Midterms: Palin, tea party and conservatives gamble all for the heart & soul of America

Same thing happened in Nevada to Sharron Angle, same old dem trick, disrupt the new candidate, put them on offense and some in the GOP stupidly made things worse. At least Sharron Angle had the benefit of time to put her campaign and strategy together and climb back. For Christene O’Donnell it’s been much worse and she has less time to repair the damage.

The primaries are over, get on board, to think that some are willing to trade off Angle and O’Donnell for Reid and Coons is surreal. We’ve got SCOTUS picks that may come up in the near future, we have an astronomical debt threatening generations to come, we need to unwind the damage that has been done and that just isn’t the past few years either. First and foremost, stop the ongoing Obama/democrat carnage.

Forget about Sunday show vipers, all she needs to please are her Delaware constituents. Since DeMint won’t be too busy fighting off his dem opponent, remember that guy, the one under indictment….would make a perfect democrat senator? 🙄 Perhaps Senator DeMint will have time to help Christene O’Donnell get her campaign up and running. 😉

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_curious_logic_of_our_gover.html

George Orwell said, “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” What follows is my beginning of a list of ideas that some very intelligent people seem to believe.

The air should be taxed. More precisely, what every animal on earth exhales and what every plant on earth inhales can and should be taxed.

President Bush was bad for the economy because he spent too much. President Obama is helping the economy by spending a lot.

A jury is better informed if evidence is withheld from it.

The Boy Scouts are wrong for having policies that inhibit pedophilia. The Catholic Church was wrong for not having policies that inhibit pedophilia.

An economy in which government accounts for about 40% of economic activity, which owns a similar percentage of all land, and which enforces a stack of regulations the size of 64 Bibles (or 30 New Deals) is considered a radical laissez-faire free market.

Grabbing a person by his shirt and pulling him toward you is an “enhanced interrogation technique” not in the Army Field Manual. It is therefore “tantamount to torture” and out of bounds for any government agency or contractor to use when asking a terrorist what his plans are. Simply dropping a bomb on him, though, with neither trial nor tribunal, and killing him and anyone near him, including his wife, children, family and friends, is OK.

Stopping Saddam Hussein by force was wrong because he did not have WMD. Using force against the Taliban is OK despite no one even claiming the Taliban has, or ever had, or ever intend to obtain, WMD. It was also OK to use force against the government of Yugoslavia, which had no WMD and had never harmed or threatened anyone outside Yugoslavia.

Using force against Saddam Hussein just because he was a mass murderer was wrong because we cannot be the policeman for the world. This despite two wars that he started, killing about one million people, mostly Muslims; despite hundreds of mass graves containing hundreds of thousand of bodies; despite using chemical weapons on his own people; and despite a record of torture. However, using force, including the bombing of population centers, against the Serbs for killing perhaps 2,000 people — many in the KLA, a certified terrorist organization — was OK.

It was wrong to use force against Saddam Hussein because the inspections/sanctions regime was working. However, the inspections/sanctions regime was wrong because it was killing half a million Iraqi children.

It was foolish to let Saddam Hussein go in 1991. It was foolish to go after him in 2003.

It is wrong to use force against any country just because you think it might obtain or develop nuclear weapons; that is preemptive. It is wrong to use force against a country that already has nuclear weapons, since that could start a nuclear war. It is wrong to defend against incoming nuclear bombs because that is seen as provocative against countries that have nuclear bombs. Sanctions are also wrong because they kill children and provoke people (see above). In summary, it is wrong to defend yourself against nuclear weapons or any WMD, at any stage of their development or use, by any means other than politely asking your enemies to “stop that.”

It is wrong to ask any person for his papers, even after that person has committed a crime and fits the profile of an illegal immigrant, and even though all non-citizens must carry identification papers per federal law. It is OK to ask every citizen in the U.S. to prove he or she has health insurance.

The federal government can force a state to recognize gay marriages because of the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot force a state to not recognize gay marriages because of the 10th Amendment.

Toilet tank capacity is interstate commerce. “Public use” of private property includes handing it over to another private owner. Large seasonal puddles connected to no other bodies of water are “navigable waters” as far as the government and its regulators are concerned.

The phrase “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law” means (a) it is OK to deprive property owners of their property and (b) it is not OK for a state to outlaw depriving life to any baby whose head has not left the birth canal.

The phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” means it’s OK to outlaw owning or carrying handguns.

The clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” means a public school must prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer at all school events, including football games. But it is OK for government to subsidize “art” such as a crucifix in a pitcher of urine.

The clause that says Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech” does not include workplace speech that might be considered racially or sexually offensive, commercial speech not approved by a federal regulatory agency, or political speech too close to an election.

A guy who made a $34,000 mistake on his own taxes is the best choice to be in charge of the IRS and the entire federal treasury. The guy with thirteen House ethics charges against him, including misusing federal resources and not paying taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic, should be in charge of writing the country’s tax laws. The guy who told us in 2005 that a housing bubble was nonsense and Fannie Mae was in fine shape should be writing in 2010 the regulations to overhaul all finance conducted in this country.

One way to a colorblind society is to ask for “race” on every official form. Another way is to add points for certain races on civil service exams and to use different cutoffs for different races on things like ACT, SAT, and LSAT scores when deciding whom to accept in educational institutions.

The way to increase jobs is to raise taxes on those who provide them and give money to those who don’t have them.

The way to reduce health care costs is to mandate that every person have health insurance and that that insurance cover every possible physical health- and mental health-related cost, including massage therapists, social workers, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, acupuncture, hair prostheses, and about two thousand other insurance mandates levied by government.

It was right to take John McCain to court, through oral arguments and written opinion, to prove that he is “natural born,” despite both his parents being U.S. citizens their whole lives and despite being the son and grandson of U.S. Navy admirals. It was wrong, even insane, to think Barack Obama should have to prove his birth status to anyone prior to taking the oath of office as president.

Enough for now. I started this with a quote from Orwell, and that is how I will end it.

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

It is evident that the fear and reaction that elected Obama, is now reacting to its own mistake, but this reaction will come with more vengeance. It is also not going to subside after the midterms.

We can expect that the Tea Party movement will continue its growth, and it will eventually lead to a decisive retrenchment of government size and government spending. The Republicans will have no choice but to not only listen, but act in tune with that demand for reductions in the bureaucratic sloth that now stagnates the country.

My heart could easily have gone to Sarah Palin – till she came out for tolerance towards islam, homosexuals and marijuana use. Sorry, the conservatives must, in my view, realize that traditional American values (i.e., those values that had made America the envy of the World) have/had nothing to do with any of these three forms of evil.

All Conservatives effortlessly would agree that “spending ourselves into oblivion is bad” – it’s an easy thing for them to buy and sell. The tough thing though is to bring one to argue or agree that the other three, islam homosexuality and drug use, are at least equally destructive to economic bankruptcy too.

It takes a tough love leader with real guts to do so – and unfortunately there hasn’t been any one who has passed this “political incorrectness,” albeit survival for America (and the West), test yet. I’m still waiting.

Sarah Palin had a base, the lady who would wait in snow for hours since 5:00 in a November morning at some bookstore in the hinterland of the US, to have her copy of Going Rogue signed by her idol. That base is now largely gone.

She may have picked up some independents, and even some leftwing Republicans, but her hard-core supporters are disillusioned.

Some time ago Palin made a great point: a great leader she said is one who brings the middle to his/her side, rather than (s)he moving to the middle (I’m paraphrasing here to an extent). By her own standard, she has failed, so far at least. Pity, because she could really make a difference.

The (…fill in the blank, since I’m not privvy to the exact…) amount she got as down payment on her book from Murdoch (you know, Harper-Collins, FOX, and the arabs) was apparently good enough for her. After all, in her second book, America comes in third after Faith and Family. What a pity.

The progressive leadership of both parties clearly fear the Tea Party movement and what it could mean for the Washington “business as normal”. This is the same apprehension they had for the populism of Reform Party’s Ross Perot, but on a greater scale. What we see is the same modus operandus that is typically applied to any candidates that buck the political elitist agendas of Washington and both parties.

The paint cans are brought out by the political wiseguys to spray the graffiti of “Stupid” “Crazy” “Unelectable” in order to convince we, the lowly residents of the ghetto, that such upstart leaders could never be elected, or that they are not fit to serve. Then they pat our heads and tell promise that if we’re good and vote for them, they will toss us a soup bone from the fatted calves they took from us.

The future of America is heading towards a far too often traveled path of crumbling democracy. The People have awakened to the danger and are trying to warn the coachmen in whom they trusted. They want to stop this headlong race to the cliff, but those with the reins are too busy arguing with each other, pausing only long enough to shout back “stop telling us how to do our job!” to the desperate passengers.

The Democrats have stepped beyond the role of servant into haughty arrogance, deciding to take the position that these little people are all uneducated peons who should listen to their betters. This type of attitude, dismissing the populous and it’s outrage is what eventually leads to revolutions. So, is the Republican party going to take the same patronizing position, or will they only take notice when they see the plows are beaten into swords and the torches are being made ready?

P B: HI SR, I would think that you cant forget that the next PRESIDENT
WILL BE THE PRESIDENT OF ALL AMERICANS, not like what’s happening now,
SO instead of pass it by maybe you should be as you would like your new PRESIDENT to be,
WHICH is not a perfect human, but who love AMERICA enough to seek that difficult next task
TO restore the real AMERICA, with the help of the people HE will serve with wisdom
and intelligence from his elected fellow to bring jobs and bring back the COMPANIES to create the SUPERPOWER that has been attack from too much mistakes, bring a balance in GLOBAL TRADE,
TO REPLENISH the wealth in AMERICA FIRST.
bye

Mata Harley;

Please don’t try to “straighten out my misconceptions” – I hate being patronized, and paternalism always turned me off.

I was an SP supporter, and I no longer am and explained why; that, by itself, should tell you something instead of trying to argue with me.

We all know what is really behind the 2010 mid-terms, let’s not play hide and seek. And “no vote” is a bit more complicated than what you seem to indicate; read all my comments.

Good luck with your hard and non-malleable thoughts, briefcase n’ all, and the stuff therein. When the arrogance of superiority in ideological positions sets in, mental arteriosclerosis ensues.

But I notice a slight shift in your argument, from the “SP base” (so far this was the issue, I thought) to the “conservative base” – a far larger entity, that includes also the so-called Ron Paul types and Dick Armey’s army. I will concede to you that the reason SP expressed these views on drug use, islam and homosexuality is precisely to attract that segment of the “conservative base” – with a big caveat, though: that seqment isn’t her base and likely will never become.

Excellent point Randy – I grant her the fact that she has her own mind to a large extent (but not exclusively so); as a politician she must compromise. I take her positions in face value, i.e., to be largely her own positions, in which case (on the issues of drug use, islam, and homosexuality) she isn’t really a Conservative but rather a liberal.

Her political life in Alaska was quite revealing: the democrats there thought in the 06-08 period that she was with them fighting the republican establishment there (thus her almost 80% approval rating); and when they found out who she really was, after her VP nomination and her campaign as VP, they turned against her in droves, and some viciously so because they felt betrayed.

Giving the wrong signals is deadly these days for a politician as far as his/her base is concerned – the people are simply fed up, impatient and unforgiving.

The difficulty is trying to fit Palin or anyone into a category. We are all individuals. We all have our visions of life and our personal values. I do not like being called a conservative or a liberal. I most closely relate to the definition of a conserative, but will not support all of the issues a conserative by definition will support. We are trying to place Sarah in a category of our making. She is in her own category. I think she is trying to show who she is and if we like what she is and what she has the capabilities to do, we will support her. I think it is that simple. It would likely be much more productive to go pull weeds in the garden than to try to refine this conversation any more.

@ johngalt, Well said and I share that viewpoint with you.

@ JG:

My points exactly – that’s why I have left the SP camp because I felt she was trying to “nuance” her positions on all these three (to me basic) issues, along with the abortion issue.

I started this discussion about SP from comment # 7; please, read the previous posts, since I try to avoid repeating myself. One additional point, I consider the threat from islam an even greater threat to the survival of this Nation than either excessive budget deficits or public debt levels. SP doesn’t seem to either understand this or agree with it.

NOTE: When a book which has not yet been released, but is being published goes on the “#1 Bestseller List”, this simply means that enough people have pre-ordered the book for it to reach this status.

Nothing more, nothing less.

“Tolerance for” means exactly that. It does not mean “support for”, nor “ambiguity towards.” It is a non-hostile, non-confrontational stance. Tolerance for a group does not mean you ignore them, or that you allow them to free reign to do whatever they wish. Tolerance does however include an implication to keep a wary eye on them.

For those who don’t support Palin’s peaceful tolerance: What would you suggest she do? Become hostile towards homosexuals, and call for violent action against them? Confront innocent Muslims because of their religion? She spoke out against the “ground zero mosque” what else would you expect her to do?

For those reasons you don’t support her? Well, with that litmus test, I guess you can’t support most of your fellow Americans.

@Ditto:

I’m not her advisor, so I won’t answer the “what must she do” part, but only the ‘what I would like to see her do” question. I would have liked to see a more firm statement from her as to the threat America is facing from islam (not just islamic ‘extremists”), equivalent to the “concern” she made in Hong Kong in Sept 2009, about the threat from China. And as we are confronting China, we should be confronting islam. Here I must add that I don’t believe that she can understand the danger islam poses to America (just like the Bushes), or that she can agree with that statement (for reasons I won’t enter here). This is my key reason why I left her camp.

The same strong statement about her Christian values, one would expect also, and how these values are NOT compatible with homosexuality. She’s simply confining her opposition to same sex marriages. This is grossly inadequate in my view, as is the recognition that homosexuals (a minority based on, appalling, behavioral patterns largely marketed and distributed by Hollywood, and pushed by radicals in multiple fields of human endeavor, from art to literature to sociology among others) deserve “rights.”

In her Main Street America “commonsense” approach, I simply don’t see islam and homosexuality.

I will admit, however, that these are statements that no run-of-the-mill American politician would make – although they’re statements that the majority (not necessarily the great majority) of Americans would agree with. They’re controversial positions, of course. but needed if there’s any hope for this country to “getting back on track.” And, as you know from my previous comments, I don’t hold much hope that this is feasible unless a much smaller, leaner and meaner America emerges out of this BHO debacle. In that new America, there would be no fear that the left will call people “homophobes” “islamophobes” or any other “phobes” they can come up with, and people will bow.

@AC: Sorry, I won’t do the work for you. If you’re really interested you would locate them. I directed you to where you can find them.

Custer went into battle at the Little Bighorn with a subordinate commander who once initiated court martial actions against him (Benteen). and a drunk Reno). Custer developed a plan that worked against the Arapahoe in a previous engagement. He split his forces to draw the fighting force away from the women and children. He then captured the women and children and the battle was over.

These tribes had nothing to fight for. The risk was losing their families. The worst that could happen was they would have to return to the reservation. Reno who lead a calvary company lost the advantage of mounted soldiers by dismounting. He was flanked by the Sioux.

Benteen had completed his scouting mission and was resting his company near a spring. Custer sent a message to Benteen to come and bring the pack train where much of the ammunition was carried. Benteen took command of the pack train company and refused to support Custer. Reno panicked was flanked and then fled across the river losing many of his soldiers.

Custer and him men died in an offensive formation waiting for his undependable commanders to perform their assigned duties. Most people today would consider Custer to be a failure, yet, he bailed out many higher ranking officers during the Civil War.

Palin and the Tea Party has been criticized because they supported people with values and loyalty to the basic concepts that this country was founded upon. If there is a Republican president who takes office in January 2013 and the electorate elects a congress that is not loyal to the concepts and values isn’t it likely that our country will end up in a similar place where it finds itself now?

@P B:

I fail to see the problem with any of the issues being discussed or the sites, nor would I disagree with what Palin has said.

Amazing, bigots I’ve encountered in my life have all been angry people, kind of what I’m picking up on in your comments. Sad for you.

@ Missy:

Well, that’s what the leftwing nuts accuse Tea Party people of, also. In that sense, you sound just like an MSNBC host, have your pick among them. Sad for you too.