Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Taxes and Spending

In Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2008, the following caught my attention.

Can Higher Taxes Solve the Problem? The CBO also found that if federal income tax rates are adjusted to allow the government to continue its current level of activity and balance the budget:
  • The lowest marginal tax bracket of 10 percent would have to rise to 26 percent.
  • The 25 percent marginal tax bracket would increase to 66 percent.
  • The current highest marginal tax bracket (35 percent) would have to rise to 92 percent!
Additionally, the top corporate income tax rate of 35 percent would have to increase to 92 percent.

Wow.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Bush: A Better Catholic Than Some Catholics?

Lisa Fabrizio in The Pope in America:

It is noteworthy that the President granted a rare interview to EWTN, the Catholic TV network. When asked by interviewer Raymond Arroyo what he saw when he looked into the eyes of the Pope, he quickly answered, “God.” In some ways President Bush, a Methodist, is a better Catholic than many actual Catholics in Washington. After all, in addition to his commitment to the poor in Africa and elsewhere, he is in agreement with the Church on its five ‘non-negotiable’ issues: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia and homosexual “marriage.” Compare his record on these issues with ‘cradle’ Catholic congressmen like Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi.Then consider the following letter to Cardinal McCarrick, former Archbishop of Washington, DC, entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” written by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in 2004:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Update (related, June 12, 2008): St. John’s Fort

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Hillary v Obama, Round XXXVIII

I didn't watch the debate, but I'll take Ed's word for it:

The last Democratic debate has finally concluded, and perhaps the last chances of ending the primaries early. Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn’t even take the stage tonight.
And later,
The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

Beware of Imposters











(Found via email.)

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Freedom of Speech

Forest Lake event canceled; too political says the "Red Star", the "Star and Sickle", a local paper. The story was first brought to me on my morning commute on the radio, almost perpetually tuned to KTLK.

I discovered the story in print from Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner. Since Forest Lake is but a suburb or two over, this really got me steamed. Frankly, I would have hoped for a better title from the Strip, perhaps "Leftist Group 'Democratic Underground' Nixes Free Speech by Veterans Group".

Many blogs have kept me abreast of this appalling story throughout the day. Powerline was a good example: Heroes too hot for Forest Lake Area High School. But later on, Blackfive produced The left has no heroes with the following video well worth viewing:


Later, Powerline had more followup with The National Heroes Tour Comes to Minnesota. And a Jason Lewis podcast had further discussion.

I haven't taken in all of these items. I get off track simply thinking about Leftists' perpetual claim to being defenders of free speech -- as long as there is no dissent, I guess. But the gall of protesting the true defenders of free speech is simply beyond the pale.

Updates:

Monday, March 24, 2008

As The Election Turns

So around this RINO's digs it has been amusing to read the news as of late. The Republican candidates had their battle early and it looked as if they were going to be bogged down in a mess. With the indicators falling more and more to John McCain, I found myself rooting for a brokered convention. But since I never really knew what that entailed, I now find it much more amusing to watch from the sidelines.

Townhall Funnies


You've got Hillary's Bosnia gaffe as a sideshow, Name That Party going on with elected officials, and of course all the "Typical White Person" jokes you can shake a stick at.

Townhall Funnies

It's funnier than watching the Exorcist!

No, I must admit it is far more entertaining to watch Hillary and Obama duke it out. And spend their money on each other. And have the mainstream media spin lame attempts at manufacturing counterpoints, badly, but the lefties managed to do it worse.

Townhall Funnies


It's not that I'm happy with McCain, even though the pundits make the thought increasingly less difficult to stomach. It's just that seeing the left beat itself up is entirely too amusing. Add to it Rush's Operation Chaos and it's hard to keep a straight face.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Obama Kerfuffle

I had to search the logfiles of an IRC channel I frequent to reassure myself that until this past weekend I had not really considered the race angle in regard to the 2008 presidential race. Yup, pretty much what I thought -- all this time I've thought of him pretty much a leftist. A Liberal. Perhaps I even had a chuckle about Marxist connections after the Che Guevera flag flap. Up until this past weekend.

Then the Rev. Wright material flooded the blogosphere. I took humor in the ensuing frenzy. And still, it was the character issue that was being noted (finally) in the mainstream media that I was most tickled by. And as the raging waters continued flowing, the racism angle started to rear. I could be amused and have an oddly quizzical expression towards a white middle-class type of Obama supporter, but to me that still wasn't the issue.

And then came Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech. It arrived in my RSS reader amongst my usual conservative-leaning subscriptions. In fact, I skimmed right into the meat of the speech, before I realized it was his speech. The first paragraph was my hook not to skim and move on to the next item in the reader. And then I got to paragraphs two and three and I had to take a closer look at what I was reading because it seemed to be taking a turn I wasn't expecting. And then I discovered that it was "the speech".

For me, this was the point at which I felt Obama made race an issue; previously he had "transcended race". And with this speech he chose to embrace it, to wrap himself in it fully. And essentially to transform from an unabashed Leftist and inexperienced candidate whose grand rhetoric lacked substance into merely on opportunistic black politician like those who have gone before him.

I've shared piles of articles and snippets on the feed, and pretty much everybody has already aired his views. For ease of future reference, let me just capture the "highlights".

And then I encountered "the speech". Up to this point, it was to me just news about a presidential candidate caught in a tough spot: backpedaling on an issue of his character. After listening to a podcast of "the speech" and reading the transcript, mixed in with others' similar reactions around the blogosphere, I had to accept that from that point onward that Obama no longer "transcended race".

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Schism

The Anchoress has a fine article, Mama, We're All RINOs Now. It is a different perspective on an earlier take.

The wicked irony here is that the “true conservatives” (or TCs) who are busily kicking every flawed Republican to the curb will tell you in a heartbeat that they are “conservatives first, Republicans second” — which means, if we’re being logical, that they, the “true conservatives,” are actually the “true RINOs.” And I suppose the so-called RINOs are actually then Conservatives in Name Only, or CINOs. So, the TCs are actually RINOs and the RINOs are actually CINOs, except some of them really are conservatives; they’re just not conservative enough to be “true.” So they’re the “just not conservative enough moderate conservatives who also have no principles” or JNCEMCWAHNPs.

My head hurts.

I hear ya. But as this article heads toward the eventual -- wait for it -- "electability" argument my attention suddenly falls away. It's not intentional, I have just long since tired of hearing it. In my opinion it has been the "electability" argument that has been the wind blowing the GOP portside for so long.

And along the way, new voters see nothing being offered by the Republican party -- especially a lot of young voters. By attempting to cater to them, they've just looked like wannabees. News flash: those folks can see right through it and they go for the real thing. Let me talks slowly so this might sink in: by making half-assed attempts to expand the base, you showed these folks their true calling on the other side of the aisle; and at the same time you dumped the former base overboard. So now, after letting this fester for many years, it's all the conservatives' fault 'cuz you tossed us out.

Well at least the Anchoress does by far a better and fairer job of presenting the GOP schism than, say, Gregg Jackson:
Why are the spoiled elites complaining about McCain like a bunch of petulant children when the reality is that, collectively, they share considerable blame for the fact that McCain is our likely nominee?
Ah, yes. Now we're to the "grow up" caterwauling. I believe I'll being to take that as "thank you". So let me politely reply: you're welcome.

McCain Apologists

In yet another round of "Come On, Vote McCain", I happened upon Why I Will Vote for McCain. And its the same old spin all over again.

Was Eisenhower a conservative? No. Nixon? No. Bush (either one)? No. McCain? No. Republicans, yes — it’s a famously big tent — and with some conservative positions. But having conservative positions is not the same as being a conservative.
Yeah, that's great. Let's look back 50 years -- when the country as a whole was probably at least twice as conservative as it is now -- to find a "success" story for the GOP when it didn't go conservative?
Nevertheless, McCain is clearly a Republican, with some conservative positions.
I'm sorry, what was the point supposed to be? Just stating the obvious? Let's just skip ahead to today's conservative smackdown.
It is time for conservatives to accept reality (accepting reality is another conservative trait); and the reality is (1) John McCain will be the Republican nominee for president and (2) he will make a far better president than the Democratic alternative.
Here's a Vanna, I'd like to buy a clue please! freebie to the GOP and apologists: conservatives want a candidate to vote for, not some ballot option to receive my "not the Democrat/Liberal" vote.

Until this most salient tidbit sinks into the Republican party's collective head, they'll have to keep repeating this grade. Hey, perhaps one day Republicans will accept this reality too.

Friday, February 15, 2008

A Time for Choosing

I began to write this shortly after Super-Duper Tuesday and the analysis fallout, before Fred and Mitt cast their support for John McCain.

GOP to Conservative: Shut Up and Do As We Say

Merely 10 days ago I voted in my first caucus. I enjoyed the experience. For the record, I went with the write-in Fred approach. It felt very satisfying in a manner best stated by John Quincy Adams:

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.
When I cast my vote, I was voting for the platform I felt best represented my views. The candidate who championed them, unfortunately, had already dropped out of the race. But there it was, officially on record, a reflection of my views expressed clearly to all.

And in the ensuing days following the outcome that anointed John McCain the presumptive GOP nominee, I endured the wrath of the establishment, endlessly berating me for my foolishness. In GOP Has Some Growing Up to Do I was told I need to "grow up" and "get a grip".
If JFK can run with LBJ – if Ronald Reagan can run with George H.W. Bush, if Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama can come close to slow dancing on a debate stage after their January tension – surely conservatives unhappy at batting .500 with their nominee can get a grip by November.
Oddly, the GOP machine's outrage was echoed by the MSM: Lauer to Coulter: Aren't All You Conservatives Like 3-Year-Olds?
Friday’s edition of Today on NBC had several conservative-denigrating moments over the ideological direction of presumptive GOP nominee John McCain. Matt Lauer interviewed columnist Ann Coulter. He threw a spitball about conservatives being babies: "Critics of conservative voices right now are saying for the first time in a very long time, the conservatives have lost. They haven't been able to choose their nominee and it's the political version now of a 3-year-old saying, ‘if you can't play the game the way I want to play, I'm taking my football and I'm going home.’ How do you respond to that?"
If that's not a loud cry telling me strange things are afoot at the Circle K, then color me confused.

There are many principled reasons for a conservative to take issue with John McCain. this wasn't just an oops or two. But I'm supposed to set all that aside and be awestruck because McCain's lifetime ACU Rating of 82 (hmm, it was most recently 65 in 2006).

McCain Supporters' "Surge"

Upon being presented with thoughtful reasoning, McCain supporters went on the offensive. Let's start with Why every conservative should vote for John McCain in November.
I understand some of us do not intend to vote for John McCain as the Republican nominee* in November. I voted that way for a decade myself. "I have to make the party earn my vote," I thought. In 2004 I did a few hours of research, examining the candidates from all the top parties, not just Bush and Kerry, before coming to the conclusion that I had to vote for President Bush on the issues. So I know how this thinking works.

In evaluating each party's probable nominee, I will assume that the following issues matter in deciding how to vote: taxes, spending, government growth, winning the war (at home and abroad), border security, and the runaway judiciary.
Oh, trust me, I'm not taking my eyes off the issues. But before continuing let's also consider the bare-knuckled approach in WHY I AM SICK TO DEATH OF BOTH PARTIES for example.
Better yet, how will it feel to watch our boys coming home from Iraq while al-Qaeda dances in the streets with glee before moving back into places that many of our soldiers paid the ultimate price to clean them out in the first place? How does re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine grab ya, Doc? You’d be off TV quicker than you could say “equal time.”

And how long would it take for your head to explode before a Hillbama administration named a couple of Supreme Court Justices who would laugh in your face if you suggested overturning Roe v Wade?

Your choice was to allow this to happen. My choice is to prevent it at all costs. Who holds the moral upper hand here, Doc? Whose position would end up being best for America?

But its not about America. It’s about selfishness. It’s about the arrogant belief that your conscience is more important than the future of the country. That’s one helluva conscience you’ve got there, Doc. Why not feed it a little more self-inflated ego and top it off with a little moral blindness while you’re at it.
There we go -- that's what I needed to hear. Tell me to follow the heard or else it's all my fault. Even one of my favorite columnists tells me, Yes, McCain!.

Thoughts on 2006

I voted similarly in the midterm elections, writing in conservative names against two sitting RINOs. I didn't stay home. The message of 2006 was lost and spun by the GOP that the losses indicated that the party needed to move further to the left. For months I shook my head because I could not imagine analysts being that thick. It almost makes you want to grab a party official at both shoulders and shout, "We screamed that the party was moving to far to the left for our support, and your solution is to move further to the left!?!"

Much of the reason behind this idiocy has been the complete disregard for the "small government" conservatives. After 2004, they were cast aside. I vividly remember people voting Democrat in 2006 because they were seen -- and not without merit -- as better stewards of financial responsibility. As if this wasn't yet another wake-up call to the GOP.

Oh, but it's Conservatives on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown?
“This year’s election will be unusually consequential. In 2006, Democrats regained control of both houses of Congress. Democrats also now hold a majority of governors’ mansions and state legislatures. The Left long has been regnant on America’s campuses, in the mainstream news media, in the entertainment industry, and in the unions. A Clinton or Obama victory would put all levers of power into the same hands. What would Democratic Party bosses do with that? How about statehood for Washington, D.C., which would provide two new Democratic votes in the Senate? How about appointing judges who regard the Constitution as clay, and using immigration policy to expand the Left’s electoral margins? These and other creative maneuvers could create an anti-conservative majority that would last a generation or more. Most worrisome of all: Americans today are engaged in a conflict as serious as any we have ever fought... Thinking hard about such questions over the months ahead would be not just alright; it would be commendable—and conservative.” —Clifford May
Ah. But ....what about the Supreme Court?Yes, let's turn some attention to the Supreme Court. My votes for George W. Bush produced two justices I'm happy with. Do I believe McCain's promise? At this point, no. Nor did I believe Rudy's promise either. Why not? All it takes is simple sleight of hand for either to have said, "But now the situation has changed." Insert whatever reasoning you care for: Democrat House and Senate majorities, "bipartisianship", whatever. What I needed to believe this was a history of being a conservative, and thus far I found that history lacking.

The "Youth Vote"

It seems to me that the GOP has been busy booting the small government and less spending crowds from its midst. And now, they have to top it off be smacking conservatives around.

But I also think the GOP was done very little to attract the millions of new voters. Let's consider the group of Americans born between 1982-1990. This 8 year span of new voters has little or not recollection of Ronald Reagan's presidency. They may have overheard some grumblings about the President George H. W. Bush. But the older ones will recall the good times of the 1990's which happened to have had Bill Clinton in the White House.

But mostly they will recall the last seven years of George W. Bush as president. And all of the nonstop negative press that has gone on since he took office. I think the entire group would be hard-pressed to remember a time in which "everyone" hated the sitting president. Also keep in mind that these folks likely are now in, or recently left, the lands of public and higher education.

I wonder how many of these new voters have half a clue about the policy considerations they have made when it comes to their choice for president. From my interactions with this younger generation, I find myself currently underwhelmed.

Invoking Reagan

Sound reasoning in favor of McCain may be found in Thoughts on the Current Mess. More thoughts swirling around are presented in Who Wants to be a Loser? But they're really going for the jugular when the name Ronald Reagan is brought up. We're told we need to be pragmatic instead of Redefining Conservatism
This just in: Ronald Reagan is dead and he's not coming back. Now, can conservatives please move on?

Reagan always spoke about the future and its possibilities. Today's conservatives, however, can't seem to break with the past and the nostalgia for the Reagan years. Even in his letter to the American people in 1994 in which he revealed he suffered from Alzheimer's disease, Reagan wrote of his "eternal optimism" for the country's future. Too many modern conservatives seem embedded in a concrete slab of pessimism, preferring to go over a bridge and drown rather than "compromise" their "principles." If you can't get elected, your principles can be talked about on the lecture circuit, but are unlikely to be adopted in Washington.
Or perhaps we need to toe the line and follow the 11th commandment, mentioned in Parties Trade Historical Roles.
"Thou shalt not attack other Republicans," decrees Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment.
I personally don't think this was intended to allow the foxes free access to the henhouse. More recently this crusher comes along: Ronald Reagan Would Back McCain By Michael Reagan. At this point, I respectfully disagree. I don't think I'm the only one that can throw Reagan right back at the GOP:
I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.
Has the Republican Party left me? Let me spend a little more time reading and rereading The Speech, a Candidate's Statement on Federalism, and the Executive Order on Federalism. If I can find John McCain in there, he deserves my vote.

In the meantime however I wonder if this is The Last Straw, or, The Final Nail In...
As for the future of the disenfranchised conservatives that the Republican party has pushed off to the “right wing” and relegated to a minority faction of the party, there may be hope on the horizon. There is a grass roots effort going on now to establish the American Conservative Party, which could become a home for disenfranchised conservative Republicans.

It’s going to take time for this effort to get off the ground and become a viable party. I suggest you look at the discussions as this effort is being formed to consider if this is something you may be interested in. Right now it is in the discussion stages, just as our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were at one point in history.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-- Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence.

God Bless America and help to guide her through these troubled times.
Indeed.

Update: One item I intended to mention in regard to the youth vote, or even the general overall "pulse" was in regard to voter turnout. Consider as a small example the state of Virginia: Democrats 985280, Republicans 487478. The Democrats have a 2:1 advantage in voting. This trend has been noticeable in a number of states as well.

That is the core fault with the 2008 election. It will not matter who the Republican candidate is. The seeds of the downfall were sown years ago, and the grassroots efforts are the only thing that can rebuild it. In 2008, this will not be possible.

Therefore, now is the time to go with principle and start rebuilding at the local level. The only question that remains is, do we continue with the GOP or start something new. And our answer will be gleaned from the GOP's response to conservatives -- not vice-versa.