Notes From a Lapsed Democrat
by Burt PrelutskyI was born in 1940, which means that during my lifetime 13 men have been the president of the United States. For many of those years, I was a Democrat. As was the case with Ronald Reagan, I didn’t feel I had left the party, but that the party had gone stark raving mad and left me.
By and large, I don’t find the baker’s dozen to be overly impressive, either as leaders or as individuals. There are only three or four of them I can even imagine being friends with or wanting to have as next-door neighbors. But there are only two of them, Carter and Obama, whom I regard as unmitigated disasters. While it took Carter four years in office and 29 years out to achieve his greatly deserved recognition as an incompetent, a phony and a sanctimonious anti-Semite, Obama has pulled it off in just a few short months.
He has managed this by displaying his general incompetence by surrounding himself with clowns like Joe Biden; the seriously corrupt, such as Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle; and too many tax cheats to list in the space available.
Obama has also proven himself to be a liar of such proportions that if he had started out life like Pinocchio, his nose by this time would stretch from sea to shining sea. He has fibbed about everything from barely knowing Bill Ayers to never listening to a Jeremiah Wright screed, from banishing pork and lobbyists to providing transparency and change we can all believe in. On top of all that, while spouting the usual political piffle about economizing and saving the environment, he hosted the largest, most expensive inauguration in history, and from the way he and his posse jet around on the fuel-guzzling Air Force One, you’d think he was a rock star.
All of that would be no more or less than business as usual, Washington style, if he weren’t also working overtime to simultaneously bankrupt the country and turn America into a socialist state patterned after Castro’s Cuba.
The scariest part of all this is that so many Americans continue to root him on. Those of us who are opposed to his agenda are accused, like Rush Limbaugh, of hoping America fails. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. What we’re hoping for is that America can somehow survive this frontal assault on our freedoms, and that our economic system can remain basically intact in spite of the combined efforts of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd and Geithner, to destroy it.
When I hear people in and out of the media who should get down on their knees and thank God or at least their ancestors that they were lucky enough to be born in America, instead parrot left-wing insults about this country, I want to slap them silly. I sometimes wonder if those folks who, in the 1950s, nattered incessantly about the Communist-inspired fluoride conspiracy were right. Perhaps there was something in the water that turned so many brains to mush. I mean, why else would so many of my fellow Jews be so utterly convinced that Barack Obama is the messiah we’ve been waiting for?
For what it’s worth, now that the president has fired CEO Rick Wagoner and taken over General Motors, do you suppose it will henceforth be called Commander in Chief Motors, and that Cadillac, Buick and Chevrolet, will be re-named Michelle, Natasha and Malia Ann? Which reminds me, it’s still nothing but a rumor that Obama fired God earlier today, claiming that the universe isn’t big enough for both of them.
My old friend, Pat Sajak, who, when not busy spinning his wheels, is politically savvier and wittier than any of the talking heads you find on TV, has revised the question that plagued Richard Nixon 60 years ago to better fit GM’s new chief honcho: Would you buy a new car from this man?
Although I am not usually given to omens, I can’t help feeling it means something that the next presidential election will take place on November 6, 2012, the day before Gen. David Petraeus turns 60. I, for one, can’t think of a more appropriate birthday present for the man and the nation than giving him a well-deserved promotion.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
122 Comments
I'm beginning to be afraid that we have Petraeus for other reasons and he'll be given a promotion on a battlefield. As quickly as the Democrats are moving there may not be much America left even if we can take back Congress in two years.
I hope we still have I country then as well. That is why I feel like we have to fight to uphold our values. This is not going to be a war of arms, but one of words and ideals. That is why I loved Glenn Beck's "We Surround Them." This is our Country. Lets take control of it!
The first thing to be done about General Petraeus is that he be given the designation and rank of "General of the Army. 5 stars. This rank is reserved for war time use only, and would require an act of Congress. So let's get a campaign moving around this idea. General Petraues deserves both the distinction and the honor.
For my daughters: Hi Lucy. Hi Ellen. Daddy loves you and misses you. Say your prayers and listen to Mommy. Love, Daddy.
Quoting Glenn Beck, "Don't think it can't happen again, here in America, it can." The "it" can be anything from Revolution to Depression. We must prepare for all eventualities. We don't have to go all, Red Dawn, we however should prepare for Man made or natural disaster.
If we continue on this primrose path, within 3 years, we'll be a nation of golf carts. It will only take a week to get to work, but they'll not be too much of that anyway. I hear that Camals are good for transportation. Since Sharia Law is coming in the first place, we might as well become accustom tho their pecadilloes. Mush!
I agree with you Bill. The MSM should be the Watchdog for We the People, not the Lapdog of Government…
Eisenhower did pretty well. The Democrats kept calling him a "do nothing" President. I'd rather have a do nothing President than a "do everything" President. Leave something for us, please.
I'm sorry but Petraeus feels like a bad idea to me. I'm sick and tired of presidents with little political executive experience (ie. Obama, or in the case of governors: Schwartzeneggar). Sure Petraeus is a great general, but isn't this groundswell for him just like the same mindless popular movement that put Barry into office?
We all wonder what it's going to take to open the eyes of the sheep that are his multitude. I guess when they realize the checks not in the mail, no new houses, cars, bathrooms, free gas, they may awaken, but it's very doubtful. The dregs of society have voted and they will have to go down with their Messiah, for them to learn their lesson. We need to go after the puppet masters, Axelrod, Soros, and all the scum that stick their hands up the puppets butt and move his lips. When he is on his own then he will fail. Then the serfs can shovel all of the trash out of the white house and hang air fresheners up everywhere, to get the stench of the democrats out of the air. We can only pray, some one steps up to the plate and takes care of the problem!
I'm sorry but Petraeus feels like a bad idea to me. I'm sick and tired of presidents with little political executive experience (ie. Obama, or in the case of governors: Schwartzeneggar). Sure Petraeus is a great general, but isn't this groundswell for him just the conservative version of the mindless popular movement that put Barry into office?
Petraeus would be strong! The cluster left by the Omananation may require a decisive military mind. As an aside but related to our future as a country Newt, was reported on Politico speaking about the possibility of a third party, a conservative party, interesting huh? I know he has some baggage, but a brilliant man no one can deny, and maybe he’s seen the light. Next time someone asks him to sit on a couch with Pelosi, he’ll reconsider?
[...] via Big Hollywood » Notes From a Lapsed Democrat [...]
You have to say this with a blank stare in your eyes and in monotone – "Obama is great, Obama is great, etc." Now sing it with me!
Has Petraeus given any hint of his views on the Second Amendment, Fair Tax, school vouchers, or farm subsidies? Until he does that, I will refrain from annointing him for 2012.
Remember, a lot of conservatives, libertarians, and Republicans wanted Colin Powell to run in 1996. Powell demurred, claiming his wife's health could not stand the strain of a Presidential run. Powell was a career Army officer, registered Republican, and war hero, and seemed like a godsend for the GOP–what do libertarians and conservatives think of the Obama-endorsing Powell now?
I'll pass on blindly endorsing a military hero, regardless of his service record, until I've seen him on the hustings, articulating and defending his positions on issues that can't be defined by battlefield service, however brave that service.
I was first able to vote for a president during the Clinton/.Bush election and like a lot of young, misguided college-aged kids I voted for Clinton. I came to my senses before he was voted for the second term and have voted Republican ever since. That said, this is the first time I have really been alarmed by my government. I'm not the activist type, but I'm beginning to feel that if I don't do something, I'm giving this charlatan permission to ruin my country. I know a few other people, like myself, who are starting to hook-up with their local Republican headquarters and seeing what they can do. What's interesting to me is that I'm seeing that much urgency (and feeling it myself) only a few short months into Obama's presidency. I wouldn't be surprised if this accelerates as people realize we're not going to just bounce out of this recession. More job losses may have quite an impact on the politics of hopeandchange. [**conservative translation** politics of delusion]
I understand the taliban have made a comment about an attack on Washington D.C.? I think I will just sit and wait. Lets hope its the congress. The only thing the Democrats will understand ……..is lots of dead democrats.
There's a time and a place for third parties. This isn't it. I want Newt inside the tent pi–ing out, not outside the tent pi–ing in. Right now, conservatives need to reassert themselves and bring the RINOs along. Otherwise in four years we end up with Republicans 35%, Conservatives 20%, Democrats 45%. With a split in the Republican party, the Reagan Democrats will vote Democrat. That's an electoral college landslide for the Democrats. God love, Teddy Roosevelt, he almost single-handedly made Woodrow Wilson President.
No political experience? You don't become a 4 star general by playing nice.
There's a time and a place for third parties. This isn't it. I want Newt inside the tent pi–ing out, not outside the tent pi–ing in. Right now, conservatives need to reassert themselves and bring the RINOs along. Otherwise in four years we end up with Republicans 35%, Conservatives 20%, Democrats 45%. With a split in the Republican party, the Reagan Democrats will vote Democrat. That's an electoral college landslide for the Democrats. God love Teddy Roosevelt, he almost single-handedly made Woodrow Wilson President.
Petraeus has said time and time again he will not run for office in 2012. Besides…it is pretty obvious based on his ideas about counterinsurgency vs hard power and his disagreement with how/why the Bush administration started the Iraq War (if you read various books on the Iraq War, you'll know this….try Fiasco by Thomas Ricks), that he is quite moderate and a bit left of center…I don't know why people insist that he's a conservative Republican…
I agree Law. Add to that – Perot single handedly handed it to Clinton in 1992 the same way. I learned my lesson about what happens when I vote for a 3rd Party candidate.
I kinda shut that one out of my mind. It was the last time (shudder) that I voted for a Democrat. And that's why I want Newt inside the tent. He was a major factor in getting me into the Republican Party (along with Hillarycare, of course).
It's a good question that we will definitely need answered, even if Patraeus is interested. As for Powell, he was a go-along to get-along political general who stomped on Stormin' Norman's plan to win a clear victory in the first war in Iraq. I never had any respect for him after that.
Exactly, Ramble.. i remember a lot of people on the Powell bandwagon… and I coudln't understand why? Because he was a military leader.. and…. ??? That was all he had going for him as a candidate (IMO), so I didn't get the rush to get him in as a Republican candidate.
AT least you came to your senses young. I voted for my first Democrat in 1964, and even though I voted for Nixon once and Reagan twice, I had no intention of switching parties until Clinton screwed the pooch after his first election. So you and I became Republicans at about the same time. I voted for Nixon because Jellyfish George McGovern was a weak sister, and Reagan because Carter was the weaker sister and Mondale wasn't much better. I saw Clinton as the best hope for a return to moderation in the Democrat Party, and within weeks he was talking Hillarycare. Burn me once, shame on you. You know the rest.
Generals may make bad Presidents, but Community Organizer REALLY sucks at it. Barry may have the MSM Matrix behind him, but all these tea parties show that the Matrix can be overcome.
Eisenhower did pretty well in my book too.
It's more than a little ironic when a leftist tells you that Bill Ayers is a 'lapsed' terrorist who has nothing to do with his neighbors, the Obamas. Would that he had nothing to do with the American education system.
In fact, Burt, the problem is not in the drinking water, it's in academia.
Ayers and his sort have succeeded in polluting young minds beyond their wildest imaginations, damn them all.
Oh I agree a 3rd party is not the best idea. I believe however it could help the Republican party to refocus on conservatism. Newt’s a bright guy and realizes the entrenched forces in Washington perhaps just the threat will help the party get right and stay there.
I have to fess up my wife and I voted for Perot, sorry!
I agree again, all a third party would do at this point is guarantee a Democrat victory in 2012 by diluting the vote on the right. Third parties may be a good idea in theory, but the times you really would need one, they're too weak to be anything more than a wasted vote really.
Now if someone formed one that promised to not run for any position higher than Congress for 12-16 years to allow them to penetrate that body before "going for the brass ring" so people could get used to their platform and seeing them around, that could work in theory, but restraint in politics is an oxymoron.
For the foreseeable future then, our best bet is just to take the Republican party back instead of allowing it to be Democrat-Lite to pander to the mystical "middle." The moderates will come along if we have good policies and stick to principle, they won't if we look like nothing more than an "uncool" version of the Democrats.
Err, GospelJohn, the Founders wanted people with little or no political experience to work in government for a few years then go back to their lives. Now, we have a political class that have no other lives outside of government. The Founders were right. We need real people with life experience–who've run businesses for example–making and enforcing the laws that affect the citizenry.
Instead, we now have a ruling elite headed by the Teleprompter in Chief.
Bert is spot on, I'm so glad some people have the dedication to speak up.
Don't feel bad, I almost did too. But the thought of having to listen to that voice for four years was more than I could bear. It might even have been grounds for impeachment,or for me, suicide.
It's okay. I did too.
The moderates will come along with us if we tell them we're going to kick their asses out into the snow. You can't out-Democrat a Democrat (as McCain found out to his sorrow), and the RINOs are welcome as Democrats so long as they don't actually become Democrats. So it's the snow, or nothing for RINOs. RINOs don't understand principle or they wouldn't be RINOs. And their policies are warmed-over statism. What they do understand is a conservative with principles and a steel-tipped boot. Right now, the Republican Party's biggest problem is a lack of party discipline. The Democrats practice what we know. Get your troops in order, figure out your strategy, toss your ideas around, then pull together on the offensive at election time. Never let the enemy stake out the high ground ahead of you. And never forget the Eleventh Commandment.
Indeed, the Founders would be aghast at the notion that "national politician" was an accepted career path, and downright horrified if they found out that nowadays there are people in Congress and the White House who never had any other job in their life aside from running for the next office up the ladder.
I hope Newt is able to resist the siren call of the Presidency. He is an organizer and policy setter almost without peer. I'm afraid he'll try to become THE leader instead of A leader, and his job should be as a fighting general, not as the Commander-In-Chief. Sort of like Patton and Eisenhower.
Bill Richardson was too corrupt for the Obama cabinet, but he's not too corrupt to retain his governorship of New Mexico. It seems that New Mexico is not much of a step up from old Mexico.
True, true. The problem as I see it is they really don't believe that we'll kick their asses out into the snow, because they're still under the delusion that if we would have just gone about 2 feet more left, oops I mean "to the middle" then we would have won the election. Moreover they think they have the power to shift the party, not the conservatives.
They just don't get it. We don't need to reach out to "the middle" to win, we need to start acting like freakin' Republicans again.
by diluting the vote on the right. ..
Heck, Golani you're using my argument for 3rd parties…. the Republican party has already done enough of a job diluting itself without any 3rd party help.. (I think the Libertarian party got 2% of the national vote and the Constituion party got less than 1%?)… so that 3% is enough to dilute the GOP? If 3% made that much of a difference, then i could see the argument about re-attracting the Libs/moderates/etc… but it's a lot more than 3 % differential (IMO) at the moment.
John Hawkins (one of my fave right-side bloggers) fell into this same trap, as he said that the RNC shouldn't be calling out the Republicans who voted for the porkalooza fests… yet that's part of what diluted the party to start with!)
And if they show no signs of repair in the near future.. then do we wait again in '12 for a NEW RNC chairman who now has to unify an even more dilluted party? The more diluted it gets the harder it will be to put it back together.
Bert? Did you sleep through the Bush Administration? Were you drunk for eight years? You lost all credibility when you made no comment about the unmitigated disaster that was the failed Bush Administration. He gave us the Blunder in Iraq, he lost bin laden, he screwed the pooch in Afghanistan, he turned the booming Clinton Economy into the Crashed Herbert Hoover Economy, the Big Three are failing, the oil companies raped the American consumer on his watch — Bert, Bert, Bert, you blithering idiot!! Never have so few done so much damage to so many Americans as has done the George W(orst president in American History) Bush Administratio!!!!!!!!.
And, less than 3 months into his administration, you pronounce the Obama Administration failed — you're like a kid in the back seat – daddy just started the car, hasn't left the driveway yet and you're whining 'are we there yet?'
I understand what you're saying, and agree with much of it. I felt near despair as I watched my top choices for the presidential nomination get pushed into the dust with McCain ending up on top. But it wasn't principle or policy that did them in. It was a failure of heart, and the lack of a wrenching will to win because you know your principles and policies are right. A failure to reach out to the whole party and preempt other challengers.
How many people were actually enthused about McCain's candidacy, outside of his own family? Yet Thompson and Giuliani and Romney carefully held back, playing solely on their main strengths without realizing they were losing delegates with their wait-and-see tactics. Meanwhile, McCain soldiered on, comfortable in the fact that the Party would use the Dole reasoning, "they'll nominate me because it's my turn." Somebody needs to jump the line.
We need to get out in front, set the agenda, energize the base, and take the reins. The RINOs will follow like the big dumb beasts they are. And always the eternal question, "Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?"
No Bev we should have our asses kicked, figuratively of coarse. Right on Hawk with Reagan’s 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." The right eats their young and holds our represenatives responsible. The left see’s a politician as a pay raise, not good!
When it come to turning "brains to mush", who needs fluoride when we already have the NEA?
An exposed enemy is a defeatable enemy.
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
- Sun Tzu
I wasn't really clear when I said "moderates" in my initial post I should have said, the "moderate undecided voters" that the media, and some in the party, seem to be obsessing on to be more specific. Most people in the US just don't pay attention to politics at all until a couple of weeks before an election, so their party affiliation really doesn't mean a whole lot to them, so they'll vote for whomever has the better policies in their opinion at that time. If the Republicans and Democrats look to have the same basic position they'll vote for the guy with the perceived charisma and/or the better buzz.
The problem comes where the party tries to move the message closer to the Democrats on some issues, to try to snap up those people. It usually doesn't work because of a whole variety of issues. My belief is that if you stick to principal and offer a -clear- choice it'll make people think more, so presenting that is a better way to get more of the squishy generally non-political voters to vote for you than muddling the message up to the point where the parties are looking the same on 85% of all of the issues. Present them with a clear choice instead of a kinda-sorta choice. Some of those generally non-political people will be turned off, but you'll get more people off the sofa that may not have voted at all if you can clearly state your platform and how it differs from the Democrat one by more than 15%.
As an OLDER person my following of Presidential politics goes back to JFK. The last Democrat that I voted for was McGovern and have not regretted a single vote. As one who is represented by the likes of Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein I believe that changing those seats is a lost cause.
I believe that the greatest laugh during last years campaign occured when Jimmy Carter stated that W was the worst President. Well Jimmy, you have that title firmly locked up tight.
One thing that fascinates me about politics – how we can get the biggest "changes" from – at the time – seemingly minor events.
Think about BO – he gets in because his people slimed Jeri Ryan's ex husband – maybe he was a sleeze with the sex parties – but when the Republicans ask Mike Ditka to take his place, Ditka wasn't interested and Obama slides in.
If Ditka had run we most likely wouldn't have had Obama as President since Ditka would have won the Illinois Senate seat.
And a lot can occur in the political landscape in the next 4 years. Maybe Petreaus will run.
And I agree with you guys that some generals have made good Presidents. Growing up in the 1950s (I am 58) I remember 2 things – how terrified we were of the Soviets and how Ike was like a benevolent grandpa who always seemed to steer the country right.
US Grant seemed to be OK despite the scandal in his administration. Andrew Jackson? We have certainly had worse Presidents than former generals.
So, it's the NEA that's responsible for so many mush brained Republicans – that's the only excuse those people could have.
Good One!
Then I'm sure you won't have any problem supporting him in the next election, right?
So, here we have another Republican who, so as to make political points, hopes for dead Americans at the hands of terrorists. Typical.
I agree with you on McCain basically getting the nomination because he hung around long enough more than anything. I'd further bet that the only reason he did as well as he did in the general election was because of Palin energizing the base. Think about how the media was rooting for Obama, the credit crash, the first bailout, those compounded what historically should have already been a "Democrat year" and Obama won with 53% of the vote. My belief is that if it weren't for Palin the margin would have been on a truly landslide scale.
Does that mean I think she should be a lock for the nomination in 2012? Of course I don't, I want to see what sort of candidates we have in the primary across the board before I make that call, but I do think that someone like her needs to come to the front, if she could charge the base enough to make McCain viable in a year when the Democrats held -all- the cards, then someone who can fire up the base in 2012 will have a damn good shot at winning. Especially if Obama continues to break promises and make more mistakes. I just hope that the scale of his mistakes at that point doesn't lull us into thinking it's a "Republican year" and put up some squishy principled candidate. They may still win, but it won't help the party continue to win which I think has to happen by shifting back to base conservatism overall.
Newt's gonna be at the NYC Tax Day Tea Party! I will let him know…
Hey, I've been doing my penance for it every since. Every time someone rages about Clinton, I tell them it's my fault he was elected. I voted for Perot. Trust me. I learned my lesson.
Got kids Bill? Are they in a public school? If they aren't, your a hypocrite. If they are, your an idiot. Just ask the Magic Negro.
Say hi for me (even though he wouldn't have a clue who I am). Then go by and wave at my old student digs at E.52nd between 3rd and Lex. I spent a great year in your city while I was working on my MA at NYU.
Got kids Bill? Are they in a public school? If they aren't, your a hypocrite. If they are, your an idiot. Just ask your "magic" hero, BO.
I don't think we'll make the mistake of counting on a "Republican year." Even with hard work, it'll be close. Remember that the liberal answer to failed socialist policies is more socialism, and the sheep just bleat and go along with it. That's why I think that aggressive conservatism is the answer to Republican lethargy. The RINOs are saying "yes, but not so fast" in their response to the Democrat power grab. Conservatives are saying "no way in hell." Nobody's listening to the RINOs, but they're starting to listen to the conservatives even though it's not music to their ears.
The TEA Parties are a good example of grassroots conservative rebellion, and a good portion of the protestors aren't even Republicans or conservatives. Good conservative policy is to say "See, we've been saying this all along, now come join us and we'll turn this mess around. But we need your help. We recruit while the RINOs shake their heads in disbelief. Or something like that.
I think I would rather have Ulysses S. Grant as a president to be honest.
I hear they like horses in Saudi Arabia.
I hope the RNC doesn't become complacent and think that a win is a lock either.
What happens in the 2010 elections will have a lot to do with the perceptions "up top" too as things play out for 2012. Since I think the Tea Parties will have a lot to do with not only the results of the mid-term elections but what sort of people with (R) behind their names get in when/if a seat flips.
As I said before one time, at least Grant's scandals had cool names like Teapot Dome instead of random collections of letters for banks, companies, and legislative euphemisms.
Bill, Frist was Patraeus surgeon after a disasterous HALO parachute accident. He was previously shot in a training range accident. He does not discuss his politics but it is doubtful he is a conservatve in economic or social issues. He has repeatedly said as to politics 1st; "…Sherman had it right…", which in the military is understood to mean he would sooner be a prostitute in a cheap New Orleans bordello. 2nd, he estimates he will be in surgical work/rehab for maybe 2 years after he retires. He would be considered disabled from his parachute and shooting complications, but chooses to serve the oath he took at West Point. 3rd, he actually had that choice when he was in hig school and could have gone to Yale or Columbia, and chose West Point.
Yeah, and at least Grant did something useful for the US, even if it was not during his presidency.
We need to pick our canidate this time not the Media and Eastern Liberal repubs. The RNC better get the nominating process straightened out. The Eastern states implimented winner take alll primarys to help Gulliani. We cant have that next time and we need closed primaries. Democrats can vote in their own primaries.
Bill is that any different than a Politcal Party and media cheering for our defeat in Iraq?
I have to correct your history. Teapot Dome Scandal was during Harding's administration. Yessiree, I knew I could put that public school ejumacation to work sometime…
Bill
In 2007 Unemployment was 4.6% gas was about 1.89 a gal the stock market was approaching 14.000. Lets see what happened? Who took control of Washington that January? I forget can you refresh my memory?
The RNC is infested with RINOs, so we're going to have to work on that one. So far, the chairman has been a disappointment. I wouldn't say it's complacent, just disarrayed.
I'm an eternal optimist, so I'm not being negative when I say it's going to take awhile to seen the groundswell translate into major vote shifts. Any seat that comes open in the next six months or so will probably stay with the party holding it. But before too long thereafter, the results of the Obama socialization of America, along with his broken promises on taxes and an ongoing failure in foreign policy emboldening our enemies will begin to show as we come up on the 2010 mid-terms.
Yep. Winner-take-all primaries are not the worst thing on earth, but what idiot came up with this idea of open primaries? Beside providing a huge opportunity for negative voting, it skews the whole process. We've evolved into a longterm two-party system that has served us very well most of the time. So what's the point of open primaries if not to wreak havoc with the candidates of the opposition? As you've said, closed primaries are absolutely essential to fair elections.
And you couldn't be more right about picking our own candidates. As I mentioned earlier, the mechanics are only part of the problem. Timing is the rest. I want good candidates to declare early, loudly, and in defiance of received wisdom. We need a candidate to tell us right up front that he or she knows how to wield a veto pen, and will do so with great glee. We need a candidate who has a sound economic vision, and wants to promote it, not defend it. We need a vigorous can-do guy or gal, who won't fold the first time the liberals trot out Obama's alleged genius and phony credentials. And since the Democrats already have their candidate for the next general election, we need a candidate who EARLY declares his opposition to Obama socialism, and can articulate it clearly and boldly. Bipartisanship is Demo-speak for Republican surrender. What's the point of two parties if they don't oppose each other?
That would be fine IF we had the kind of government that the founding fathers had. Our modern system is far more complicated than that. We do need the "life long politician" unfortunately… I mean, can a person just thrown in the job be up for studying a 1400 page stimulus bill…
Well, not like life long politicians read that either….
I like to look at Schwartzeneggar's impotent administration as an example of what happens when you throw an "outsider" into the lions den. We feel real good for about 10 months and nothing happens because the outsider can't get anything done.
I want a president that knows the government inside and out… someone who can say, "oh yeah, I know that senator, let me call him and have him work out a deal with my other senator friend." Some one like John McCain, but that boat has set sail already (and struck an iceberg).
Where to start? First, had we citizen politicians instead of an elite class, we wouldn't have 1400 page bills and be better for it. Second, you accept a governing class, you might as well slap on chains.
Also, anyone wishing a life of politics on a military hero should read Shakespeare's "Coreolanus". As much as I want an honorable, intelligent, strong CinC for this Nation I also wish our nation's finest Military heroes a retirement of peace not one fraught with the nastiness of politics.
I don't accept a "governing class" like some surf to the a king – but I accept the concept of "professional governing"… First of all, there's nothing preventing you or me from running for a political office – or working to get inside that political machine so it's not "slavery" in that sense. I used to work for a non-profit group as a video editor and I saw plenty of go getters just itching to get inside that machine.
And secondly, I've had to sit through a lot of city councils/state legislation meetings. There's no bones about it, the stuff is dry, mind numbingly dull, and dense even if you were a policy wonk. The amount of legislation that an average representative must go through makes that 1400 page bill look like light reading. It's a full time job requiring a professional staff and experience and it doesn't bother me having individuals dedicate and serve a good part of their lives in governance.
HOWEVER – what's become unacceptable is these gerrymandered districts where the same idiot gets elected every single time regardless of their performance. How is it possible where the Congress have a 17% approval rating and just a handful of seats turn every election?
I don't accept a "governing class" like some surf to the a king – but I accept the concept of "professional governing"… First of all, there's nothing preventing you or me from running for a political office – or working to get inside that political machine so it's not "slavery" in that sense. I used to work for a non-profit group as a video editor and I saw plenty of go getters just itching to get inside that machine.
And secondly, I've had to sit through a lot of city councils/state legislation meetings. There's no bones about it, the stuff is dry, mind numbingly dull, and dense even if you were a policy wonk. The amount of legislation that an average representative must go through makes that 1400 page bill look like light reading. It's a full time job requiring a professional staff and experience and it doesn't bother me having individuals dedicate and serve a good part of their lives in governance.
HOWEVER – what's become unacceptable is these gerrymandered districts where the same idiot gets elected every single time regardless of their performance. How is it possible where the Congress have a 17% approval rating and just a handful of seats turn every election?
Loved Sajak's quote. Has Petraeus even mentioned any political aspirations? Some say that Generals make bad Presidents – having been used to seeing orders followed but I think after 4 years of Obama we won't care. Did any of you ever hear the story of Petraeus and Bill Frist? The General was accidentally shot with an M16 on an Army shooting range – nearly died – and Bill Frist was the Dr at the ER who saved him. Makes me wonder about fate.
I think what scares me even worse than Obama is to see the nature of PR with the media – how they fawn over BO while crucifying Bush for doing the same things (or less) As someone mentioned on BH the media is like the matrix!
Congressman Paul Ryan, WI, Governor Mark Stanford SC, Governor Bobby Jindal, LA, are three up and coming conservatives who can salvage and grow the conservative movement in the republican party.
President Eisenhower gave the country the interstate system after seeing Germany’s Autobahn. At the time it was the largest public works project ever. Of course it was a different world in which enemies wore uniforms, belonged to national armies, and made stupid speeches.
He also gave us a heads up on the military/industrial complex.
In the foreign affairs arena he was pretty much all talk and no-go. Eisenhower had a reputation of getting people to work well together, but he did little to thwart the communist threat. Gives one pause about quickly picking a military hero. Eisenhower ran Columbia University and headed up NATO. Maybe that’s why the French left NATO.
The largest voting block in America is nubile women aged 18 to 44. They will vote for the best looking man. That is why Obama won and that is why O.J. Simpson was acquitted for chopping off his wife's head. The party that ignores this block and the kind of candidate it votes for, will lose.
It's a good question that we will definitely need answered, if Patraeus is even interested. As for Powell, he was a go-along to get-along political general who stomped on Stormin' Norman's plan to win a clear victory in the first war in Iraq. I never had any respect for him after that.
The Grant admin. was tainted by a bit of scandal, but his term in office requires a close examination of what really went on. Much like the admins. of Ford and Bush the HW, which handled some dicey problems quite deftly and w/o a lot of fanfare and self-serving crowing, Grant handled problems of great consequence very well. And Washington, Grant and Eisenhower all held the Rank of "General of the Army". And yes I know that this particular rank has been in and out of use by the Army throught our history.
A man of honor and patriot, as Gen. Petraeus surely is, would, I believe serve our nation a President if called to do so. After much reading about Gen. Sherman (my #1 favorite US General) I believe he also would have come to the service of the country he loved so dearly. Despite his protestaions and denials. As to Gen. Petraeus' politics, whatever they may be, he would surely be a leader, and one who truly knows what the Constituion means, and what it stands for. As opposed to Gen. Powell, who always seemed more politician than military man. And who, by his post-military actions, has shown himself to be not very honorable at all.
Looking across the Republican/conservative landscape, I don't see a single man or woman whose actions make we want to vote for him/her. Condaleeza Rice may be the closest thing to presidential material in my view, but 1) she doesn't want it, and 2) I don't know where she stands on very many issues. Now is the time when we should find out who is really interested in running against Obama and vetting them to see where they stand on the important conservative issues — and all the issues, not JUST 2nd amendment or abortion or taxes. We may have to accept that the best candidate isn't the perfect one, but meets us 90-95% of the way and promises to do no harm.
Once we're into 2011, open primaries will be the tough thing to beat (take a look at where McCain won his crucial victories) so having a front runner who's strong enough to beat also rans will be important.
There is one problem: in our political landscape decent people wouldn't want to run for office. Think about it, if you're a decent person, would you want to put yourself and your family through what will inevitably happen when the media gets ahold of you as you run from a conservative position? In their eyes, you are evil and they will do everything they can to paint you and your family as such and drag you through the mud at every opportunity.
Decent people don't tend to do that to their families. It's very sad.
Powell was what happened when Republicans get "It's Time" syndrome. We take a harder look, and if we don't like what we see, we get over it.
The Dems… not so much.
*MissQuinn*
Then… Sinise/Tebow '14. . .forget the Consititution. :p
*MissQuinn*
THAT…JUST…HAPPENED!!!
Had George Allen not been taped calling that little douche bag "Macaca" in 2006 and retained his Senate seat, he would have been the nominee in 2008 and I think the results would have been different.
As I have said here before, I turned 18 in time to vote for Reagan in 84. I often wonder if I was the only kid with a shaved, hot pink mohawk, multiple piercings, and a disturbing wardrobe, that couldn't wait to turn 18, not to be able to legally drink, ( though I did like that part), but to register to vote. I remember the Carter years, gas lines, my sister's college Iranian girlfriends sent home, hostage situations, malaise speeches, my family suffering, that I had no doubt how I would vote. Of course, I was raised in Alabama to two very strong Conservative parents, my mother working for the Republican Party since the 70's. I literally never met anyone who voted Democrat, until college.
I do have children, Whitey, and they are doing very well in a public school. Do you have kids, Whitey? Are they in a public school? If they are, you're a hypocrite. If they aren't you're probably home schooling them and turning them into the sheeithead you've been all your life.
What happened since January 2007 until January 2009 when the Bush Idiocracy ended is the result of 8 years of the failed Bush Administration and 12 years of Republican Idiocracy in congress. Your conclusions based upon the control of congress, a control of only one seat in the senate and in a period when Bush exercised his vetoes 12 times, the only 12 times he vetoed any legislation in his Failed Administration, are flawed and irrationalizations that don't wash. Try again, Lance – get those 1.5 braincells heated up.
No — but then the premise that the Democrats (and that's who you're referring to) cheered for our defeat is a lie fomented by liars or fools. Which are you? The assertion that to oppose the military blunder that was the Iraq operation is to 'not support the troops' is -well, the only word for that assertion is 'stupid.'
No — but then the premise that the Democrats (and that's who you're referring to) cheered for our defeat is a lie fomented by liars or fools. Which are you? The assertion that to oppose the military blunder that was the Iraq operation is to 'not support the troops' is -well, the only word for that assertion is 'stupid.'
Does it go to the same tune with the same blank stare as those who for eight years sang, "Bush is great – Bush is great?" Because if it is, I'm not singing — look where that got us. Welcome to the Great Depression II, courtesy of Republican Idiocracy.
My first presidential vote was cast for Gerald Ford – and then I voted for Reagan twice and George HW Bush once. I could not vote for Bush a second time because he screwed the pooch in the Gulf War and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, a crime in my view because of the events of Kuwait, the gassing of the villagers at Haditha in '88, the betrayal of the Kurds and the Iraqi opposition by George Bush that resulted in their being massacred – the appeasement of Saddam by Bush when we should have rolled into Baghdad and hanged Saddam ourselves with no sham of a Iraqi gov't or a show trial. I voted for Clinton in '92, and I criticized him for Somalia and for failing to go into Rwanda in '94 — but along came the Republicans and Newt and the Contract on America and what a sick bunch of barstards they turned out to be – put forth a weak candidate in '96, spent years attacking with no solutions offered, the waste of time and resources that was Ken Starr,who himself is a waste of good oxygen, and the Republicans found themselves beetch slapped by Clinton at every turn — all because of a bloowjob.
But to give us the perpetual screwup that is George W. Bush and the eight years that turned America into 1929 and Bushvilles and Wall Street's Crash and the Great Recession and the demise of America's manufacturing and the doubling of the national debt and the bailouts. Heckuva job, Republicans. And I can say, don't blame me because I NEVER voted for that f–kup named George W. Bush and I have voted for my last Republican candidate ever and will NEVER vote Republican ever again.
So, everything bad that happens is the stupid woman's fault. Great call. What's your excuse for being so ignorant? I'm betting it's your latent desire to have sex with your mother and, when you acted upon your desire it caused you to be incurably impotent.
Here's a pointer – never start a post with 'quoting Glenn Beck.' No intelligent individual will continue reading after those three words. Beck is a moron without peer.
You must be logged in to post a comment.