Showing posts with label Conservative issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative issues. Show all posts
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Take Back Our Country
A conservative Republican told me that, in the next Federal election, "We will take back our country". Maybe that's where their idea that individual freedoms can be curtailed in the name of national security originates comes from. If this country indeed belongs to the Republicans, does that mean that non-Republicans have to get their permission to travel in it? Are all non-Republicans, even if they arrived here via the birth canal, alien immigrants without civil rights? Does exclusive Republican ownership of this country explain the importance that Republicans place on patriotism. This attitude of prior franchise on this land that many conservative Republicans exhibit may be the culprit behind their seeming desire for Obama to fail. Obviously, many Republicans don't consider him as a legitimate occupant of the White House, either by birth or political party.
Monday, June 23, 2008
A Conservative's Agenda
A candidate for a legislative seat for a mostly rural Missouri House district has a campaign flyer that outlines a conservative agenda, stating that the candidate "believes in and will strongly defend:
• Religious freedom
• Right to life
• Landowner's rights
• Right to keep and bear arms
• Improving education
• Voter photo ID
• Marriage between one man and one woman
• Protecting our borders”
The list is partly a recitation of right-wing code words for conservative issues.
"Religious freedom" refers to permitting religious expression in public venues, for example: teaching creationism in public schools science classes, organized prayer in public schools, and including bible study in public school curriculum. So much for the time honored constitutional principle of the separation of church and state which was instituted to preserve religious freedom from governmental authority and interference.
"Right to life" is the anti-abortion stance that denies females the right to continue a pregnancy. It sounds good, protecting life and all that, but when push comes to shove, abortion will never be outlawed. All the pro-life crew can do is encumber the legal system with endless cases to establish the constitutional limits of abortion controls, which means more government oversight of the individual, a non-conservative stance.
"Landowner's rights" means laws supporting NIMBYs, restrictions on purposes for the use of eminent domain powers by local governments, and weakening of land use planning powers of local governments, all legislative actions that move power to centralized government control and away from local control, again a non-conservative stance.
“Right to keep and bear arms” does not represent support for state guard units or an interest in national defense, rather it means preserving recently enacted laws for so-called conceal-carry permits. Conceal-carry is a fact in the state this party seeks a legislative seat and no movement to repeal it exists, so why make it an issue? It’s a signal that the candidate will support their issues, no matter how misguided.
“Improving education” is an idea with which nobody disagrees. But, it is an idea that only takes wing when the financial resources are committed to achieve improvements. This is probably a hollow sentiment, when it comes to voting for the tax measures to secure the needed money and to approving the necessary fiscal appropriations. The coded message in this phrase, since finance is not mentioned, is that the candidate will support vouchers for use in private or parochial schools.
“Voter photo ID” is a Republican issue that I believe Democrats oppose mainly because it’s a GOP idea, and one that seems to be settled in Missouri.. I am not opposed to requiring positive voter identification. I’d even support embedded micro-chips, if the process was painless. After all voter fraud must be fought at all costs, wherever it exists. Only thing is, I doubt that voter fraud is an issue that rural folks have much concern about or a venue where it is likely to occur. I guess this issue is there just to expand the list and add conservative credibility.
“Marriage between one man and one woman” is another issue that’s already been decided for the legal jurisdiction and one that is totally beyond legislative action at this point. So, why include it? Again, all I can figure is that it is to express empathy for the voter by another “I’m just like you” statement.
“Protecting our borders” is note a code word, it’s a national defense imperative. And, neither is it a responsibility of the legislative body in which office is sought. Unless that is, there’s a stealth movement to set up state line border posts and check the nationality status of interstate travelers, something that is a constitutional power granted only to Congress. Again, it’s another effort at empathy with the voter.
The campaign brochure is right on the mark for GOP candidates. Even the Republican gubernatorial candidates, according to the KC Star June 23, 2008, front page article, advocate the same issues: “They promise to crack down on illegal immigrants, to support tax cuts and to defend the right to carry concealed weapons. They have argued about which of them opposes abortion more.” Isn’t being a conservative a wonderful mind-set? Out of the 4 issues cited above, only one has any chance of happening and it’s the one that undercuts the ability of government to deal with the other significant issues facing the state. The sad thing is that some people will actually make their ballot decisions based on the trumped up tripe that typifies these testy candidates.
• Religious freedom
• Right to life
• Landowner's rights
• Right to keep and bear arms
• Improving education
• Voter photo ID
• Marriage between one man and one woman
• Protecting our borders”
The list is partly a recitation of right-wing code words for conservative issues.
"Religious freedom" refers to permitting religious expression in public venues, for example: teaching creationism in public schools science classes, organized prayer in public schools, and including bible study in public school curriculum. So much for the time honored constitutional principle of the separation of church and state which was instituted to preserve religious freedom from governmental authority and interference.
"Right to life" is the anti-abortion stance that denies females the right to continue a pregnancy. It sounds good, protecting life and all that, but when push comes to shove, abortion will never be outlawed. All the pro-life crew can do is encumber the legal system with endless cases to establish the constitutional limits of abortion controls, which means more government oversight of the individual, a non-conservative stance.
"Landowner's rights" means laws supporting NIMBYs, restrictions on purposes for the use of eminent domain powers by local governments, and weakening of land use planning powers of local governments, all legislative actions that move power to centralized government control and away from local control, again a non-conservative stance.
“Right to keep and bear arms” does not represent support for state guard units or an interest in national defense, rather it means preserving recently enacted laws for so-called conceal-carry permits. Conceal-carry is a fact in the state this party seeks a legislative seat and no movement to repeal it exists, so why make it an issue? It’s a signal that the candidate will support their issues, no matter how misguided.
“Improving education” is an idea with which nobody disagrees. But, it is an idea that only takes wing when the financial resources are committed to achieve improvements. This is probably a hollow sentiment, when it comes to voting for the tax measures to secure the needed money and to approving the necessary fiscal appropriations. The coded message in this phrase, since finance is not mentioned, is that the candidate will support vouchers for use in private or parochial schools.
“Voter photo ID” is a Republican issue that I believe Democrats oppose mainly because it’s a GOP idea, and one that seems to be settled in Missouri.. I am not opposed to requiring positive voter identification. I’d even support embedded micro-chips, if the process was painless. After all voter fraud must be fought at all costs, wherever it exists. Only thing is, I doubt that voter fraud is an issue that rural folks have much concern about or a venue where it is likely to occur. I guess this issue is there just to expand the list and add conservative credibility.
“Marriage between one man and one woman” is another issue that’s already been decided for the legal jurisdiction and one that is totally beyond legislative action at this point. So, why include it? Again, all I can figure is that it is to express empathy for the voter by another “I’m just like you” statement.
“Protecting our borders” is note a code word, it’s a national defense imperative. And, neither is it a responsibility of the legislative body in which office is sought. Unless that is, there’s a stealth movement to set up state line border posts and check the nationality status of interstate travelers, something that is a constitutional power granted only to Congress. Again, it’s another effort at empathy with the voter.
The campaign brochure is right on the mark for GOP candidates. Even the Republican gubernatorial candidates, according to the KC Star June 23, 2008, front page article, advocate the same issues: “They promise to crack down on illegal immigrants, to support tax cuts and to defend the right to carry concealed weapons. They have argued about which of them opposes abortion more.” Isn’t being a conservative a wonderful mind-set? Out of the 4 issues cited above, only one has any chance of happening and it’s the one that undercuts the ability of government to deal with the other significant issues facing the state. The sad thing is that some people will actually make their ballot decisions based on the trumped up tripe that typifies these testy candidates.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
A New Tornado - Republican Spin Lands in Kansas
Chris Morgan, executive director of the Kansas Republican Party, wrote an "As I See It" column on Bush's legacy for the September 11, 2007, Kansas City Star. While using material from Karl Rove's National Review article titled "The Long View", and heaven knows what other publications, without attribution, he may have included personal observations. Regardless of his sources, his comments warrant reply. Upon reading Morgan's lead sentence, which featured a prepositional phrase without a leading preposition in the predicate, I decided that close reading of his essay would be needed to understand his message.
In the first paragraph, following the incomplete sentence, Morgan states that history's judgement of Bush is an important debate, with consideration of Bush's deeds and accomplishments during both terms being equally important. What Morgan omits as also important to the debate are Bush's misdeeds and failures, and the beneficial or deleterious effects of his deeds, misdeeds, accomplishments and failures. History's judgement will not be based on a one-sided evaluation. Morgan claims that history, rightly or wrongly, will judge Bush largely on our success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Morgan's characterization of the weight given the outcomes of Bush's military ventures as a decider of his legacy seems on target. His insinuation that history's judgement may not be fair to Bush is an unwarranted disclaimer of its validity and is an veiled attempt to preempt history's judgement with his own.
Morgan labels as significant Bush's policy pronouncement to preemptively attack terrorists or their enablers, and even claims that the policy should have been put in effect after the World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morgan describes the changes as an "…aggressive campaign against terrorists, vowing to hunt them down and [to] punish … sponsors of terrorism overseas." This isn't a new policy, it is merely a more intense reaction to a horrific terrorist act that woke us all up to the depth of hatred that fundamentalist Islamists, operating as al-Qaida, have for the West. The formulator of this reaction wasn't George Bush, rather it was Osama bin Laden. The sole pursuit of this policy in our foreign relations has damaged our reputation abroad, while focusing our attention on the use of military force rather than meeting the challenges of the 21st Century by applying economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. If I were a Bush Republican, I'd be careful with what credit I took for policies that can just as easily misfire.
I take issue with every claim of leadership that Morgan makes for Bush from African AIDs relief to 'modernizing' prescription drug benefits, but space is lacking for a wholesale refutation of his claims. However, three audacious claims are worth exposing: first, that Bush led the economy from recession; second, that Bush returned the rule of law back to the courts; and third, that Bush has effectively confronted Islamic terrorism.
Let's be clear, the economy was never in recession and Presidents have little, if any, impact on the performance of the capitalistic, free-trade economy that we enjoy. It's still a fact that the rule of law has always been the purpose of the courts. It never left. What's more, everyone is responsible for upholding the rule of law, including the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. How well has George Bush fared in this regard? The lack of an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil proves nothing about our relative safety today. Actually, because Bush confronted Islamic terrorism with military strength, little has been done to defuse it or develop a comprehensive plan to counter its divisive effects.
I don't expect any better from a hard-liner like Morgan. Actually, Bush alone doesn't deserve all the blame for the sad state of affairs that exists in our nation today. The blame is shared by the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Bush appointees, members of Congress who support Bush and his minions and plain old citizens who believe the crap being spewed out by Republican operatives and hangers-on.
In the first paragraph, following the incomplete sentence, Morgan states that history's judgement of Bush is an important debate, with consideration of Bush's deeds and accomplishments during both terms being equally important. What Morgan omits as also important to the debate are Bush's misdeeds and failures, and the beneficial or deleterious effects of his deeds, misdeeds, accomplishments and failures. History's judgement will not be based on a one-sided evaluation. Morgan claims that history, rightly or wrongly, will judge Bush largely on our success or failure in Afghanistan and Iraq. Morgan's characterization of the weight given the outcomes of Bush's military ventures as a decider of his legacy seems on target. His insinuation that history's judgement may not be fair to Bush is an unwarranted disclaimer of its validity and is an veiled attempt to preempt history's judgement with his own.
Morgan labels as significant Bush's policy pronouncement to preemptively attack terrorists or their enablers, and even claims that the policy should have been put in effect after the World Trade Center attack in 1993. Morgan describes the changes as an "…aggressive campaign against terrorists, vowing to hunt them down and [to] punish … sponsors of terrorism overseas." This isn't a new policy, it is merely a more intense reaction to a horrific terrorist act that woke us all up to the depth of hatred that fundamentalist Islamists, operating as al-Qaida, have for the West. The formulator of this reaction wasn't George Bush, rather it was Osama bin Laden. The sole pursuit of this policy in our foreign relations has damaged our reputation abroad, while focusing our attention on the use of military force rather than meeting the challenges of the 21st Century by applying economic, political and diplomatic means to fight Islamic extremism. If I were a Bush Republican, I'd be careful with what credit I took for policies that can just as easily misfire.
I take issue with every claim of leadership that Morgan makes for Bush from African AIDs relief to 'modernizing' prescription drug benefits, but space is lacking for a wholesale refutation of his claims. However, three audacious claims are worth exposing: first, that Bush led the economy from recession; second, that Bush returned the rule of law back to the courts; and third, that Bush has effectively confronted Islamic terrorism.
Let's be clear, the economy was never in recession and Presidents have little, if any, impact on the performance of the capitalistic, free-trade economy that we enjoy. It's still a fact that the rule of law has always been the purpose of the courts. It never left. What's more, everyone is responsible for upholding the rule of law, including the Executive Office of the President, Congress, and the Federal bureaucracy. How well has George Bush fared in this regard? The lack of an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil proves nothing about our relative safety today. Actually, because Bush confronted Islamic terrorism with military strength, little has been done to defuse it or develop a comprehensive plan to counter its divisive effects.
I don't expect any better from a hard-liner like Morgan. Actually, Bush alone doesn't deserve all the blame for the sad state of affairs that exists in our nation today. The blame is shared by the Republican Party, the Republican National Committee, the Bush appointees, members of Congress who support Bush and his minions and plain old citizens who believe the crap being spewed out by Republican operatives and hangers-on.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
TABOR
The Center on Budget on Policy Priorities, A D.C. think tank, published a report on September 12, 2005, entitled "A State of Decline: What A TABOR Would Mean for Kansas". A 'TABOR' is a proposed constitutional amendment to limit state government expenditures. The report illustrates the potential impact and magnitude a TABOR would have on Kansas. You can find it at http://www.cbpp.org under "New From the Center" (top right).
The TABOR proposal is like a corporate poison pill that boards adopt to frustrate take-over attempts. Even if the pols who propose it are long gone from political favor, it's in the constitution and difficult to remove, like the ban on gay marriage. Some might say this is a good thing, but why would a politician prevent themselves from being able to represent their constituents effectively? TABOR may sound like a good deal to people who don't want to pay taxes to support government spending approved by duly elected representatives of the people. But, in emergencies it would be a Denver boot on legitimate action by government to meet the needs of the public. That's scary.
Almost no one likes to pay taxes, but everyone likes the safety and benefits from the collective actions of government that are supported by taxes. The pols who like TABOR are the ones who basically don't like government. Is it greed, avarice, or parsimony that motivates the TABORites? Perhaps, it's just misguided conservatism, like pushing the envelope to achieve the ultimate no-tax-increase pledge.
We'll be watching the TABOR proposal as time goes on.
The TABOR proposal is like a corporate poison pill that boards adopt to frustrate take-over attempts. Even if the pols who propose it are long gone from political favor, it's in the constitution and difficult to remove, like the ban on gay marriage. Some might say this is a good thing, but why would a politician prevent themselves from being able to represent their constituents effectively? TABOR may sound like a good deal to people who don't want to pay taxes to support government spending approved by duly elected representatives of the people. But, in emergencies it would be a Denver boot on legitimate action by government to meet the needs of the public. That's scary.
Almost no one likes to pay taxes, but everyone likes the safety and benefits from the collective actions of government that are supported by taxes. The pols who like TABOR are the ones who basically don't like government. Is it greed, avarice, or parsimony that motivates the TABORites? Perhaps, it's just misguided conservatism, like pushing the envelope to achieve the ultimate no-tax-increase pledge.
We'll be watching the TABOR proposal as time goes on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
