Views on the News – 12/5/2009
President Barack Obama has little interest in, understanding of or affection for free markets, so he fails to understand that the fundamental relationship between government and the economy is that of parasite to host. Some functions of government are absolutely essential to a free economy. We need a sound currency, civil courts to enforce contracts and to provide a peaceful means of dispute resolution, protection from criminals at home and enemies abroad. Government can consume wealth and redistribute wealth; it can’t create wealth, and unless wealth is created, there is nothing to consume or redistribute. Obama’s under pressure to get the unemployment rate down below 10%, so he’s invited business executives, labor leaders, community activists, economists and others to the White House to spur ideas. 15.7 million Americans are out of work (5.3 million just this year) which is the most in the six decades since the Labor Department began keeping track. Some economists expect unemployment to reach 11% by next summer, even as the effects of the $787 billion stimulus package continue. Obama believes that his “stimulus” plan set the stage for recovery, without understanding the true impact felt by private businesses. The “stimulus” failed chiefly because it was designed more to reward the president’s political allies than to fight the recession. The “stimulus” failed also because “stimulus” funds were used to preserve jobs state and local governments could no longer afford because of falling tax revenues. The private sector has borne more than 100% of the job loss because state and local governments have added 110,000 jobs. His second big goal for 2010 is cutting the federal budget deficit, now a record $1.4 trillion. The problem is that the president’s twin targets can cancel each other out. Spend federal dollars to create jobs, and boost the deficit. Raise taxes or cut spending to trim the deficit, and risk slowing down the economy even further. Preserving government jobs may deepen the recession because government workers are not engaged in wealth creation and their salaries must be paid by people in the private sector who are. If nearly $2 trillion in spending, tax cuts and new money wasn’t enough to move the needle on unemployment, the White House will be hard pressed to argue that another $50 or $100 billion will do the trick. With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the Obama Administration may find that there’s a limit to how much Washington can continue to borrow to pay for job creation. The economy wants to heal itself, but the President keeps heaping burdens upon it. Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.” Across the spectrum, business owners say tax cuts would be the best fuel for job growth, with the first thing they should do is lower the corporate tax rate. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is pitching an even longer list of tax breaks, including a reduction of the corporate capital-gains tax and a permanent elimination of the estate tax. Obama’s job approval has tumbled as Americans recoil from the taxes and spending proposed in Obamacare and cap and trade, and from the massive debt he’s piling up. For the economy to grow, government must shrink, but the President and Congress are rushing pell mell in the opposite direction. Presidents rise and fall by the unemployment rate. Historically, a chief executive’s disapproval tends to track almost exactly with the national unemployment rate. Barack Obama has seen the unemployment and disapproval rates climb steadily, and in lock step, in the early days of his Presidency. There is a real danger that politics as usual will result in an underfunded, gimmicky, feel-good jobs-creation program rather than one with the scope and structure that the country needs. The biggest political problem for Obama in his largely symbolic “jobs summit,” is that he has acknowledged that he’s out of ideas… since he has demonstrated no real idea how to create private sector jobs!
(“’Jobs Summit’ no magic bullet for employment” by Eamon Javers dated November 26, 2009 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29952.html
“Note to Obama: Only Private Sector Creates Wealth, Jobs” by Jack Kelly dated November 30, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/30/note_to_obama_onl y_private_sector_creates_wealth_jobs_99341.html
“White House, Business Leaders Split on How to Create Jobs” by Neil King, Jr. and Gary Fields dated November 30, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125954924769768987.html
“Unemployment: Going beyond short-term fixes” by Michael Lind dated December 1, 2009 published by Salon Magazine at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2009/11/30/jobs/index.html
“Infatuated with the New Deal” by Fred Barnes dated December 14, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/304r winr.asp )
Now that Obama has spent this country into debt for the foreseeable future he has finally woken up, and his response is predictable to convene another task force to look at the problem. The federal-spending avalanche just pushed the government’s debt over $12 trillion, and Congress will soon have to vote on raising the legal debt limit. Spending has soared so high that 40% of this year’s budget will be funded by borrowing. The recession and excessive spending have also caused the debt held by the public to grow sharply to 56% of the economy, topping the historical average of 36%. The plan is for a bipartisan task force to design a large deficit-reduction package that would be fast-tracked through the legislative process to ensure a swift up-or-down vote in the House and Senate. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad said that “everything would be on the table” for his proposed task force, including “tax reform” to meet the “revenue challenge we face from an outdated and inefficient revenue system” that is “hemorrhaging revenue.” The main drivers of spending now and in the future are Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and Congress ought to recognize that it is time to fundamentally reform these programs as it takes a shameful vote to saddle future generations with more debt. Such a deficit reduction task force suffers from three fatal flaws.
· The first is that the resulting tax increase would be on top of all the other tax increases on the table, including the scheduled rise in income-tax rates in 2011 and possible increases to fund health-care and climate-change legislation.
· The second is that CBO’s long-term projections reveal a spending catastrophe, not a “revenue challenge.” As the economy recovers, revenues will rise to their historical norm of about 18% of gross domestic product and then keep on growing, even without any legislated increases. On the other hand, spending is expected to skyrocket from 21% of the economy in 2008 to at least 40% by 2050, or more if a new federal health plan is enacted. If Congress tried to raise taxes to match this soaring spending, the economy would enter a “death spiral” of declining growth and a shrinking tax base.
· The third fatal flaw of a fiscal task force is that the government’s spending addiction cannot be cured in a one-shot treatment.
The economy is trying to recover on its own, but is impeded by ever increasing Democrat spending plans which will only be worse with impending health care and “cap and tax” proposals. There’s nothing deficit-neutral about the health care plans currently under consideration, since they would greatly exacerbate our existing fiscal crisis, not to mention usher in the largest socialistic transformation we’ve yet seen in this nation. Obama and company have employed multiple gimmicks to conceal and misrepresent the true costs of ObamaCare. By backloading their spending, they hope to deceive Americans into thinking their plan is budget-neutral. Thus, their bills disguise their true net costs by deferring most new spending for five years (while increasing taxes and cutting Medicare almost immediately). Democrats continue to view out of control spending purely in political terms and has released a memo titled “How Is the Recovery Act Playing in Freshman & Sophomore Districts?” to help spin credit for bringing home stimulus grant money.
(“Fiscal Task Force a Turkey” by Chris Edwards dated November 27, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTU0ODZmNjBhMGY5ODVlMTJhNzVlNDhkN jM4ZWE1NGE=
“Parties launch stimulus P.R. offensives” by Alex Isenstadt dated November 28, 2009 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29940.html
“To Control National debt, Congress Needs to Tackle Entitlements” by Nicola Moore dated November 30, 2009 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2710.cfm .
“They Call It Fiscal Responsibility; We Call It Socialism” by David Limbaugh dated December 1, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2009/12/01/they_call_it_f iscal_responsibility;_we_call_it_socialism )
No matter how Congress tries to sugar-coat the public option plan, American voters don’t want to swallow the bitter pill of government-run health care, so effort is well underway to disguise the public option as a harmless government program. Senate Majority Leader Reid included a so-called “opt-out” version of the public option in the bill introduced last week, though many senators are quietly talking about an amendment that will change it to a “trigger” public option. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi floated a rebranding effort by calling it both the “consumer option” and the “competitive” option in a recent joint appearance. When pressed, Pelosi offered a classic red herring argument, claiming that Americans oppose the “public option” because the term wrongly implies it will be paid for through public funds, when in fact, she says, it would not. In so doing, the speaker cleverly dodged the real reason why she and her allies are desperate to rebrand the public option, because the term “public” reminds all Americans that at its core, it’s a government-run plan. All this is just a smokescreen to divert attention from the true reason liberals are so desperate to have a public option in the first place, because they know it will ultimately lead to a single-payer system. Candidate Barack Obama once admitted: “There is a transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out,” he says, of eliminating employer insurance plans entirely.” Lately President Obama has been much more sly since being inaugurated, no doubt anticipating the backlash that would come as a result. No matter what it is called, any “opt-out,” opt-in” or “trigger” version of a government-run public option is still a vote that will ultimately force millions of Americans off their existing health care plans, subject them to rationing of needed care, long waiting lists, and will ultimately do nothing to reduce the cost of care – all with NO guarantee that you will be able to keep your current doctor. Pick your cliché, they all apply: it’s a Trojan horse; a shell game; a slippery slope. Any vote by those in the Senate to support a government-run public option plan is a vote against countless Americans who made their views very clear during town hall meetings only two months ago. Americans spoke loudly and clearly in August that they only want one thing: lower costs. During the campaign, Obama said, “I am committed to signing a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office. My plan will lower costs $2,500 per year for the typical American family,” but the Congressional Budget Office has now released an analysis of the proposed Senate bill that the President is championing, and it turns out that his prior estimate was off and premiums will rise by $2,100 a year. The basic problem is that lower costs are not the goal of President Obama, nor Majority Leader Reid, nor Speaker Pelosi. If it were, they wouldn’t support any proposal that will require over $2.5 trillion in new spending, hundreds of billions of dollars in higher taxes, agonizingly long waits for care, and faceless government bureaucrats in charge of our health care decisions. In the last two weeks, eight national polls (Pew, ABC/WaPo, PPP, CNN, CBS, Quinnipiac, Fox, and Rasmussen) have been released showing that by an average margin of 8.5% (49.0% to 40.5%), more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. When asked now what the biggest problem in American health care is, 62% say it’s high costs, more than three times the number who give any other answer and ObamaCare would do nothing to control nationwide health-care costs, while raising the amounts that Americans would pay in taxes and premiums. Democrat’s goal is not to reform the health care system for patients, but for politics, so a vote for a public option, in any form, is a vote for government-run health care.
(“Sugar-Coated Public Option is Still a Bitter Pill” by Rick Scott dated November 27, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34597
“The American People Don’t Want ObamaCare (and They Want It Less All the Time)” by Jeffrey H. Anderson dated November 30, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmFiNzUwMzcwZTc3YjVjODEwM jcwZjM4MjFiNWI4OWE=
“ObamaCare’s Ugly Math” by Jeffrey H. Anderson dated December 3, 2009 published by The Weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/289e ptak.asp )
Democrats need to look at the British health care system and admit that “death panels” are an essential part of their rationing system. Our ally Britain has traveled much farther down the socialist road than we have, and they have a great deal to teach us. They have a fully socialized health care system called the National Health Service (NHS), which provides care for all comers regardless of ability to pay or insurance coverage. The utopian promise of government-sponsored universal healthcare has been a failure… or met at too high a price. Britain has sought efficiencies utilizing methods developed by their National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence, the self-described “health cost watchdog” of the NHS. Known by the Orwellian acronym of NICE, this group assesses everything medical, from new technologies to drugs and clinical procedures, and issues guidelines for their use by the NHS. These guidelines include criteria by which certain patients will be made ineligible for both routine and life-saving procedures. The method is known as Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence-Based Decision Making. When you are denied a test or procedure in the British system, you get to ask them to reconsider…and if they refuse, you have no alternative. Under the NICE model, everything is subject to a strict cost-benefit rationale, including personal behavior. It establishes a scorecard of life value, quantifying our lives into units known as QALYs. (Quality Adjusted Life Years). It factors intangibles such as “social usefulness” and “reciprocity,” which reward patients for past exhibition of approved values – for example, by bumping them higher on a transplant list over their plumper fellow citizens because they maintain a more moderate weight or belong to a favored group. It is the “death panel” on steroids in that it holds sway over access to all medical care, not just expensive life-saving procedures. NICE assesses the applicability of tests ordered by NHS physicians, the amount of time that should be spent in consultation with patients, and even the brand of pain reliever your doctor can prescribe for a given injury. Ridiculously, the Obama administration denies any intention to ration health care, going so far as to assure “no possibility of it happening” under this legislation. As many as 100,000 operations are canceled annually by the NHS due to shortages of facilities, doctors and resources. Each year, 9,000 British patients are denied kidney dialysis. An additional 15,000 are refused coverage for chemotherapy, and 17,000 are denied heart surgery. However, in a paper issued by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, Department of Bioethics in Bethesda, Maryland titled “Principals for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” we see citations of NICE and its proprietary methodology touted as a model for our own system. It is interesting to note that the paper is co-authored by Ezekiel Emmanuel, brother of President Obama’s “consigliore,” Rahm Emmanuel, which belies the administration’s bogus denials. Under this legislation, rationing is not merely a possibility – it is a foregone conclusion, since rationing is the bedrock of the entire scheme. With the lives of our families literally on the line, do we really trust this Congress and this administration with a responsibility so grave as this?
(“Mid-wifing Leviathan” by Joe Herring dated November 28, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/midwifing_leviathan.html
“Public Option: Great Britain’s Warning to America” by Linda Halderman dated December 3, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/public_option_great_britains_w. html )
In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages and none of them were caused by anthropogenic (man-made) global warming… and now we have proof that data was manipulated to fraudulently support a leftist Global Warming hoax to influence government policy and spending. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates, but instead carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant. In the 600-year long Roman Warming, it was 4ºC warmer than now and sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer and sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age, which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions. There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide plays only a minor role and our climate is still controlled by periodic variations in the same natural forces that caused previous climate changes: ocean currents and jet streams, water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earth’s orbit, the tilt and wobble of Earth’s axis, cosmic ray levels and especially solar energy output. Science is supposed to be the impartial blend of data with theory that allows human knowledge to go wherever the evidence leads. The whistleblower at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia uncovered proof that the scientists made up some data, suppressed inconvenient data, and then destroyed some data to create their “scientific case” for man-made global warming. Serious science must be firmly grounded in moral absolutes, and those who hijack science, however, are not interested in truth. Something is seriously wrong when science is subverted to support a political agenda. President Obama’s Climate Czarina, Carol Browner, is an “environmental true-believer” who considers the science of the matter “settled” and that she would stick with the consensus of the 2,500 scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change. Climate “consensus” is the new “Big Lie” repeated so many times that we are supposed to overlook the facts and accept it without question. President Obama’s Director of Science and Technology, John Holdren, is the nation’s “Alarmist in Chief” who has been selling doom for years on overpopulation, global cooling, nuclear holocaust and global warming and his alarm level never wavers; only the vehicle changes as one disaster fad segues into a new one. This week’s refusal by the Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to even hear from climate change skeptics is the latest proof that the Obama Administration is just as complicit in the global warming scandal sparked by Climategate as the Climategate scientists themselves. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics, but this is exactly what has been done. Totally ignoring the recent disclosures on how climate researchers have trumped up global warming numbers and plotted to crush dissent, Obama will advocate a global redistribution of wealth scheme in which the United States, already $12 trillion in the hole, will send hundreds of billions to the world’s poorest countries in order to green up a planet that’s already cooling.
(“Climategate: Alarmism Is Underpinned by Fraud” by Ian Plimer dated November 25, 2009 published by Pajamas Media at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fr aud-pjm-exclusive/
“The Ghost of Lysenko” by Bruce Walker dated November 30, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.html
“Meet the White House’s Alarmist in Chief” by Peter Hannaford dated November 30, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34603
“Official Hot Air” by Ralph R. Reiland dated December 1, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/01/official-hot-air
“Cleaning Out the Climate Science Cesspool” by Paul Driessen dated December 1, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/12/01/cleaning-out-the-cl imate-science-cesspool/
“Democrats Censor Climate Skeptics in Congress” by Julian Bandes dated December 3, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/JillianBandes/2009/12/03/democrats_cens or_climate_skeptics_in_congress )
Obama is failing on his domestic agenda: Obama is failing on his foreign policy agenda; and now even his Afghanistan speech at West Point disappointed and failed to inspire or convince anyone! His speech was flat and received a cool welcome from the cadets, even after they were asked to respond “enthusiastically,” as he confusingly tried to satisfy the entire political spectrum. Obama did not take ownership of the war calling it the war in Afghanistan, not Obama’s War. He had a chance to rally the country and the world around defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but he was not up to the leadership challenge – not even close. The first 15 minutes of his speech was a straightforward explanation of his Afghanistan decision, but then for the next 20 minutes he unsuccessfully tried to sell this decision. Barack Obama only sees the trees and completely misses the forest: a lot of criticism of the Iraq policies; a lot of talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan plans; but nothing was said about Iran and its emerging nuclear weapons program or Islamic extremism exported abroad! LTG McChrystal asked for at least 40,000 troops, and 60,000 to ensure success, but President Obama dithered for three months and finally decided to authorize an additional 30,000. Obama’s focus on ramp-up followed by early exit marks his strategy as the equivalent of a “drive-by shooting,” hoping for the perception of success rather than victory, but more importantly quick political escape. The close juxtaposition of his statement to send more troops with that of a pledge to begin withdrawing them after 18 months is confusing to the American public, America’s NATO allies, and most unfortunately, to Afghans and Pakistanis, who are all too familiar with the U.S.’s history of turning its back on this volatile region. He seems fixated on corruption and fraud in the Afghanistan elections but refuses to see rampant corruption in Minnesota elections or the country-wide plague of ACORN fraud. From a policy standpoint Obama’s acceptance of the Taliban, Islamic extremists and terrorist enablers, as legitimate Afghanistan players is like embracing “reformed Nazis” after WWII. America’s perceived weakness will undermine the Afghan government, encourage many Afghans to hedge their bets by cultivating better ties with the Taliban, and undermine Pakistan’s resolve to confront the Afghan Taliban leadership that finds sanctuary within its borders. Obama made his debut as a war president in his West Point speech, but unfortunately he didn’t inspire confidence…more of a sinking feeling. The President came across as an uncertain political leader eager to split the differences within his divided Administration to implement an exit strategy, despite the likely disastrous consequences of such a plan. Like in the Wizard of Oz when you see the real Obama behind the Wizard’s curtain, you are very disappointed how weak he really is!
(“A Disappointing Speech in Support of the Right Policy” by Fred Barnes dated December 2, 2009 published by The weekly Standard at http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/12/barnes_a_disappoin ting_speech.asp
“Setting up our military to fail” by Ralph Peters dated December 2, 2009 published by New York Post at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/setting_up_our_mil itary_to_fail_lBlTIHm69SM02Lly5JbNaO
“A sinking feeling” by Rich Lowry dated December 2, 2009 published by New York Post at http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/sinking_feeling_5V sYwGy1IQKZggFcay5NtM
“Searching in Vain for the Obama Magic” by Gabor Steinart dated December 2, 2009 published by Speigel Magazine at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,664753,00.html
“President Obama’s Afghanistan Speech: An Uncertain Message” by Lisa Curtis and James Phillips dated December 2, 2009 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/wm2713.cfm )
Several Republican National Committee (RNC) members have proposed a conservative litmus test for candidates who wish to receive support from the RNC. The Republican rank and file is largely in sync with GOP lawmakers in their staunch opposition to efforts by President Obama and Democrats to enact major health-care legislation, but a new Washington Post poll also reveals deep dissatisfaction among GOP voters with the party’s leadership as well as ideological and generational differences that may prove big obstacles to the party’s plans for reclaiming power. Fewer than half of the Republicans and Republican-leaners see the party’s leadership as taking the GOP in the “right direction,” down sharply from this time four years ago. About four in 10 are dissatisfied with the policy proposals being offered by congressional Republicans, and similar numbers see the current crop of GOP legislators as out of touch with their problems and personal values. Nearly a third say the Republicans in Congress are not standing up for the party’s core values. Conservatives have lost trust in the Republican Party, with government spending, deficits, and ultimately bailouts at the end of the Bush administration. Citing the upstate New York special election last month where the moderate-liberal GOP nominee, faced with a surging Conservative Party challenger, dropped out of the race and endorsed the Democrat who ultimately won. That loss in a historically Republican-held seat has moved some Republicans to demand candidates who are more committed to core conservative principles. But the effort has also exposed lingering divisions between those who think the path to victory can be found in hewing to the bedrock ideals the party strayed from in recent years and those who believe tolerating some apostasy is a prerequisite to reclaiming the majority. Conservative have proposed a litmus test called “Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” and the ten points stem from ten principles they think Reagan adhered to while in office. Here are the ten Reagan’s Unity Principles:
· We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
· We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
· We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and,
· We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
· We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation; (4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
· We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;
· We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
· We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
· We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
The “8 of 10” litmus test comes from Reagan’s stated principle that if someone agrees with you eighty percent of the time, then they needed to be considered a friend. Throughout the year, some “tea party” protesters and others at congressional town hall meetings have expressed grievances with the leaders of both parties. A conservative litmus test to gauge conformity to core principles may be key to unify the GOP behind a resurrected unified conservative platform for victory in 2010 and 2012.
(“Will a Litmus Test Save the GOP?” by Jillian Bandes dated November 26, 2009 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/JillianBandes/2009/11/26/will_a_litmus_ test_save_the_gop
“A party both united and divided” by Jon Cohen and Dan Balz dated November 30, 2009 published by The Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009 112902935.html
“GOP establishment scorns purity test” by Jonathan Martiin dated December 1, 2009 published by Politico at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30028.html )
Sarah Palin has taken the country by storm, electrifying the grassroots conservative movement in a way no Republican presidential or vice-presidential candidate has been able to in a very long time. The persistence and even growth of Palin’s popularity and impact on the national discussion now makes unavoidable the reality of the elitists’ worst fear: that there are more of us than there are of them and they now realize it. Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin were raised with similar values, attended similar schools, had similar competitive interests, and embarked on authentic, gradual segues into public service, with an undeniable connection to conservative Americans. Americans are finding it hard to escape the reality that her life is a compelling and real advocacy of conservatism as a powerful life philosophy and life trumps politics. Once the casual voter has related to Palin’s life philosophy as something that is true, practical and worth adopting, they are dead to liberalism forever. While people who live a conservative base type life have always outnumbered the elites, the last public figure who evidenced it simply by existing was Ronald Reagan. Many of the attacks on Palin today are the same attacks Reagan endured decades ago and they are coming from the same quarters. Palin and Reagan are similar in that they both can use a few simple words and communicate more truth to average Americans than the media elites can with rambling professorial or lawyer speak. Brevity is the soul of wit and does not require a teleprompter. Many Americans understood the genius in that so-called off-handed comment instantly. Palin’s easy natural appeal shatters that delusion. Like Reagan, Palin seems to arrive at her beliefs with too much foundation to ever rattle which gives power to her spoken and written words that other Americans can sense. Yes, there are more of us than there are of them and Sarah Palin has reminded us, and them, of that fact and it drives them bananas.
(“Hating Sarah” by C. Edmund Wright dated November 29, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/hating_sarah.html
“Sarah Palin’s Reagan Qualities” by Steve Flesher dated December 3, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/sarah_palins_reagan_qualities.h tml )
What conservatives must do is to develop a political strategy that will give conservatives a decisive edge in battle that will neutralize the class, race and gender warfare attacks of the political left. Conservatives oppose the programs of the left as obstacles to the production of wealth and barriers to opportunity for all Americans. Here are the principles of political war that the left understands but conservatives do not:
· Politics is war conducted by other means – In political warfare you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy’s fighting ability and you have only 30 seconds to make your point.
· Politics is a war of position – In war there are two sides: friends and enemies and the task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency compatible with your principles as possible, while defining your opponent as their enemy wherever and whenever you can.
· In political wars the aggressor usually prevails – Aggression is advantageous because politics is a war of position and position is defined by images that stick, so by striking first you can define the issues and your adversary.
· Position is defined by fear and hope – The twin emotions of politics are fear and hope and those who provide people with hope become their friends; those who inspire fear become enemies.
· The weapons of politics are symbols evoking fear and hope – You have to convince people you care about them before they’ll care about what you have to say. When you do get to speak, don’t forget that a sound-bite is all you have. Whatever you have to say, make sure to say it loud and clear. Keep it simple and keep it short. Therefore it is absolutely essential to focus your message and repeat it over and over again. Symbols and sound-bites determine the vote.
· Victory lies on the side of the people – You must define yourself in ways that people understand. You must give people hope in your victory, and make them fear the victory of your opponent. We also have to make our campaigns a cause.
In a democracy, the cause that fires up passions is the cause of the people and that is why politicians like to run “against Washington” and against anything that represents the “powers that be.” Conservatives believe in economic opportunity and individual freedom and the core of these ideas are freedom and justice for all. When conservatism can be made intelligible to the American electorate, the GOP will become the majority again and stop the socialist juggernaut that threatens our American future.
(“The Art of Political War for Tea Parties” by David Horowitz dated November 26, 2009 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2009/11/26/the-art-of-political-war-for-tea-pa rties-by-david-horowitz/ )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include:
· Bibliography at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/welcome/bibliography.php
· Philosophy at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/philosophy.php
· Language at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/intro/changinglanguage.php
· Abortion at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/abortion.php
· Elections at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/elections.php
· Employment at http://returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/employment.php
David Coughlin
Hawthorne, NY
www.returntocommonsensesite.com
Facebook comments: