Is John McCain emboldened by the calls for the Republican Party to move to the center or “reform” as David Brooks would suggest? Is that why he is still imposing himself upon the party? I had hopes that if we conservatives held our nose and supported John McCain (once we were so rudely stuck with him) that he would have the decency to exit the stage if he lost. Throughout the painful campaign he made statement after statement that seemed to scream “Barack Obama will be the next President of The United States of America” and now he has started a PAC.
The only way I would donate to John McCain’s Country First PAC is if he were putting country first and planning to use the donations to supplement his immediate retirement! Undoubtedly this PAC would be more aptly called “McCain First” and will work toward reaching accross the aisle … and smacking conservatives in the mouth. David Brooks might think the Republican Party needs to unite behind amnesty for illegals, closing Guantonomo Bay, letting “independents” and Democrats pick our nominees, and helping “Big Brother” Barry succeed in his massive power grab, but that sounds like surrender to me.
Mr. Brooks and his fellow “reformers” can’t seem to comprehend that we were stuck with exactly their type of candidate in the recent presidential election… and now we are stuck with Barack Obama! John McCain was the epitomy of their movement so I respectfully issue this plea to Senator John McCain:
You have served your country. Thank you for your service. Now please put your country first and go away!
Every instance of McCain reappearance is a slap in the face to those who stood behind him in spite of our principles and in the response to admonishments from his apologists. In 2012 will we once again be told to fall in line behind a doomed RINO candidate as he (or she) offers himself up as the sacrificial lamb to “Big Brother” Barry? Will we once again be subject to the hysterical whining such as “if you don’t vote for (insert RINO here), you are voting for Obama!”?
Contrary to the perception the liberal element of this nation would like us to have, they will rarely tolerate choice. As the great Andrew Wilkow often points out, the only two rights libs seem to believe in are gay marriage and abortion… and even on abortion they don’t really believe in choice. The left’s assault on choice has a willing puppet in the officially fictional “Office of the President-elect.” On January 20, 2009, the puppet of the anti-choice movement gets to move from his fictional office to a real office and he has already expressed a willingness to expedite the annihilation of choice.
It is certainly no secret that the elitist snob liberals have opposed choice for years when it comes to education. These people who would never trust public education with their own children try to damn the masses to indoctrination and poor quality at the hands of a lib-candidate-friendly union. Ah unions, the organizations that once served a purpose beyond political power and enriching their leadership. The unions are about to be rewarded for their political purchases by command of the new Commander In Chief when he signs the equivalent of a choice-busting nuclear missile known as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA (H.R. 800, S. 1041.))
It is interesting and illustrative that the AFL-CIO web site refers to the EFCA as “supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress”. If one clicks on the tabs to find out what they mean by “bipartisan” it is discovered that out of 234 co-sponsors in the House and 45 in the Senate there are four Republicans and two Independents (Sens. Lieberman and the socialist Sanders!) Of course the AFL-CIO wouldn’t say there was bipartisan support if it wasn’t true. Fortunately for them and unfortunately for Americans there are Republicans such as Chris Shays of Connecticut. There is an asterisk by Shays’ name which indicates that he is no longer serving in Congress so I guess there is at least one bright spot.
Let us compare the position of the Elliptical Office’s occupant fresh from his (inappropriate use of .gov) web site:
Ensure freedom to unionize: Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is a strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), a bipartisan effort that makes sure workers can exercise their right to organize. They will continue to fight for EFCA’s passage and Obama will sign it into law.
Does a ballot cast in private or a card signed in public better reveal a worker’s true preference about whether to join a union? A private vote is the obvious answer, but organized labor has nonetheless made the misleadingly named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA, H.R. 800) its highest legislative priority.
Apparently the Obama position is that any “harassment or intimidation” is acceptable as long as it furthers the agenda and enrichment of the big labor unions that have so graciously contributed to the liberal political cause. Eliminating private votes as a means to unionizing OBVIOUSLY exposes employees of companies as of yet un-infected by the union virus to intimidation and harassment by the union’s thugs. The libs use the word “choice” in their legislative attacks on choice as a way to portray their assault as a noble one… sort of like the way the AFL-CIO uses the word “bipartisan.”
Another horrifying example of the libiots’ use of the word “choice” to mask an anti-choice (and dangerous but don’t tell the squishy Republican reformers otherwise they’ll run from it like frightened children being attacked by the dreaded single issue monster) legislation known as the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA (H.R. 1964, S. 1173.)) From the National Right To Life:
“The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.” – Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
This statement is consistent with Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama’s reputation as possibly the most pro-abortion candidate to ever run for the highest office in the land. After all, this is the man who said if his daughters made a mistake he “wouldn’t want them punished with a baby.”
Why is FOCA an assault on choice? It will trample the rights of those in a position to perform abortions but have the decency to find the practice abhorrent. (Did I just type that? Darn, I am really risking exposing myself as a pro-lifer and apparently by the standards of the Republican reformer, risk alienating potential future votes for Republican candidates. Oh, well, I’ll risk it.)
All sides in the abortion fight agree, if FOCA were to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by a pro-abortion President, it would, among other effects, provide for taxpayer-funded abortion on demand even late in pregnancy, grant abortionists immunity from legal action, allow abortionists the discretion to perform abortions on minors without notifying a parent, and deny health care workers the right to refuse to make abortion referrals as a matter of conscience.
“The legislation (FOCA) would invalidate existing and future laws that interfere with or discriminate against the exercise of the rights protected . It also would provide an individual aggrieved by a violation of the act a private right of civil action in order to obtain appropriate relie f” - Planned Parenthood website.
“As a general matter, if FOCA were enacted, it would wipe out a very large number of existing state laws on abortion, substantially impede the ability of states to regulate abortion, and override nearly 40 years of jurisprudential experience on the subject of abortion.” - USCCB Memorandum on FOCA
Choice and individual rights seem to be slipping away as the influence of liberals grow and even permeates the Republican Party. The FFT (Feckless Fifty Two percent) have decided to hand the keys over to the worst president in U.S. history (if the libiots can pretend he is already the best, I can contend he is already the worst, especially since his past associations and actions disqualify him as being a good person.) Will there be enough outraged voices to badger our elected “representation” to oppose the assaults on choice? I doubt it but in honor of the renowned occupant of the Elliptical Office, one can hope.
I just had the terrible misfortune of listening to the announcement in which Governor Blagojevich named Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. What started out as a pathetic posturing event staged by a governor whose mental stability is certainly questionable, turned into a serious and blatant playing of the race card.
Congressman Bobby Rush (D - 1st) spoke passionately, on behalf of Burris… but only as a black person. (I will not use the term African American, because I have no evidence that Burris’ ancestors are African and not from some other region of the world!) Rep. Rush focused solely on race and even went as far as to make a veiled threat to any U.S. Senator regarding “going on record” to deny a seat to a black man.
Roland Burris may be a good man, but the race attack by Bobby Rush cannot go unchallenged. Identity politics cannot be tolerated! I know they are practiced all the time and I know they are accepted by most people as a fact of political life, but this was over the top!
Former Black Panther Bobby Rush has issued what sounded almost like a challenge, based strictly on racism, in an attempt to bully the senate and his fellow congressmen into accepting this appointment. As a side note, it was a sad attempt at theater when Burris said he thought he saw Congressman Bobby Rush and asked him if he had something to say, as if the statement by Rush wasn’t planned. Of course, passion aside, Rush sounded like he could barely get the words out, so maybe it was improptu. Otherwise I suggest Congressman Rush seek speech therapy.
Given the struggle within a Republican Party that quite frankly teeters on the brink of being not worth saving, it seems necessary to address the fallacy of the dreaded “single issue voter.” Most often the phrase is used to denigrate and minimize those of us that have a threshold we cannot cross by supporting someone that believes it is acceptable to kill the unborn. The phrase is intended to paint pro-life voters as bible thumping neanderthals whose only concern is forcing our values on our fellow citizens.
Now, as the Republican Party (national and local) is at a crossroads, there are those who believe the party should abandon single issue (pro-life) voters as a means to garnering a broader appeal. Certainly I am not breaking any new ground here, but any voter that has some threshold he or she cannot cross is a single issue voter! If a voter is not a single issue voter, meaning there is no position a candidate could hold that would disqualify him or her as worthy of support, then why would this voter care who gets his support? If a voter has no threshold and is a partisan, then he is a partisan for some reason other than issue positions, perhaps it is because his parents were members of the specific party.
The pro-choice Republicans who seek pro-choice candidates to support are single issue voters if a pro-life candidate will not have their support based his opposition to abortion. The dirty little secret is that this “single issue” is the same “single issue” for which we neanderthal pro-lifers are maligned. Am I missing something? Is it only one side of one issue that qualifies as “single issue?”
Certainly there are other issues that qualify as “single issue” or threshold issues in the eyes of voters. Government spending might give some voters cause to cast or withhold a vote. Perhaps a candidate’s stance on illegal immigration serves as a threshold for some voters. Could a politician’s views regarding military issues prevent certain voters from supporting him? Some might not approve of a candidate’s threat to increase taxes. A few might believe that a candidate’s stance on the right to keep and bear arms could allow or prevent support.
I contend that the complaint against the “single issue” voter is a fallacy since anyone with any threshold is a “single issue voter.” The fact that I, as a person that could never cast a vote for anyone whose character is so flawed that he or she believes it is acceptable to kill children, have this threshold does not mean that this is my only threshold! Refer to the preceding paragraph and you’ll see some of my other thresholds or my other “single issues.” I also contend that my belief that a pro-choice position is indicative of a deep character flaw which would likely affect a candidate’s actions in other areas, does not mean that I believe the pro-choice population should be excluded from the party! It simply means that I will not support any of them as candidates. The same applies to any threshold.
I would ask those who seek to expunge the pro-life element from the Republican Party the following question. How does the flawed Supreme Court decision that prevents individual states from deciding an issue such as abortion restriction mesh with your ideal of limited central government? Perhaps your ideal isn’t limited central government as much as it is promoting abortion access.
I suggest that we consider the United States Constitution and a candidate’s likelihood of following it when deciding who to support for national offices and that we do the same on a local level. It would seem that this threshold or “single issue” (constitutionality) would simplify the process and leave less room for error.
The hilarious and sadly realistic look at our modern society, “An American Carol” is coming to DVD and Blu-Ray December 30, 2008! This is an unpaid advertisement because the movie is damn funny and the message is damn important!
THANKFUL FOR FREEDOM THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
“Freedom — It does matter. It is the greatest gift a man has.”
—George Washington from An American Carol
Celebrate the freedom you enjoy in this great country!
Praise the men and women who fight for our nation and
Disclaimer: If you are looking for a PC or centrist approach to dealing with convicted sex offenders, you might as well skip this post!
My wife pointed out that for all intents and purposes, sex offenders are already basically a protected group. In typical disgusting liberal bizarro compassion, there is wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the plight of the poor, misunderstood, rapists and child molesters. The concern about the lack of housing for convicted sex offenders blatantly displays the despicably warped priorities of the leftards. Oh, I know the spagetti-spined “Republican victory, principles be damned” Repubs out there might get stomach cramps over this harsh and real assessment. They might even believe that they should coddle child molesters in an effort to win some votes through “reaching out.”
Once again it is The Washington Obamost that highlights the twisted nature of liberal thinking in its whiny sob story. “Laws to Track Sex Offenders Encouraging Homelessness.” This is where our society stands! There are those that put the feelings of child molesters above the safety of potential victims. There are those that suggest shame is too harsh a burden to be borne by a rapist. Of course given the active role the press played in hiding or minimizing Barack Obama’s alarming associations coupled with the ease in which the FFT (Feckless Fifty Two percent) ignored decency, it should come as no surprise that good is now bad and evil is to be protected.
Back to the Obamost and the plea for on the behalf of sex offenders by Karl Vick.
Strict new laws aimed at keeping track of sex offenders after they leave prison appear to be having the opposite effect, encouraging homelessness in a population believed more likely to re-offend if cast into the streets without structure or family support, say prosecutors, police, parole officials and experts on managing sex offenders.
The issue is starkest in California, where the number of sex crime parolees registering as transient has jumped more than 800 percent since Proposition 83 was passed in November 2006. The “Jessica’s Law” initiative imposed strict residency rules and called for all offenders to wear Global Positioning System bracelets for the rest of their lives.
Please refer to Mr. Vick’s article to learn what libiot “clinicians” have to say about the effectiveness of laws such as “Jessica’s Law.” Apparently it is “mythology” that brings parents to the determination that they should know if their neighbor is a child molester.
“There’s this mythology that you have to know who this scary man is in the neighborhood who might hurt your child, when the reality is sex offenders are often people we know and love,” said Jill Levenson, an associate professor at Lynn University in Florida and a researcher on sex offenders.
I would be interested to know what percentage of these rapist enablers also support a woman’s right to have her baby put to death (as long as it is before the moment of birth of course… that is unless like Barack Obama, they believe a child that survives an abortion is only temporarily alive.) I am confident that the percentage would be high and that the combination of the two says a great deal about the attitude toward the innocent in modern society! I suppose rapists have feelings too, unlike their victims, about who the left ironically pretends to care … when it is convenient!
There would be no need to be concerned about the living conditions or housing market for convicted rapists and child molesters if our justice system was indeed a justice system. Perhaps the solution to the problem lies in re-examining the incredibly soft sentences given to the most vile of criminals. Of course the libtards would never go for giving rapists and child molesters the sentences they deserve. Instead they are content to unleash them back on the public and agonize over any attempt to warn potential victims.
I bet if we told these morons that a child molester was also the CEO of a successful business they would be willing to seek the death penalty. Of course if we told the lefty Obammunists that he was the CEO of a failing company that employed members of a politically powerful union, they would seek taxpayer assistance for his “treatment.”
It seems only fitting that the Christmas Day Washington Obamost e-mail would include articles that underscore the growing (humanist?) attitude that people are as powerful as any god. Of course in true Obama-media form, The Obamost has one person in particular it views worthy of worship. Two articles are presented. One describes the effect of the all-powerful humans and their (specifically Americans’) ability to control the wrath of the heavens (climate change.) The other describes the “faith” of the one man before whom the world should bow.
Obamost enviro-marxist, Juliet Eilperin, once again sounds the alarm that man has abused his divine power to control the weather to such an extent that the situation might be even more dire than either noted climatologist Al Gore or Leonardo DiCaprio originally thought! Ms. Eilperin’s warning of man’s abuse of his deity status comes under the headline “Faster Climate Change Feared.”
The United States faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested, according to a new report led by the U.S. Geological Survey.
The survey — which was commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and issued this month — expands on the 2007 findings of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Looking at factors such as rapid sea ice loss in the Arctic and prolonged drought in the Southwest, the new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.
In the spirit of giving, the United States citizen must heed Ms. Eilperin’s dire warning and do his part to reset the global thermostat to 72 degrees year round. The action we must take is clear, as we are all-powerful rulers of the climate. First we must ignore the “climate change” that took place before man’s evil industrialization. Repeat after Al Gore, “there was no Ice Age!” Second, we must abandon our lifestyles and the means by which we currently earn our living. We must equalize our standard of living with that of the poorest nations of the globe, since it is we ugly Americans that threaten to drown the world with melted ice!
All is not lost. Even though most men have god-like power and use it to destroy the world through technology, The Washington Obamost’s chief Obama worshipper describes that there is one in whom we can have faith (and The One’s faith is in maintaining his temple.) Eli Saslow glorifies The One in “As Duties Weigh Obama Down, His Faith In Fitness Only Increases.” I personally believe that Eli Saslow should ghost write Obama’s next autobiography, “Biblical Barack” as he appears to be the master of Obama puff-pieces.
Being elected president forces a man to take inventory of his life, so Barack Obama has trimmed his schedule to the bare essentials. He’s not in the White House yet, but gone are the hours he once spent reading novels, watching television and obsessing over the daily transactions of Chicago’s sports teams. He eats out only once every few weeks. He visits friends rarely, if at all.
But one habit endures: Obama has gone to the gym, for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row. He always has treated exercise less as recreation than requirement, but his devotion has intensified during the past few months. Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.
It is refreshing to learn that Obama has some form of faith, other than attending a church for political posturing purposes, that is. It is also not surprising that any faith he truly has is in his own body. The duties of his fictional office must be quite cumbersome if he is already being weighed down by them! I am encouraged by the prospects of how St. Barack will handle the duties of a real office (that of the president) when he is weighed down by the duties of the imaginary Office of the President Elect.
Assuming that “Big Brother” Barry can survive the grueling work of holding the Elliptical Office and ascends to his rightful throne on January 20, 2009 (I know it isn’t a throne… currently), he will surely be up to the task Ms. Eilperin and the rest of the enviro-fringe Obammunists have set before him. The ideal of “spread the wealth around” and his commitment to fighting nature (or as the green weenies call it, anthropogenic climate change) mesh exquisitely with his lessons from Alinsky.
If there is one thing that might be even more massive than President-elect Obama’s plan to grow the ranks of government dependents by 3 million (the jobs he is going to create for window weather-stripping), it is the ego of “Big Brother” Barry. Although the holiday is still referred to as Christmas, there could be an Obamamas in the not-too-distant future. We, the proletariat, have already been treated to frequent reminders of the gargantuan ego in the form of the sign on the podium of the fictional Office of the President Elect.
I suppose it is a testament to his respect for the Elliptical Office, that Grand Chancellor-elect Obama hasn’t delivered one of his “ya’ow” filled speeches at the podium sans shirt. As big a headline as is generated when Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama struts through the waters (he hasn’t mastered the art of walking on them) of Hawaii, imagine the Obama-media swoon if he were to oblige in his presumptuous press conferences. The AP via The Telegraph reports what passes for “news” in the article, “Shirtless images of Obama cause stir on-line.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Forget Barack Obama’s staff making contact with a governor charged with corruption. What’s got everyone talking is the president-elect’s fine first form.
“FIT FOR OFFICE: Buff Bam is Hawaii hunk,” the New York Post gushed on its cover Tuesday above a photo of the future president strolling without a shirt in Hawaii. The Drudge Report called him “President Beefcake” while TMZ said the president-elect is “still humble enough to do laundry - ON HIS ABS!”
The photos were distributed by Bauer-Griffin, a photo agency more typically found on the corners of Hollywood. Photographer Chris Behnke simply strolled along the beach to get the shot, said agency co-owner Frank Griffin.
Obama “wasn’t hiding. He was completely out in the open,” Griffin said. “We didn’t by any stretch of the imagination expect to get the images we got.”
Say “fine first form” three times real fast if you ever ingest poison and need to induce vomiting. Here’s a thought, if Obama doesn’t try to pull a Chavez/Bloomberg in eight years he might consider exotic dancing as a part-time, semi-retirement occupation. Oprah and Gayle can go to his shows as an attempt to hide the root of their “friendship.” Perhaps an aging RuPaul can play the former first lady in some special routines. The possibilities are seemingly endless for a man with an ego of this magnitude!
I suggest he forego the presidency and get started on the entertainment career right away. That would present a true win-win scenario. The drooling Obamorons would have even more over which to drool and the concerned citizens would be spared the catastrophe of an Obamanation.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately some speak from positions of high recognition and believe their personal tastes should be considered in every public action. This seems to be the case with noted slob and man who sounds like he should be wearing a spit-guard at all times, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass or Dumb_ss.) It seems that Rep. Frank doesn’t approve of Barack Obama’s choice for the invocation at next month’s inaugural. (I, on the other hand, don’t approve of next month’s inaugural.)
Barney takes issue with the fact that Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church, had the audacity to very publicly commit a crime… at least in the eyes of the PC Police. In the eyes of a representative who actually represents his personal interests and delicate tastes, Rick Warren’s offense should disqualify him from participating in the inauguration of “The Chosen One.” What heinous act did Rick Warren so ruthlessly commit? Pastor Warren does not approve of same-sex marriage, and therefore would not have approved of Barney’s romantic conflict of interest at Fannie Mae for 7 years, Herb Moses. A refresher from FOXNews.com:
Frank met Moses in 1987, the same year he became the first openly gay member of Congress.
“I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus,” Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. “On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover.”
The two lived together in a Washington home until they broke up in 1998, a few months after Moses ended his seven-year tenure at Fannie Mae, where he was the assistant director of product initiatives. According to National Mortgage News, Moses “helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs.”
If Rick Warren had only approved of Frank and Moses being lawfully wedded, there would have been one less instance of seeing an unfortunate picture of the disheveled (perhaps he should go back into the closet and spruce up a bit) Rep. Frank over at The Drudge Report above the possibly blasphemous headline “Obama ‘made mistake’.” From the linked Bloomberg.com piece:
Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) — President-elect Barack Obama shouldn’t have selected Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation because the evangelical pastor has made offensive comments about gays, said Representative Barney Frank.
“Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, today on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
I find Barney Frank and Barack Obama both “personally very offensive” but that is of no importance. What is important is the somewhat paradoxical situation that exists in our country. In the enlightened, acceptable circles traditional or common sense values are “offensive” and are to be hidden from view lest one risks violating a law of political correctness. On the other hand, it is viewed as heroic and inclusive to vocally support any sort of deviant behavior as long as it could not be construed as being moral.
I suggest that in the name of inclusiveness and LGBT outreach, the occupant of the fictional Office of the President Elect rescind his invitation to Rick Warren. In the place of an invocation, which I am surprised is still included, I suggest a screening of “Brokeback Mountain.” Perhaps this will satisfy Barney Frank, which is important since what he finds “personally very offensive” passes as newsworthy.
Apparently the notions of right and wrong are antiquated symbols of a time gone by. These words would seem to be integral in the principles which guide private citizens and elected officials… at least in a long gone era in which principles mattered. Today we dwell in the environment of bipartisanship (translation: agreeing with Democrats) at all costs and moderation (translation: agreeing with Democrats) as a means to political victory.
In the wake of the Republican Party’s presidential election loss, we have been bombarded with calls to become moderates or put another way, to become the candidate that lost. The intellectuals believe that any future Republican candidate can only succeed if he or she can’t appeal to the base. Perhaps this seemingly contradictory philosophy is an indicator of a deep-rooted flaw in modern politics, a lack of principle.
This post was inspired by my search for information regarding Obama’s nominee for transportation secretary, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL.) I know “Big Brother” Barry said he would have Republicans in his administration, but I couldn’t imagine the type of Republican (other than the RINO that is all too common) that would embrace a position in the Obama Administration. I have read things about Rep. LaHood’s voting record with which I disagree, but didn’t see anything too alarming. That is just his voting record. Today I read an article from the AP in The State Journal Register which triggerd an alarm.
“We trash each other and end up making the institution look bad,” he once said. “That’s why Congress’ approval ratings are so low.”
Although LaHood once served on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, he has less experience in transportation issues than other contenders Obama was said to be considering, and many industry experts — even in LaHood’s home state — were hard-pressed to say where he stood on specific issues.
So Congress’ approval ratings are so low because Republicans and Democrats disagree and sometimes make those disagreements public? The approval rating would be better if they all just got along, issues be damned? The approval rating is what matters? That might be part of the problem, Representative LaHood! The two excerpted paragraphs give the impression that Rep. LaHood is one of the “bipartisanship for political gain” Republicans who shun the quaint notions of right and wrong and that Obama needed another Republican to appear bipartisan. I suppose this the politics of change.
What has Congress accomplished? Let me rephrase that. What good has Congress accomplished? Has Nancy Pelosi “drained the swamp?” Were promises kept? Perhaps the answers to those questions might shed some light on the roots of the low approval rating, if that is what is important.
Does my desire to hear honest positions from politicians indicate some form of insanity or mental illness on my part? (In case you are curious, massaging the position to fit the audience is an indication of typical political dishonesty.) Is winning elections all that matters? Are we expected to believe that the path to victory is in the shadow of our opponents as we mimic their actions? Even if this insane strategy were to succeed, what would be won?
Life is naturally complicated, our government need not be. This is not to say that there aren’t difficult decisions to be made by those that govern, but there are guidelines that if followed should inform every decision. Take the federal government that has grown out of control and bloated beyond anything our founders likely envisioned in their worst nightmares. We have a Constitution and it provides a set of guidelines. If a decision does not fall under the enumerated powers granted the federal government in this document, then that decision should not be made.
Am I wrong? Are people that know the right people and can sell themselves so much more capable than an average citizen? If not, then the grotesque and increasing intrusions of government into our lives cannot be justified. Doing the right thing might be difficult, but it does not have to be all that complicated. By the way, doing the right thing does not include forcibly taking the resources of one to buy the votes of another.
