Big Dogs House

Who’s Right? Who’s Left?

Jun 1, 2009 Political

Ever since the election, which saw a rookie politician win the presidency, (even a blind pig finds an ACORN every once in awhile), the Republican party has had a debate with itself over just what is the definition of a Republican. The words are flowing fast and furious, with Rush Limbaugh, as I understand it, saying that Colin Powell should just become a Democrat and get it over with, and Powell insisting he is not leaving the Republican party.

After every election loss ( and there have not been as many as the Democratic party) the Republican, and indeed the Democratic parties always feel as if there should be a “makeover” of philosophy- as if it was the philosophy alone that was responsible for the loss. Philosophy alone is never the culprit, the blame can and must be shared with the candidate who is the face of the party.

During the 1980 primary contest between President Carter and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Kennedy supporters worried that Carter had moved too far to the center to energize the party base; Carter supporters blamed the president’s loss to Ronald Reagan on Kennedy’s more-liberal-than-thou insurgency. Moderate and liberal Democrats are still arguing about whether Al Gore went too far in 2000 in abandoning Bill Clinton-style triangulation for a more populist pitch — or whether he didn’t go far enough. Limbaugh and like-minded, if less strident, Republicans can make the case for purity by citing the party’s capture of Congress in 1994 under the banner of Rep. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America. 

latimes.com

The Republicans are split now over ideology, and  just how inclusive they need to be, when what they need is to develop a consistent, ethical platform that reflects the conservatism that is and should be the heart of the Republican party. Then they need to begin living that philosophy.

The most consistent fault I have found, was that the Republicans had relented on fiscal conservatism, and when they were in power, spent like drunken Democrats. Trying to emulate your opponent is not a winning strategy, and the Republicans, including Powell, came off looking like Democrat- lite. When a Republican, even Powell, votes for the opponent, it’s possibly not a black thing, but it is  trouble in River City.

I have said before that Barama didn’t so much win the election as McCain lost it. I know there will be many libbies who will come on here with interminable stats to refute my assertions, but the truth is that as trashed as the Republican brand was, Barama should have swept every state. The fact that he didn’t reflects the fact that for many, even as faint as McCain’s efforts were, the idea of conservatism still runs deep and true among many of the people in the U.S., and if presented correctly, with a candidate who truly reflects this conservatism and free market values, the Republicans can win.

But I do have to caution the Republican party- you have to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That was the big problem before
.

Not every Republican — or Democrat — agrees that inclusiveness is the ticket to electoral success. One of the hoariest debates in both parties is whether majorities are built by uncompromising allegiance to principle or a willingness to abide and even encourage diversity within the ranks. For some conservative Republicans, Powell, Ridge and Schwarzenegger are RINOs — Republicans In Name Only. From that perspective, the RINOs let both the nation and the party down by acquiescing in President George W. Bush’s overspending.

It wasn’t so long ago that the Democratic tent seemed too small to hold its disparate elements. Through the early 20th century, Southern segregationists and Northern liberals met uncomfortably at the party’s quadrennial conventions; during the Vietnam War, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s hawks and Sen. George S. McGovern’s doves similarly elbowed one another for position. Those tensions were refashioned but not eliminated at the century’s end. 

latimes.com

As can be seen, angst is in both parties, and the Democrats have done better in their ” big tent” philosophy than the Republicans, even though there is still rancor in their ranks. Republicans should heed that simple fact here demonstrated by the Dems- not everyone shall agree.

In this sense, the “Big Tent” can be large enough for most of the disparate views of conservatives, as long as there are core values all share, and central to this is the philosophy of smaller government, and fiscal conservatism. Really, all else is a distraction, side issues that are important to some, not as important to others.

Fiscal conservatism and smaller government are issues that transcend race, or gender- these issues affect everyone, and I’ll bet that if the Republicans can beat the drum of opportunity, and walk the walk of smaller government, instead of having a contest to see who can “out- republican” the other, conservatives will win.

Let’s face it- there are more people who are in the heartland of this country, and who are conservatives, than liberals who live on the coasts.

Conservatives have to learn to agree to disagree on certain issues.

Remember, an oak tree is uprooted by high winds and dies, but a willow tree bends with the wind and lives.

Share on Facebook

Tags: conservatism, fiscal responsibility, liberalism, political parties, RINO

The Search For The Republican Soul

Apr 29, 2009 Political

The defection and betrayal of Arlen Specter this week has brought about a questioning of what is a Republican. What, or who, makes up the Republican party. This is similar to what went on in the brains of liberals in 2000, who have now defined the Democratic Party, a long search in the deserts of the mind, a trek through limitless nothing, looking for one good idea. They feel they have found it in Social Engineering.

The Republicans have a similar trek they must make, a soul- searching hike to find a set of tenets and ethics they can use as a moral compass.

Arlen Specter has no compass- this is seen by how easily he changed parties, not once but twice. I have had fish that flopped less. He is a politician of convenience, and that is the worst type to have in office, for you cannot count on him to stand for anything, but apparently he WILL kneel to any fakir who promises continued employment. The man is 79 years old- it used to be that when a politician became too infirm for the rigors of the office, he would begin to groom someone to gracefully take his place if so elected. Senator Byrd became the poster child for Dementiacrats- too old to know better. Senator Kennedy is another. Now Arlie has joined the viagra set, and good riddance.

Meanwhile, the confusion on the Republican side continued, with the soul searching reaching new lows. Several people stating that the Republican Party has been hijacked by “Southern good old boys”, a liberal definition that the wandering Republicans have chosen to repeat, as if it was the truth. These talking heads maintain that these ‘Good old boys” are closing the “Big Tent” philosophy, telling some that they aren’t really Republicans, and the party has no place at the table for them. There may or may not be some truth there, but I am guessing that it depends on what the definition of conservatism is determined to be.

If conservatism is used to exclude people who have variants of conservative views, then yes- the Republican Party will shrink and become less relevant. For example, a person may believe in the right to life, yet recognize that Roe v. Wade is a law. It is not a law that is liked but it is a law. I have a friend that believes in pro- choice, but he firmly prays that people will make the right choice.Is he a conservative? I believe he is, but some in the party might disagree.

The facts are that the Republican Party can not be a Monolithic one idea, one dogma party- not everyone thinks the same, nor should they.

A northern Republican has different concerns than someone in Arizona, or North Carolina. It is impossible, and certainly not desirable to have everyone think exactly the same.

However, there are certain core principles that should be key to any Republican’s thought processes, and central to this is the tenet of Small Government. Government just makes a problem worse, and private enterprise is the best solution. Always.

The main things Government has to do is provide Security, and infrastructure. For the latter, the States should take the lead, for the states know better than the Federal government what the people need. It takes a real delusional ego to think that Washington knows what I need, better than the county or state does. Real. Delusional. Ego.

Republicans need to reaffirm that it is opportunity that makes America great, and no one should be restricted from this opportunity. Americans, no matter the color, have the energy, and we have the brains to do wonders, but if we are being held down by government restrictions, nothing gets done, and we are all the poorer for it.
The thing that people need to know is that the party will be loyal to it’s central themes. If conservatives are for smaller government, then conservatives can not be hypocritical, and wallow in the public trough, gobbling up taxpayer’s money. Republican does not mean Democrat Lite. Ever.

Conservatives have to know that ALL government money is OUR money. The government doesn’t earn a dime, has never earned a dime, and will never earn a dime. The government exists to serve us, and every government hack is someone we hired, and who works for us, plain and simple. This is something that people in government, whether Senators, or bureaucrats never believe. The sense of entitlement begins at the government trough.

There should be an easier process to eject politicians from office, returning them like the defective Chinese melamine infused products they were supposed to protect us from. They didn’t do their jobs there, did they? Anyone hear of any government employee being fired because of that? No? Neither have I. Has anyone been fired for allowing salmonella into the food system? No? Why not?

The problem in a nutshell is that many conservatives nowadays do not identify with the Republican Party, and it’s not because we are bigots, or narrow- minded, but that the Republicans in office forgot who they were, and tried to be like the Liberals, and for what? Are they who you really wish to emulate?

If you do not stand for a principle, you will end up kneeling because of convenience. Just like Arlen Specter.

Share on Facebook

Tags: conservatism, ethics, specter

Listen To Powell, Not Limbaugh?

Dec 12, 2008 Political

Colin Powell betrayed the party that enhanced his career and took good care of him over his career in order to vote for Barack Obama. Powell said that it was because of Sarah Palin but the real reason is that he voted color over party. At least that is what I felt when he endorsed Obama. I have always believed that Powell was not conservative and that he might be better off as a Democrat and it looks like that might be the case. It would appear that Powell endorsed Obama because of his color and his political beliefs.

Powell recently told people that the Republican party needed to change and that we needed to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Powell asserts that Limbaugh spews fear and hatred. This is a bunch of hogwash but Powell asserts it as so because Limbaugh has not been kind to Democrats. Truth be told, he has not been kind to Republicans who are not conservative. Powell can believe that Limbaugh and people like him hurt John McCain but Limbaugh was not on McCain’s side. When he had only a choice of two McCain beat out Obama (as is the case with many Republicans) but Limbaugh has always been tough on McCain for his lack of conservatism.

I guess we are now suppose to listen to the wisdom of Powell because he will save the party? He has liberal views and he was never truly conservative. Couple that with him turning his back on members of our armed forces left behind in Vietnam (something McCain also did along with John Kerry) and one is left to wonder why we need to listen to what he says.

Colin Powell was a mediocre officer who had a successful career (military and civilian) because he was taken care of by people in the Republican party. Powell is smart and competent but it was Republicans, not Democrats, who elevated him to high office. Powell turned his back on his party in order to vote for a man of color. I stated before that voting for (or against) a person based on color is as valid a reason as any but at least have the guts to say that is what you are doing.

Powell probably did not have to worry about that because he was able to throw insults at a capable politician in Sarah Palin in order to cover his real motives.

That and he really leans liberal so she gave him cover there as well.

Rush Limbaugh is not going anywhere. He makes more money in a year doing what he does than Powell will make in a lifetime and Limbaugh has quite a following which is much larger than any following Powell might have.

Though after he endorsed Obama he became a darling of the moonbats who only a few years ago called for him to be charged with crimes for the Iraq phase of the war on terror.

I guess he is no longer an Uncle Tom to the black community who blindly follow Democrats to the plantation.

Powell wants the Republican party to retool and move left. What we need to do is move more right and stay with our conservative principles.

A good start is by getting rid of Powell and ensuring he has no platform in our party.

Source:
CNN

Share on Facebook

Tags: conservatism, fear, hate, Limbaugh, powell, racsim

A Great Video From My Friend Zo

Oct 24, 2008 Political

Imagine that, a black conservative. And a differing point of view than we hear from those beholden to the Democratic party. A man who refused to drink the plantation or Obama Kool Aid.

Zo has other great videos. You can see his channel here, that is until the Obama Nazis have it shut down.

Share on Facebook

Tags: conservatism, plantation, zo