There was a time when adversaries traded bullets wherein the coup de grace was to capture the other’s capital resulting in capitulation. Not so in today’s adversarial environment the haute de jour is to negotiate and act by all means possible be it illegal, extra legal, or close to legal for the best terms and conditions among all concerned parties. Each party is by design motivated to service their perception of self-serving benefits recognizing, somewhat begrudgingly, that each participant must extract a profitable return. The trading partners actually draw up detailed agreements to substantiate their rightfulness and lawful practice. However, trading like warfare has little to nothing to do with contractual tenants, morality, or fairness; less the practical understanding that everyone is in for more than one trade; hence, the battle cry is: Be nice one may need the other next time.
It doesn’t matter if you live in Boston or Chicago or Oklahoma City–anywhere in America. Illegal immigration is a burning, emotional issue. 70% of Americans want something done about it. So far nothing tangible has been done–only band aids. This is a Republican issue–I don’t mean the GOP elites like Bush–I mean the average wage earning, voting Republican. A successful candidate will aggressively attack with this issue. Passivity won’t work!
Despite the evidence of relevant economic indicators that suggest a robust economy, low inflation, high employment, abatement of national debt, the stock markets indicate strong corporate profits, and the government is reaping in substantial tax revenue. I have heard from a number of variable media sources throughout Bush’s presidency that the economy is unstable, the market is volatile, and the average Joe on the street feels insecure; indeed, more insecure today then in later times. Of course my favorite is the poll that says a majority of Americans believe the country is moving in the wrong direction; I guess that presumes that a minority of Americans think the country is moving in the right direction. The difference between majority and minority must be the benchmark of rightfulness; therefore, since the majority is all that is needed to determine the rightfulness of an issue we can substantially limit legislative debate in favor of polling. I suppose the supposition created by these variable media sources is that without the specificity of widely disseminated evidence to the contrary; the contrarian‘s perspective prevails; hence, things are not good because the average Joe does not feel secure.
What has happened to the party of FDR and JFK? Seemingly, motivated by rationale influences; and the support of leading Democrats, the Speaker of the House decides to meet with the Syrian dictator: To open a dialogue, to exchange ideas, find common ground, solve differences; well, what exactly was the result of that meeting? The leader of the Senate boldly asserts that the war in Iraq is lost. Imagine the nation is at war and the leader of the Senate states with prideful disregard of sensibility that the war is lost. Moveon.org. the funding engine of the Democratic Party; declares to the world that the nations top General in Iraq is a liar, a traitor, and a political pawn of the Bush administration. Is it possible that the Democratic Party has run itself off the plateau of what is reasonable and into the abyss of leftist lunacy?
Now we have Jimmy Carter suggesting that this nation should NOT contest Iran as to its interest in developing a nuclear bomb. What! What world does Jimmy Carter live in? Is he inhaling peanut shells! Iran is a serious geopolitical threat to the region; it plays well into the Russian game of causing tension allowing the market to lean toward increasing the price of oil and costing the United States blood, time, and treasury. Iran is and has been an enemy of the USA since Jimmy (lives on the planet Jupiter) Carter aided and abetted the removal of a friend to turning a blind eye to the instillation of an anti-American religious fanatic as head of government.
All good leaders must be good communicators. I am reminded of FDR with his fireside chats and Reagan and his stories which made a point. These men knew they had to “sell, sell, sell”. In today’s world, Newt Gingrich is a great communicator. There may be others that don’t immediately come to mind. For good or for bad, free trade has always been a core value in conservative thinking. It has been successful–but perhaps more narrowly successful than broadly successful. It has made fortunes for the men at Goldman Sachs but has not always trickled down to America‘s middle class. New Studies are showing that our middle class may be shrinking–whether it is or not, most Americans think it is. This is the failure of leadership’s communication. It is very difficult for the average American to equate free trade being a benefit with a President who wants to open our borders to bring in cheap labor and additional public costs. What America needs most is a public lecture on economics. At this moment the lectern is empty.
Two words: Common Sense…has stood for many, many, years as a synonym for what is considered practical; a sort of sensibility of the majority; equally understood to mean wisdom that is roundly held as commonsensical knowledge. It was the sense of the common that voted in Democrats over Republicans in the last election and it is the sense of the common that forces all of us citizens to endure the resulting consequence of that election. The past election placed in power a Democratic majority that distinguishes itself by silly and absurd behavior; a majority that, without hesitation, will forfeit the practice of good sense in the interest of gaining a larger majority in the next congress; wherein the Democratic representatives disregard legislative urgencies for the sake of making political hay.
Amazing isn’t it? The only constant is that for generations we continually complain about our governments but never fix them.
“If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, If you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.”
Suppose you were an idiot.
And suppose you were a member of Congress….
But then I repeat myself.
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. What’s wrong with that?
– George Bernard Shaw
A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-G Gordon Liddy
Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
-James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
A question of ethics: If a politician promises to give me something for free that I am now paying for and I vote for that politician did I sell my vote? Is the politician who made the offer liable for illegal solicitation of or offering to buy my vote? I was induced to believe that free health care for children and some others is a good thing; a moral endeavor, hell, as an American it is a right. Is it not? Well, if it isn’t it should be: John Locke and the Democrats say that it is a God given right; well, even if John Locke did not say that he should have.
My car is old. I really need a newer car; I also have no savings account; my roof leaks, and I really need a longer vacation with pay; I also do not eat enough steak; and my mother lives too far away to baby sit the kids. Will a politician make a similar promise for those needs? To me each of those needs is just as important as health care for children and some others. If they want my vote they need to give me more than just health care.