Tips for Conservatives trying to debate Big Government GOPers

Don't wrestle with pigs; you get dirty and they like it.

Another Reason Why McCain will not be Presidnet and is an a-s

[Speaking to the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, McCain took] questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.

"I'll take it!" one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

How can this assertion of his possibly be right? Fifty dollars an hour is $100,000 per year. I suspect the lettuce-picking season is shorter than a year, but it's still $50,000 per six months, assuming a 40 hour/week pace. It's possible that no-one in that particular crowd would think this is a good deal; among other things, they already had jobs that likely pay pretty well, and perhaps most of them were older and not terribly fit (McCain saw the crowd and I didn't). But surely there must be some substantial number of current American citizens who would be quite willing to engage even in highly strenuous physical labor for an annualized wage of $100,000 per year, no? Even if 99% of all Americans would be unwilling or unable to do the job, the remaining 1% should be plenty to fill those hypothetical jobs.

Now perhaps Sen. McCain should have just chosen a lower number; maybe his claim would have been plausible at that number, though I'm not sure. But it seems odd that he would choose a number that is so clearly out of place for his argument — that he would seemingly deliberately engage in such pretty patent overstatement.

Update: The "jobs Americans won't do" meme is shocking in many ways. It's false, bad economics, and (I think) racist. What's even more surprising is the way the use of the term breaks through party lines. You have Bush, McCain, and Moran throwing it around, while you have others arguing fiercely against it and the ideas that underlie it. There's something different going on here than normal party politics. I hope it shakes the parties up and realigns them to some extent.

Question

Why do liberals hate black and gay Republicans so much? I just don't get it. If conservatives did half the things to blacks and gays that liberals do to them they would be in jail. Who throws Oreo cookies at people? I mean come on to take a politicial debate to such level is beyond sad ... its sick. I liked what one gay publication had to say about this issue:

If we could figure out a way to convert the hostility of the gay left against the Republicans in their midst into electricity, we could keep ANWR the barren wasteland that it is. The fact is, it is hard for a gay Republican to get into an argument with a Democrat and not feel better about ourselves. When you are interested in dialog and common ground, but the opposition is reduced to little more than invective and marginalization, you can't help but think that there must be at least a little validity to your positions.

I for one could care less if your gay or black, just as long as your not whacked. Ha! I could be a rapper.

Republicans: Prepare for a beat down in 2006

Just another reason why the Republicans are in for a bad election year in 2006. In its next issue, Time magazine will name Ohio Republican Bob Taft as the nation's worse governor. As one person says about Taft's place on the nation's worse governer's list: “I think that’s completely accurate. I mean the guy is an idiot. I just think about the things that he’s done for the state of Ohio. He’s made some poor decisions about what’s going on with the coin scandal.”

What is with politicans getting into a powerful position and then just being corrupt assholes? Ok, I know not all of them are, but I can think of dozens of scandals off the top of my head so its not that uncommon. At any rate, Ohio is a swing state and will probably see a huge Republican turnover. Nation wide the Republican party doesn't look any better. Libby, Frist, and DeLay help aid the perception (either warrented or not) that the Republican party is bankrupt. Either locally or nationally, corruption is never a good platform to campaign on.

Its ok if blacks use racial hate

As long as the black person is a conservative liberals thinks its ok to throw Oreo cookies at him and call him Uncle Tom (and much much worse). One liberal black Democrat said the reason they can be so hateful to one black Republican, Michael Steele, is that "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Oh, well then thats ok. How about I say the same thing to blacks because the NAACP isn't in the best interest of white people. That is the dumbest shit I have heard. Black liberals need to get their heads out of their asses. And another thing: I can see Democratic policies have really helped out black people. Way to go you liberals. I guess breeding a culture of dependence in the black community is what you call progress. How can you comdemn Republicans when you don't even give them a chance? Just turn around and bendover and take it like the bitch of the Democratic party that you are (and I am talking about black people if you don't get that).

Really can anything be more offensive than saying conservative policies are against black people? Where do you people get off? Blacks are last in almost everything and you still want to take leftovers from the Democratic table. Either your really smart and I don't get it or really stupid. I hope its the former but I don't think so.

Did you know?

Arnold Schwarzenegger is one of two governors who have appeared as contestants on the Dating Game. The other is Jennifer Granholm of Michigan.

Log Cabin Republicans

As a self profess libertarian I gladly support any organization that is for limited government and personal responsibility. That is why I would like to highlight the Log Cabin Republicans. I truly wish they were in the main stream of the Republican party, but President Bush isn't knocking on my door to take my advice. The Christian Right will turn the Republican party into the party of big government if we don't look out. And where will that get us? Well, we will have two parties that think the federal government can do everything! Then I'll have to move to ... grrr ... Mexico? Ha! Anyhow, here is the goals of the Log Cabin Republicans and I must say they should be made part of the Republican platform:

"We are loyal Republicans. We believe in low taxes, limited government, strong defense, free markets, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin represents an important part of the American family-taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty, freedom, and equality. Log Cabin stands up against those who preach hatred and intolerance. We stand up for the idea that all Americans deserve to be treated equal-regardless of their sexual orientation."

Karl Rove: Abuse of Power?

Ok, lets come out and say it. The Bush administration has its problems. One of them shouldn't be this scandal involving Joseph Wilson and Karl Rove. Well, really its about Rove and Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, but thats a minor point at the moment.

What we have here is a known liar making a false report about what he found in his 2002 mission to investigate claims that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger and also misleading everyone into thinking his wife had not RECOMMENDED him for that position. Mr. Wilson is a joke and a corrupt State Department official who thought he could bring down a presidency. If he hadn't lied to so many people, then there would have been no reason for the Senate Intelligence Committee to waste time correcting the misimpressions he created and the lies he told. In addition to the so called ousting of his wife, which is kind of hard since it has been reported that it was widely known that she worked for the CIA (another point how can this "undercover" agent be in danger if she works a desk job at Langley?).

In looking at Mr. Rove's role, the much talked about Time Magazine Cooper email reveals the context of Mr. Rove’s disclosure that Mr. Wilson hiring was urged on by his wife. The context strongly suggests that Mr. Rove's comments about Mr. Wilson's wife was not retaliation, but rather it was part of a discussion trying to correct any misimpressions of how Mr. Wilson was hired for the Niger mission. According to the Cooper email, Rove discussed whether the Director of the CIA or Vice President Cheney had authorized the trip.

Now, did he break any laws? To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act , Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Mr. Wilson's wife knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he had obtained in an official capacity. From the Cooper email, it appears Mr. Rove did not even know Mr. Wilson's wife name and had only heard about her from newspaper reporters. So it appears that his "contact" came from a secondhand source. At any rate, legally Mr. Rove most likely cannot be prosecuted under the 1982 Act. But this doens't even get into whether he lied to the White House or just did not tell them anything.

Returning to Mr. Wilson, at this point it would be good to ask him whether he thought that by lying about what he found in Niger and what he told the CIA and how he was selected, he was gambling with his wife’s safety. How could he be sure that people would know that his wife was a covert agent, or that there was a law against revealing her identity? Perhaps someone might have reasonably believed that they were correcting misimpressions that Mr. Wilson himself had created. Did Mr. Wilson realize that he had put the Administration in something analogous to a Catch-22?: Mr. Wilson can lie about how he was hired but the Administration cannot correct his lie without outing his wife. Did Mr. Wilson consciously decide to gamble with his wife’s safety by lying in a way that would be hard for the Administration to correct?

Santorum under attack from Kennedy

Republican Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania has come under fire from Democratic Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. The attack was made as a result of a three year old column the Pennsylvania Republican wrote stating that the liberal culture had played a part in the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Santorum explained in his column:

"Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Senator Kennedy wants Santorum to apologize for these remarks.

I for one think Kennedy should apologize for being weak against the Soviet Union in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but that is neither here nor there. Although I am for allowing personal freedom on many issues, the individual is still obligated to show restraint in his/her actions. One simply cannot run naked in a shopping mail yelling, "I am Hilter" and think you can get away with it. That action effects others. I believe that Santorum was touching on a matter that is politically heated. Both conservatives and liberals have battled in the ongoing cultural war well before Roe v. Wade.

The question is where do personal freedoms stop and community concerns start? It is not easy to answer. Taking parenting at its most basic level, the action in raising a child is very "conservative." A parent must limit a child's personal freedom. Although I am pained to admit this, years ago society aided parents in raising their children. At some point the rise of personal freedoms failed society. Now this might seem strange coming from a professed believer in "Free Minds and Free Markets," but for those who are libertarian in outlook will agree with free thinking comes a personal responsibility in the actions there upon made.

Like most libertarians, I believe in abortion rights but don't think that a little girl should be given the sole responsibility in making a life or death decision. First of all, she never should be in such a situation to choose between her future and her child's. In such a case, the parents and society failed her. I believe that Santorum was saying in the sex abuse scandal somewhere down the line society allowed such horrible actions to take place. This was not through a collective want to harm children, but through a lax sense of responsibility in the individual. Once more and more individuals decided feel no personally responsibility, society was forever weakened.

I admit that my values of personal freedom have harmed society because, as a collective unit, we are not managing that liberty of thought or action. Yet, I must profess in all modesty, personal freedom is still the best course for human interaction. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, "libertarianism is the worst form of philosophical belief, with the exception of all others."

To summarize: 1) Kennedy is a jerk, 2) Santorum needs to think before he writes, 3) there needs to be balance between personal freedom and community welfare.

"Father of Affirmative Action" died Tuesday

Arthur Fletcher, a maverick Republican who proudly laid claim to the title "the father of affirmative action" and who advised four Republican presidents, died of a heart attack on Tuesday.

Fletcher served as secretary of labor to President Richard M. Nixon; as deputy assistant for urban affairs to President Gerald Ford; was an adviser to President Ronald Reagan; and chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, from 1990 to 1993.

Although I do not support affirmative action, I believe that this man should be remembered in the ongoing debate over what the federal government should do to assist black people. With that said, I hope affirmative action policies everywhere die with the man who bore them.

Guiliani and Clinton as 2008 presidential contenders?

In a recent poll both Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were leading their respective parties in the 2008 presidential race. Neither to me is a very strong candidate. Speaking just in historical terms, no sitting senator has won the presidency since JFK in 1960. For Giuliani, can an ex-mayor really win the presidency? No past president has ever won from such a low office (the closest I can think of is William H. Harrison, who was a war hero with no political experience). Anyone with a political background had come either from the Senate (for example: B. Harrison, Harding and JFK), Vice-presidency (Adams, Van Buren, Tyler, Fillmore, Arthur, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Ford, and H. W. Bush), cabinet/minister (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Buchanan, and Hoover), or governor position (Hayes, McKinley, Clinton, and W. Bush). In recent years, its the governor position that will take one to the White House.

Knowing this am I the only one that thinks Haley Barbour and Mark Warner might be the darkhorse candidates? Both are southern governors who are moderate socially and conservative fiscally. In addition, Barbour and Warner have the added advantage of knowing that the last two presidents have been southern governors. The south is a rising political force, not only because of its increased population but also the Republican dominance and hispanic vote. It only makes sense to find a candidate (esp. for the Democrats) that is from the south. Bush already had one of the biggest states in the Union (Texas) for his presidential run in 2000. In 1980, Reagan started with the powerhouse state of California. Clinton, in 1992, had ... uhhh ... Arkansas? Well, that might be the exception that the doesn't disprove the rule. At any rate, don't count out a southern governors.

Clinton and Gingrich Agree?

Has h-ll frozen over or do I sense a presidential run in the future for these two? By coming together on health care, Clinton and Gingrich serve their political futures well by showing themselves as political moderates.

Big problem. Neither is a political moderate!!! How dumb do they think the American people are? I really hate crap like this and I wonder why I dislike politicans when they run for office.

Good Job Goode and Pastor!!

Represenatives Virgil H. Goode (R-VA) and Ed Pastor (D-AZ) came in first and second respectively for member's allowance spending. They are each spending less than 60% of their allowance. For Goode that is roughly 686,000 out of 1,182,000 and for Pastor it is 748,000 out of 1,249,000. Good job fellows!!!

Now lets see if the top spenders, Barbara Cubin (R-WY) and Corrine Brown (D-FL), can learn some money management skills from Goode and Virgil.