This is an opening shot across the bow of Washingon DC’s cruise ship…party’s over folks!!! No more twittering!!!!VOTE!!!DAMMIT!
Housing prices need to correct, as was said in the debate “it’s both painful and necessary”. That’s how you get housing to where people can afford to buy it again, without a subprime, interest-only, ARM, or other crappy high-default loan. Government has no business in the housing market at all. Yes, some people bought houses for more than they’ll ever sell them for. People lose money on stocks too, are we going to start trying to eliminate that? Nor does it have any business in the insurance market.
The only way I need life made better for me (as a pretty little guy!) is for the government to stop taking money from me for things it has no business doing and stop trying to run my life. Period. THAT is how you help the little guy. Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that the poor and stupid and need you to care for them……
Since stimulus passed, 1.9 M fewer Americans working
June 15, 2011
Twenty-eight months after Congress passed President Obama’s signature economic stimulus law, and nearly one year after he declared the summer of 2010 to be “Recovery Summer,” 1.9 million fewer people are employed.
In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 – the last month for which data are available – that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.
Despite these numbers, the economy is creating jobs however, it is not fast enough to make up for layoffs and new graduates, calling into question Obama’s oft-repeated claim that the economy is recovering and creating jobs.
Dead right,
And its not just straight numbers over the years…
Even if “jobs growth” was flat or in a slight decline, the TOTAL numbers would grow, because population grows and younger people graduate and enter the job market faster than people retire or die in any given time frame….
The fact the numbers actually SHRUNK (despite spending trillions!) is THE failure story of the century that the press completely ignores.
I have to start with the notion that there is no way a third-party candidacy is going to win, and that the Democratic party is going to stay largely in the control of the current fringe. That opens up an opportunity for the Republicans, provided they can make common cause with the Tea Parties and disaffected Democratic voters.
To do this, they are going to have to overcome a substantial communication barrier erected by the “news” media, namely the image of mean-spirited, old-fashioned luddite cranks. This can and should be done before the next election.
One aspect of the campaign has to be an effort to educate the public on the power of democracy, individual freedom, and free markets to maximize the public good. The elegance and adaptability of a transparent, minimally-regulated, free market can be contrasted with the clumsy, inefficient, sclerotic result where the government picks winners and losers. It needs to be done in small bites, perhaps not so small as campaign commercials, perhaps more like the 10-minute history lessons by Alfonso Rachel.
I would also contrast the promises BO made with the results of the current administration policies. That man was elected based in part on promises aligned with our better angels. And if I had believed there was any way he could deliver on his promises, I would have voted for him. If the Republicans can take the most appealing parts of his messages, and show how their policies are better calibrated to deliver on those promises, they win.
Remember that clip where some woman said BO was going to pay for her gas and her mortgage? How about using that, and saying, “We can’t pay your bills for you. What we can do is make it easier for you to pay your own bills.” “What we can do is try to level the playing field, and let you keep more of your own earnings, so that you can better take care of your own family.” “Republicans. Honestly.”
It’s appalling how many people call themselves Republicans or conservatives, and yet advocate bigger government.
Valerie, Obama’s problem isn’t that he can’t deliver on his promises. The bigger problem would be if he COULD! ALL of his promises were inherently EVIL.
They ALL require that government power supersede personal liberty.
Valerie,
Great Idea for a commercial…
Isnt it frustrating…
There are so many substantive issues that can be won just by using what the democrats SAY, and then spending 30 seconds of common sense destroying them, its unbelievable we miss so many opportunities.
Watching McCain flail and fumble was agony when Obama gave is so much ammunition.
Why dont we ever just USE it?
It’s dismaying to see so many write off TR as too liberal. In so doing, they miss his tremendous achievement in marshaling government power for legitimate, humane purposes, e.g., to ensure safe food and drugs; and protect workers against utterly inhuman conditions in late 18th century sweat shops that bred disease and caused blindness because they worked with so little light and for so many hours, 6,7 days a week.
TR was, in fact, more conservative than many conservatives today stubbornly tethered to ideological purity, without reference to reality; and would be rolling in his grave to see how government has been corrupted causing massive, runaway government spending. He, more than anyone, worked to root out federal, state and local corruption – as Civil Service Commissioner, New York City Police Commissioner, Governor of New York, then as Vice President and finally as President of the United States – and would be leading the cause to curb such irresponsible, indeed immoral government spending.
No, we didn’t miss it. That’s exactly the problem – the marshaling of power.
The whole point of our Constitution is to PREVENT the marshaling of power by the federal government.
It’s NOT about how the power is used, because our Founders understood that, if the power exists at all, it WILL be misused eventually, and the misuse will cause FAR more evil than any good that is ever done with it.
No politician who advocates increasing the power of the federal government can be considered a friend of liberty, no matter how cute he may be or what good he may have done.
Mark v, surely you don’t mean to suggest government doesn’t have “legitimate, humane purposes?”
Really the only thing you got right here is the civility thing. The Roos wouldn’t have gone for a lot of the nonsense you say is similar to him here… especially Rick Perry and Bachmann’s track record of LACK of civility. None of these jokers would know a “speak softly and carry a big stick” line of thinking if it stared them in the face, and with his rugged individual, I seriously doubt he’d have been for the individual mandate.
You’re absolutely right that the field could learn from TR, but they’ve, so far, chosen not to.
FHA loans with low down payments and adjustable rates are a recipe for disaster.
Obamacare does nothing to reduce costs in the medical industry.
Trying to be more progressive than progressives is a bad idea.
Helping out the average man is a good idea but maybe the best way to do it is enable them improve their own lives instead of giving them free stuff.
The author is taking a page from Chris Whalen, a conservative’s conservative, in urging to “outprogressive the Democrats.”
So, why all the negative comments?
I don’t know about you, but I feel like it’s a new day in America – where the solutions go beyond the simple left/right paradigm – which is what the author is getting at.
Time to wake up and smell the coffee… and give A BIG THANK YOU to Mary Claire Kendall for her clear-thinking, courageous article.
“outprogressive the Democrats … where the solutions go beyond the simple left/right paradigm ”
LOL! Unfortunately, having a mind that works very fast and logically (computer programmer by trade) doesn’t afford me the luxury of your ignorance so Ima give it a shot.
So, to get a new paradigm where its not about right-left, you recommend doing more of the same thing where the right and left out-progressive each other and then point at each other saying, “They did it too”.
I dont get how supposed conservatives dont see that progressivism is a cancer that’s MEANT to eat the constitution. Chris who? I smell a troll.
Hey “putting down other as ‘tools of anti-Americanism,’” your comments are exhibit A on the need for civility.
Instead of sitting behind your computer, growing more negative by the minute and assuming the worst, why don’t you think more positively…
What I’m proposing is as American as motherhood and apple pie… and TR and Ronald Reagan… and far from destroying America, will usher in a new “Morning in America”… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY
Civility my eye. Marxists are trying to steal the most successful experiment in world history from under us so you can kiss civility right square in the ol brown eye.
I’m sorry, Ronaldus Magnus wasn’t a progressive. And since you are ignorant, lemme fill you in on the rest of your utopian delusions – your kind aren’t ushering in morning in America. You are trying to usher in sunset on that planet from Pitch Black where all those bloodthirsty things ate everyone after dark – as has been shown every time leftists try taking control.
Your kind simply lack the intellectual capacity to govern and are best left to being dime store agitators bilging forth demented notions that socialism, fascism and communism are the solutions to everything.
Sorry, Mary Claire, but while there is much to admire about Theodore Roosevelt, he was far too much the populist.
Teddy did not regard the Constitution’s enumerated powers to be, well, enumerated and drastically expanded the scope and power of the federal government. He championed universal health care (which you, apparently, consider a good thing). As the infamous trust-buster, he strove to set aside the legislated criteria followed in the courts (the rule of law) in favor of his administration’s determining which of the trusts should be “encouraged” and which should be “discouraged” and proceeding accordingly. He supported private property rights only to the extent that private property contributed to the common welfare (he would have loved Kelo).
President Square Deal concerned himself not with leveling the playing field but with equalizing the outcome. He ascribed to crony capitalism by choosing losers and winners, rewarding the latter and penalizing the former. While he honestly, I believe, strove to be fair to all sides of a dispute, he believed he and his administration to be the best arbiters of what was “fair.” He added a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that permitted the US the kind of intervention in Latin America denied to Europe (Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power). And then there’s this:
So, no. The last thing we need at this juncture is another Teddy Roosevelt.
Say, you wouldn’t be one of those “no labels” types, would you?
.
Bruce, I’ll let TR respond to you and all the other critics of TR, who commented on my article:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
Teddy Roosevelt???
He was the worst Republican president ever. Not only was he a horrible president (kind of the original RINO), but he, and his colossal ego, made sure that the vile Woodrow Wilson was elected president in 1912 by splitting the Republican Party.
You can take Teddy Roosevelt, the rest of the RINOs, as well as civility, and stick them where the sun don’t shine.
I’ll let TR respond to you and all the other critics of TR:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
“Citizenship in a Republic,”
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
And the Demonrats lose respect because they murder millions of babies, promote homosexual perversion, spend us into bankruptcy, lie, cheat and steal, refuse to deal with rogue nations attaining nuclear weapons, will not secure our borders, engage in rampant racism- and just about every evil deed possible.
True most of the GOPhers are wimps; but not due to “emotions”. They are venal.
They want to get rich and richer and…feeding at the public trough. How can one shut off the money flow and drink his fill at the same time?
It’s pretty simple: we are all created with certain inalienable rights and no one can be deprived of those rights without due process. In other words: the principals of America are anti-socialism and anti-libertarianism.