If you'd like to read an excellent column on Barack Obama, go to John Hawkins' The Forgotten Street.
The following is part of a discussion I've been having with Cindy at The Pink Flamingo about SOME people who call themselves "conservatives." Being racist, sexist, or homophobic does NOT qualify one as a conservative. As a Christian, my obligation is not to bash people who are different from me, but rather to love them.
Cindy, at some point I'll start writing again about what's going on with "conservatives." I do not support "conservatives" who are anti-Mexican, anti-Black, anti-professional women, or anti-gay.
On the critical issue of dealing with crime: I have been making the point lately that Rudy-Bratton-Kerik (and also Bloomberg) have been central in reducing NYC's murder rate from 2500 pre-Giuliani (2494, actually) to fewer than 500. This is a major "pro-life" achievement. It is a major libertarian accomplishment, because liberty has no meaning if people are afraid to open their front doors.
There are too many murders, especially gun murders, in America. If the American people ask what we're going to do about it, we need to provide a coherent answer. We already have 5-10 times as many people in jail as other developed countries, so building more and more jails is NOT the answer. Murder and crime generally are problems, and our political obligation is to SOLVE problems, not to pretend they don't exist. Many people who call themselves conservatives have defaulted on their obligations as citizens.
There are major, major problems with campaign finance, and it does need to be reformed. Right now, campaign finance as it is will lead to a permanent Democratic majority. Thus, the condemnations of McCain are absurd. Go to opensecrets.org and see how your least-favorite candidates (Pelosi, Murtha, and Obey) are doing in getting "donations." They're getting so much money that there is no earthly way a Republican candidate could defeat them. The Democrats' national congressional committee has raised TWICE as much money as its Republican counterpart. So, good luck to us on regaining control of Congress.
As for the "Gang of 14," it consisted of some of the best people in the Senate, patriotic Americans who were trying to turn the Senate into something other than an ideological hate machine. They should be commended, not condemned. An imperfect solution to a real problem trumps no solution at all.
Additional Part of Dialogue with Cindy is below:
Cindy, the situation with self-styled "conservatives" (some of them racists and various haters) is bad -- very bad. However, there's a healthy re-sorting going on in American politics, and that's probably necessary.
I cite one episode where Hillary Clinton was asked if English should be the "official language" in America. She replied, "It should be the national language but not the official language." Right now, she's better on that issue than Republicans. She handled it without ticking off a single Hispanic. All the Republicans, except McCain, reply that English should be the "official" language. Does that win them any votes?
The point of running for office is to take positions acceptable to a majority of voters. Writing off the Hispanic vote will be a disaster, and right now conservatives seem unable to avoid disasters. Appealing only to the "base," about 20% of American voters, is a great way to lose 45-plus states.
This is a government "of, by, and for the people," which includes people who disagree with us. If a majority disagrees with us, it's our problem, not theirs.
More on gays and lesbians:
Little-Known Political Fact: Without votes from gays and lesbians in the 2000 election, George W. Bush would have lost Florida -- and thus the election. The "inconvenient truth" is that Al Gore would have won that election and probably would still be President. Bush got tens of thousands of gay and lesbian votes in FL, an essential element in his tiny margin of victory (fewer than 600 votes). Exit polls showed that Bush got about one-quarter of the ballots cast by FL homosexuals.
In most surveys, about one-third of gays and lesbians describe their political philosophy as conservative. About the same number define their religious belief as Christian. Those who hate G/L are generally defined as non-Christians, because they violate completely The Second Great Commandment.
In the case of sin, it's critical that we concentrate on our own. We do not know others well enough -- their beliefs, intentions, and actions -- to stand in any sort of judgment of them. If we do otherwise, we are in complete violation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
An individual's sins are between him or her and God.
More of my endless exchange with Cindy is below:
One of the major issues out there is how to bring conservatives down from their perch in the trees, scratching their pits, back into humanity. I just got a note from one far-right type telling me how awful Barack Obama's church was (same type of article that appeared six months ago in the NY Times). I sent a long reply.
That particular church does not seem particulary "Christian," but it does a great deal of good work in the community, trying to bring people up into the middle class (while berating the elements of middle-class life that most of us worry about, including the bigotry).
My problem with Obama is not his church. It's his politics, which is the same old "redistribute the wealth!" "Get re-elected." "Pay off AFSCME and the NEA!" When people go around condemning his silly minister, they avoid confronting the real issues.
Too many far-right people have one major gripe with Obama: the color of his skin.
Obama's wife Michelle not only has "rhythm," but also is a tremendously effective political operative. His two girls are beautiful and appealing. His message strikes the right chord with many people.
Meanwhile, my right-wing correspondent is telling me who his minister is friendly with and that he doesn't particularly cotton to white folks. Historically, of course white folks haven't exactly been the best friends of black folks, what with slavery, segregation, and the like. My wife likes Obama a lot, and she is not in any sense a stupid person.
Anyway, when people become serious candidates for President, Democrat or Republican, I start treating them with basic courtesy. We only get one President, and he or she turns out to be OUR President.
If we go through another national hate-fest, such as the one we've had with the libs and Bush, the nation will be diminished. We need to talk about what conservatism is, and what it's not. It's not most of the stuff now parading around the Internet.
Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Reform. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Saturday, December 29, 2007
WHERE DOES MURTHA'S MONEY GO?
The following three paragraphs are from an e-mail I wrote to a friend. I will expand on these comments in Monday's column. Most conservatives are against Campaign Finance Reform (CFR), but frankly, something has to be done -- otherwise our congressional elections will continue to look more like coronations. Any suggestions?
Right now, the congressional candidate who has the most money wins 94% of the time. Is that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
In my blog, I write regularly about John Murtha's financing, which is basically bribery money. In 2004, when he had NO opponent (he got 100% of the votes cast), he spent nearly $1.6 million on his "campaign."
Can any of my readers figure out how he "spent" $1.6 million in a race with NO OPPONENT?
(Hint: It's going to pay off supporters for their votes and donations. Yeah, I'm saying he's transferring back money that orginally came about as earmarks. Yikes.)
Apparently, he has spent nearly $1,000,000 in 2007 (for a race in 2008). Think your very worst thoughts about where that money is going. The exact figures should be out in approximately 10 days on http://www.opensecrets.org/.
The best way you can do something about this situation is to send a contribution to William Russell.
James H. said the following in the Comments section:
Let em say this about Campaign Finance reform. I think the key to reform is not limiting money but it being very transparent!!!
If I wish to spend my money promoting political cause x I think that is sacred. I think that should be protected.
As to Murtha. I guess after last year and his weird comments on troop deployments I can never understand why people would vote him in. I suppose as Tip O'Neil said All politics is local and he must have an angle there that I am not seeing a thousand miles away.
The following is my response:
James: I hope there is a debate about campaign finance. Some of the donations (so-called) are transparent. In Murtha's case, they are from people (UPMC, PMA Group, CTC) who have benefited from huge handouts (earmarks) and are paying Murtha back for them.
If Murtha accepts a bag-full of money from the PMA Group, it's illegal. If it comes in the form of checks, it's legal. The Democratic Left (George Soros and friends) is winning the fund-raising battle. As long as that happens, "democracy" becomes something of a sham, a process designed to re-elect incumbents unto something approaching eternity.
All that said, I hope you'll contribute to William Russell, which you can do by going to: http://williamrussellforcongress.com/. He's an outstanding candidate.
My Fellow Conservatives, Please Grow Up!
Like my fellow conservative Cindy, at The Pink Flamingo, I must be part of a declining breed: i.e., someone who'd rather win an election with a good candidate than lose one with an ideologically pure individual. On one board, someone was writing about how Republican presidential candidates had to be more conservative. I wrote the following:
My response is that the candidates seem to be running for President of the United States not the President of Alabama and Mississippi. I've just been reading the wonderful Almanac of American Politics about the election of 2006. All the Democrats in the House (more than two-thirds of them) who voted against the border fence got re-elected -- not most of them, all of them.
Many of the Republicans who voted for it (and all but six did) lost. That scenario is of course the opposite of what some people are assuring us will happen in 2008, though there's no poll evidence to suggest they're right.
Do we really need to make ourselves into a permanent minority? We're very much headed in that direction.
Look at it this way: in 2006, many Republican conservatives (in the upper house, Sen. George Allen, Sen. Jim Tallent, Sen. Mike DeWine, Tom Kean, and Sen. Rick Santorum) lost. Who won against them? Oh, the Democratic liberals. Anyone who ignores that development has nothing to say on the political situation.
Right now, the congressional candidate who has the most money wins 94% of the time. Is that really what the Founding Fathers had in mind?
In my blog, I write regularly about John Murtha's financing, which is basically bribery money. In 2004, when he had NO opponent (he got 100% of the votes cast), he spent nearly $1.6 million on his "campaign."
Can any of my readers figure out how he "spent" $1.6 million in a race with NO OPPONENT?
(Hint: It's going to pay off supporters for their votes and donations. Yeah, I'm saying he's transferring back money that orginally came about as earmarks. Yikes.)
Apparently, he has spent nearly $1,000,000 in 2007 (for a race in 2008). Think your very worst thoughts about where that money is going. The exact figures should be out in approximately 10 days on http://www.opensecrets.org/.
The best way you can do something about this situation is to send a contribution to William Russell.
James H. said the following in the Comments section:
Let em say this about Campaign Finance reform. I think the key to reform is not limiting money but it being very transparent!!!
If I wish to spend my money promoting political cause x I think that is sacred. I think that should be protected.
As to Murtha. I guess after last year and his weird comments on troop deployments I can never understand why people would vote him in. I suppose as Tip O'Neil said All politics is local and he must have an angle there that I am not seeing a thousand miles away.
The following is my response:
James: I hope there is a debate about campaign finance. Some of the donations (so-called) are transparent. In Murtha's case, they are from people (UPMC, PMA Group, CTC) who have benefited from huge handouts (earmarks) and are paying Murtha back for them.
If Murtha accepts a bag-full of money from the PMA Group, it's illegal. If it comes in the form of checks, it's legal. The Democratic Left (George Soros and friends) is winning the fund-raising battle. As long as that happens, "democracy" becomes something of a sham, a process designed to re-elect incumbents unto something approaching eternity.
All that said, I hope you'll contribute to William Russell, which you can do by going to: http://williamrussellforcongress.com/. He's an outstanding candidate.
My Fellow Conservatives, Please Grow Up!
Like my fellow conservative Cindy, at The Pink Flamingo, I must be part of a declining breed: i.e., someone who'd rather win an election with a good candidate than lose one with an ideologically pure individual. On one board, someone was writing about how Republican presidential candidates had to be more conservative. I wrote the following:
My response is that the candidates seem to be running for President of the United States not the President of Alabama and Mississippi. I've just been reading the wonderful Almanac of American Politics about the election of 2006. All the Democrats in the House (more than two-thirds of them) who voted against the border fence got re-elected -- not most of them, all of them.
Many of the Republicans who voted for it (and all but six did) lost. That scenario is of course the opposite of what some people are assuring us will happen in 2008, though there's no poll evidence to suggest they're right.
Do we really need to make ourselves into a permanent minority? We're very much headed in that direction.
Look at it this way: in 2006, many Republican conservatives (in the upper house, Sen. George Allen, Sen. Jim Tallent, Sen. Mike DeWine, Tom Kean, and Sen. Rick Santorum) lost. Who won against them? Oh, the Democratic liberals. Anyone who ignores that development has nothing to say on the political situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
