Archive for the 'Conservatism' Category


Perry’s Big Choke

Yeah.  You’ve seen it.  Here’s the link.  Much like the Theisman MNF leg-breaking incident where ABC showed it over and over in slow motion, the Perry brain-fart is going to be show repeatedly on late-night talk shows for weeks to come.  Be sure Letterman is going to love this.  The question, can Perry recover?

I’m not so sure.  He’s got tons of money, but this is a defining moment.

Perry’s entry was exciting.  We had an executive from Texas, a state with a GREAT economic record, come in to challenge Mitt “Romneycare” Romney.  We hoped the Texas straight-shooter would walk in, swagger Romney to death in the debates, and walk off with the nomination.  But after 3 debates, it was clear that Perry sucked at debates.

Tonight was nothing new.  In fact, outside of his Big Choke, he did very well.  He was cogent, clear, and made great points.  But these debates favor the sound-bite.  And Perry’s biggest sound-bite will be his biggest failure.  The only thing that can save him is the fall of Joe Paterno at Penn State, depending upon the news outlet.

Perry’s failure here is a detraction from everything he has going for him.  Ultimately, he’s great on paper.  But he doesn’t exude the confidence to be the GOP Nominee.  If he can’t secure the base, he can’t secure the nomination, regardless of the money in his war chest.  And tonight, he showed just how badly he performs when he needs to perform.

Would he perform better in an intimate 1-hour setting with one other candidate, ala Newt & Cain?  Maybe.  But he hasn’t.

The good news is Gingrich is rising.  People call him a RINO.  But there’s nobody better on the issues.  If I’m willing to forgive Newt for sitting on a bench with Pelosi, he’s come a long way.

More on HotAir.


The Best Minds on the Stage

Tonight’s debate was very similar to the debates we’ve seen so far.  People attack Romney, but the attacks slip off.  We did see Mitt lose his cool after being interrupted by Santorum and Perry.  But for the most part, there was little new.  Here’s my reaction.

Romney:  Solid, although showed some temper.  I can’t say I blame the guy.  And he was playing in front of a “home” audience who cheered him and booed his detractors.  Still, lots of fun things to say, but no substance.  His job was to not make any mistakes, and he clearly accomplished that goal.

Perry:  Remove the awkward illegal immigrant attack, and you have a much better performance from Perry.  He had less of the stammering (although some clearly awkward pauses).  When talking about jobs and immigration, he was commanding.  He probably saved his campaign tonight.

Cain:  Apples and oranges.  A clearly incompetent attack from Bachmann, who launched into a VAT argument that wasn’t a VAT argument (D’OH!) when she really meant to say national sales tax (ain’t you a tax lawyer, lady?).  That made her attack confusing and ultimately it fell flat, and it helped Cain.  Ultimately Cain had to throw up his hands and say “read the plan”.  Romney’s question on the two sales taxes, state and federal, was not well-addressed by Cain.  But Herman certainly had a few winning comments in the debate.

Bachmann:  She clearly fumbled the VAT/Sales Tax attack on Cain.  Plus  she’s gone from saying nobody should be taxed to everybody should be taxes.  Since the Gardisil overreach Bachmann has flown off the rails.  Tonight’s performance should force her to drop from the campaign.

Santorum:  Clearly a stalking horse.  The good news is he got more airtime because Huntsmann wasn’t there (hey, a guy has to spray tan!).  The bad news is he got more airtime to launch attacks on basically everyone.  I’d suggest to the Perry or Romney campaign to reach out to Santorum, promise him a cabinet position and assume his campaign debt, and keep him in, then have him launch proxy attacks on Romney/Perry, or a fake proxy on said candidate so the candidate can come out looking good.  If he doesn’t want to do that, then he needs to drop out.  Nobody’s taking him seriously.

Paul:  Good on domestic, bad on foreign policy.  Same old Ron Paul!

Gingrich:  I want to say this– the stage tonight was full of people with solid conservative credentials, but only one shines above the field, and that’s Newt.  If he didn’t have so much baggage, he’d be the frontrunner.  But again he talks about “working together” with Democrats, and he alluded to it tonight.  There will be no working together with Democrats to dismantle Obamacare.  That’s certain.  When the Democrats controlled the House & Senate & White House in 2008-2010, the Republicans got all stick and no carrot.  Speaker Boehner has done a great job using that stick on the White House and Senate to get things as done as he can get done.  But Newt has to come out guns blazing and declare total animosity towards compromise with the Democrats on Obamacare.  And the EPA.

Newt’s brilliant.  There’s no doubt about it. He’s a professor and it shows.  Romney’s smart, but he’s not Newt.  Santorum is smart, and so are Bachmann and Perry.  Paul’s a different kind of smart.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Newt’s really making me think about taking him seriously.  He’s got tremendous downside potential, but he’s got tremendous upside as well.  Perry’s got money, but no mojo to stop Romney.

In fact, if Perry and Gingrich got together right now and formed a ticket, Romney would be dead in the water and Cain couldn’t compete.

Tomorrow:  An interview profile of Rick Perry.


Application for President : Mitt Romney

(This is the first of profiles of the current candidates and their performance.  I’m reviewing this as if each of the candidates submitted information to me and then did an on-site interview, and my reactions to their information.  They are considered to be applying as a Republican candidate for office, not a conservative candidate for office.)

Candidate Name:  Mitt Romney

Cover Letter:  Bio from Website.

Comments:  He seems like a good family man and has been actively involved in industry.  Strangely enough, there’s nothing in the post that says why Mitt wants to be President.

Education History:  BS in English, Brigham Young University

JD (Law Degree), Harvard

MBA, Harvard

Comments:  Very impressive, especially the joint JD/MBA.  He has had high grades.  But do we want another lawyer as President?

Work History:  Management Consultant, venture capital / investment, CEO of Bain Capital, CEO Salt Lake City Winter Olympic Games, Governor of Massachusetts, ran for Senate, ran for President in 2008

Comments:  Certainly has a lot of leadership experience and understands business.

Government Experience:  Governor of Massachusetts.  Ran for Senate.  Enacted Romneycare.  Ran as a Pro-Choice Governor in Massachusetts.  Claimed a pro-life mantle when running for President in 2008.

Comments:  A “moderate” Republican.  Has claimed a more “conservative” mantle, but his record disputes that.  Has serious conflicts with the Tea Party thanks to his Romneycare policy.

Issues:  Whole plan is listed here and focuses on economic policy.  His jobs plan is to “restructure” the tax code by “broadening the tax base”.  He never really defines this particular term, but the tax base is going to be broad, baby!  He also plans on moving toward a territorial tax plan to bring extranational taxes back to the the US.  He plans on eliminating red tape by repealing Obama regulations.  He wants to ensure that regulations do not make a direct impact on the economy and will restrict any new regulations from making negative impacts on the economy.  How?  Not sure.  he will also allow new permits for drilling and expand the territory allowed for such drilling.  What territories?  Doesn’t say.  His labor policy will be to put more “conservative” people on the NRLB to ensure unions act “fairly”.  He plans to “work with Congress” on this (translation:  if Congress wants to do it, I’ll sign it.)

Comments:  It’s long.  And in fact, most of it isn’t what Romney is proposing, but what Obama has done wrong.  It’s an interesting read because the proposals inside are vague and the language is carefully crafted to come off as saying something important.  Every statement is capable of meaning something that can be deflected.  For example, Romney throws his support behind Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform as “a good start”, and claims to want to do something similar but different.  What he wants to do that’s different?  I don’t know.  He doesn’t explain.  And that’s what Romney is good at– making sweeping declarative statements that have no substance.  Same goes for his jobs policy, energy policy, labor policy– everything is treated with a broad brush.  There is no “red meat”, per se.

The Interview:  Romney’s performance in the debates has been great.  He’s been confident, articulate, and has good comebacks for any attacks.  However, he’s not giving any specifics on his plans.  His 59-point plan on jobs is an organizational mess and Romney hasn’t explained anything about it at the debates because it would take too long.  But it hasn’t hurt his performances in the debates, and he’s still the frontrunner.

Comments:  Again, light on specifics.  Mitt looks great, sounds great, but is weak on giving an indication on what his plans are.  Mitt excels at talking while not saying anything.  He’s proud of Romneycare but opposes Obamacare even though people from Romneycare lent the Obama administration support on how to craft Obamacare.

Overall Application:  Mitt’s a force to be reckoned with.  But he’s short on conservative credentials.  Serious conflicts with Tea Party values.  Proven leader.  He’ll be a good candidate, but as for governance, it’s unsure just what he will push and if it will be a solid conservative Presidency or something more middling.  His track record suggests he will lean more towards centrist policies.  He’s talked a more “conservative” game in this run, but his plan lacks specifics.  Also, there’s nothing that suggests Romney will cut government spending or streamline government by eliminating departments.  He’ll suspend Obamacare, but what he’ll do with it is unclear.  Will he push for its dissolution?  Will he amend it?  Will he talk with Paul Ryan and get Medicare straightened out?  Who knows.  Nothing in his debate performances has addressed specifics in these plans.  I’d like to see more specifics, but Romney’s been running for 10 months now and we haven’t seen anything that the Tea Party can get behind.


The Solitary Confinement of the Echo Chamber

I’ve noticed an interesting trend on the Internet.  I don’t think what I’m about to address is confined to cyberspace, but there are certainly concrete examples popping up all over.  I’m speaking of the movement of prominent opinion artists away from a discussion of ideas and into an echo chamber, where only their opinion matters.  What gradually happens to many people who have such solitary focus is an almost fanatical devotion to their core principles, so much so that they eschew healthy analysis and instead start veering into cult of personality.  There are many examples, so let me bring them to light.

  • Bill Maher.  I used to like Bill Maher.  His show “Politically Incorrect” was a healthy debate forum, and he usually started the show with something snarky.  However, as time progressed, he used his monologues as a self-righteous pulpit from which to preach, and he never allowed a following discourse from the guests to discuss the ideas in his monologues.  As time progressed, Maher became more and more of an establishment liberal, and in doing so, has walked his self-righteous being into a state reserved for conspiracy theorists.  Here he is on his show, looking to his guests for support, as he rambles about inoculations and mercury fillings.  Strap in and enjoy this special kind of crazy (especially the “settled science” bit):
  • Charles Johnson.  I remember I used to have a good ol’ time a Little Green Footballs, reading the 700+ comments on a single post, and listen to Charles talk about the rise of Islamofacism in Europe.  People like Robert Spencer (of JihadWatch) would stop by and contribute.  But about two years ago, CJ started afoul of the White Nationalist movement in Europe, and he slowly drifted into some deranged paranoia, so much so he even banned Robert Spencer from his site for reasons I can’t readily explain (it’s logged on JihadWatch if you want to see the actions of a paranoid individual attacking a steadfast intellectual in Spencer).  He started banning commenters for disagreeing with him.  He’s done such a good job of discouraging debate, he now speaks to an echo chamber as their Grand Poobah.  His loss of focus on Creationists drifted into “hate-mongers” at the Washington D.C. protest march.  Look at these “hate-mongers” in this photo-essay of his and tell me– are all of these people foaming-at-the-mouth racists?  I see people who are talking of revolution, not hate, because they fear their rights are being eroded.  Somehow that gets translated into White Supremacy.  And, of course, there is a Birther thrown in, as well as someone with a satirical sign (“Dr. Strangelove” anyone?) and someone stating that Barney Frank is a sexual deviant (which, given Frank’s track record on economic issues, should be the least of our concerns).
  • Lee.  I used to love Right Thinking from the Left Coast.  I even sent money.  Now, I don’t want to speak ill of the dead (Lee tragically passed away last year in China), but the blog seemed to lose its focus on a variety of topics and instead spent a lot of time on torture.  In fact, Lee spent an inordinate amount of time on torture and why it was bad.  After about the 100th post on torture, I had lost hope in the blog as a whole, and moved on to greener pastures.  I enjoyed many of Lee’s posts before his torture obsession, and I miss the guy who made me laugh.  I think that’s what got me the most– I stopped laughing, and reading someone so obsessed with the minutiae of a gray-area topic that it sucked the life out of anything else he was talking about, pretty much ruined the site for me.  Rest in Peace, Lee, and I hope you find laughter wherever your Spaghetti Monster puts you.
  • The Huffington Post and other liberal blogs.  I used to love going to the Huffington post because I could effectively dismantle arguments of the bloggers there (and before you click to see my greatest hits, know that the comments have been under maintenance for about 2 years now).  I even had the good fortune of being mentioned in a blog post by Jane Smiley (in which I am called arrogant for telling another commenter that she’s, ahem, a human).  The meat and potatoes of a liberal commenter on a blog is the strawman, and it was so much fun knocking them down.  Abortion debates were my specialty, and I had fun there, helping the confused sort come to rational decisions.  However, out of the blue, one day I was banned.  I had not violated any terms of service.  But what I did was upset the Echo Chamber.  I was persona-non-grata because I challenged them by bringing in debate.  I rarely veered off topic, and I always discussed the merits of the post.  But, at some point, I was too big of a thorn in the side, and my attempts to bring rational debate met with banning.  I found a few other blogs, and even found William, the hardcore liberal, who would plagiarize posts from other places and claim them as his own.  (When I routinely made him look stupid for blindly following the liberal talking points, he started attacking me personally.)  But in those other blogs, I discovered a microcosm of people who simply found others who agreed with them, and would result to derivative dribble when debated.  It’s come to a point where the Defenders of Academia are so locked into their liberal mindset that anyone who disagrees is the subject of ridicule, not debate (although some, like Maher, want to debate something that’s saved the lives of millions of people).
  • And that brings us to the News.  Conservatives love to point at the Mainstream Media and claim that they have a largely liberal bias.  And who can blame them, when CNN runs a story with a psychiatrist calling conservatives cowed toadies?   Who else would run with the video other than a network tailoring its news to its listeners– liberals.  Is there any debate here, or is this just a story put together to make conservatives sound like angry ignoramuses who only do what are told by a bully?

What I’ve illustrated here is a disturbing trend within the Age of New Media.  We are so connected that it’s not hard to go out and find people who agree with us, but to actually engage in argument forming debate is so uncomfortable that it is shunned and the opposition ridiculed.  And in that echo chamber, we find people we once trusted are deteriorating into nothing more than conspiracy theorists with 50,000 daily counter hits.

We’re becoming a polarized nation, and it has nothing to do with Talk Radio, as it’s a product of the lack of debate found elsewhere.  When the policies of indoctrination end in academics and the News, maybe we’ll see a thawing of the polarized viewpoint.  But so long as people can find a safe haven to hear people agreeing without debate, we’ll never have this thaw.  And to that end, the internet is not doing us any favors– it merely magnifies the ever-growing rift sown by the media and ideological blogs.

UPDATE: Charles Johnson is now surfing HotAir comments and posting them on the front page of his blog, trying to expose the “racism” inherent in the Right-o-Sphere.  It takes a special kind of vindictiveness to surf the comments on a rival’s blog and use them to try and smear it.  Essentially, because HotAir doesn’t spend the time prowling and banning people for possible racist comments, HotAir must itself condone all racism.  (Or, maybe HotAir is just more tolerant of free speech, not just speech you agree with?)

Here’s a few examples of comments CJ has objections with:

Of course not, Oba-Mao is their messiah, he holds their Marxist ideologies every bit as dearly to his heart as they do their own. Were the founding fathers alive today, they would be hanging these ba$tards from the nearest Liberty Tree for treason. Benjamin Franklin would be spitting flames to see what his precious Fourth Estate has become.

doriangrey on October 21, 2009 at 8:18 AM


Like any good dictatorship the filthy lying coward in the White House will soon not allow unapproved media networks.

highhopes on October 21, 2009 at 8:34 AM


Unfortunately, we have a Marxist/Maoist Administration, a slavish Congress, and a Goebbels-esque Fourth Estate, who has destroyed the concept of objective reporting more than any other generation before it. The best defense is a good offense and sunlight is the best disinfectant. Remeber, Chavez, Mao, and Putin exercised containment of the media and control of the message, also.

kingsjester on October 21, 2009 at 8:39 AM

Yes, CJ actually thinks these are “extreme, hateful, racist, and/or violent”, and need to be banned and scrubbed from the HotAir comments.  So believing a President to be Marxist who has surrounded himself with some clearly in-the-realm-of-communist leftists is now considered a banning offense, or a window into your racist soul?  For someone who claims rationality, CJ is clearly moving into the realm of megalomania.

So, my recommendation to HotAir commenters — beware!  CJ may attempt to shame you by posting your possibly “extreme, hateful, racist, and/or violent” comments on his website for all to see!


Why John McCain Would Be Worse For America than Obama

Glenn Beck recently made waves by saying John McCain would have been worse for America than electing Barack Obama.  His reasoning is that Obama and McCain wouldn’t be very different economically, although I would think McCain would be worlds better on the diplomatic stage than Obama.

I wouldn’t say the McCain would be worse in that way.  However, McCain isn’t a true conservative– he’s more of Bush, but more centrist, if you can believe it.  McCain’s made a career out of being a “maverick”, which is essentially breaking from the party and voting his conscience.  Such bold action has brought us ground breaking legislation like the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill, which worked wonders in stifling free speech but opened new arenas for unscrupulous behavior (such as or the “swiftboaters”, as some would say).  McCain always seems to be walking hand-in-hand with Democrats when its time to stick his thumb in the eye of party leadership.  It’s been especially aggravating for any true conservative.

McCain would not have changed his mind on “bipartisanship” (read:  Republicans give up something to Democrats for no perceivable gain) when he was in the White House, especially with a Democratic majority in Congress, so he’d have to do more “bipartisaning”.  Worse is he wouldn’t try and tackle the true problems in D.C.– namely, the out of control spending.  He’d do more than Obama has, but I’m sure we’d still be trying to stimulate and regulate our way out of the current economic slump.

The real damage, however, comes from public perception.  At this point, McCain and the Democrats would march out together to declare their goal of mutually assured destruction.  The Repbulican party would have been associated with McCain, and Congress with the Democrats.  With the total lack of solutions and nobody there to oppose them, we’d see an independent revolt.  The Democrats would maintain control of Congress for 8-12 years, spending without limits, all with McCain’s approval.  Nobody would be marching in anger because there are no alternatives– it would be a Bipartisan Epic Fail.

As a result, the Republicans couldn’t possibly find strength in their root conservatism and launch a counterattack.  The RNC would be too weak to oppose McCain in a primary, and doing so would just convince the local voters that the GOP is in such disarray that its savaging its own President.  In the meantime, the Democrats pick up the pieces and solidify gains in the Senate and House, enough to have a supermajority that can easily pass health care and whatever else he wanted.

A McCain Presidency would have spelled doom for the GOP.  Now it has new life, and its found new friends.  Running on strict fiscal conservatism and carrying a resolve to assist in any way.

As I said before, I welcomed the Democratic leadership.  They’re out there reminding us just what a bunch of numbskulls they are.  And so long as the Democrats are in the majority, every mistake to policy becomes theirs to own.  And its becoming painfully obvious how painfully inept they are.


The Completely Believable Unbelievable Post

Time magazine’s Kevin O’Leary places the blame of the California budget crises squarely at the feet of… the overtaxed citizens of 1978 and their evil Republican overlords!

They begin with the 1978 property tax revolt and the victory of Proposition 13. As California experienced a dramatic escalation in home values, property tax assessments skyrocketed. Especially vulnerable were seniors on fixed incomes. When then Gov. Jerry Brown and the legislature dithered, conservative activists led by Howard Jarvis put a seductively simple sounding proposition on the ballot. Under Proposition 13, the annual real estate tax on a parcel of property would be limited to 1% of its assessed value and this assessed value would only increase by a maximum of 2% per year, until a change in ownership. Voters responded and Proposition 13 scored a dramatic victory with 65% of the vote. Property tax rates dropped an average of 57%.

Seriously, no blame goes to a government that has been wasting money and failing to balance budgets, and instead blames the people who foolishly limited the rate at which property taxes could increase.  The proposition O’Leary blames, Prop 13, was the last big act of fiscal conservatism seen by the state of California, limiting the increase in property taxes to 1% a year, unless the property is sold.

More from O’Leary:

“In the first years after Proposition 13 passed, the state was able to get by because it had a surplus,” says David Menefee-Libey, a political scientist at Pomona College. “But because the state is now responsible for funding local government and school districts the demands on state resources became too great. The second strategy followed by [Governors Gray] Davis and [Arnold] Schwarzenegger has been to finesse the fiscal crisis by using budget gimmicks and by borrowing to bridge the yearly budget shortfall. Now both options are exhausted.”

California has been pretty much controlled by the legislature for years.  The governors have fought as best as they could, but the spending has been out of control.  (Remember the shut down threatened by Schwartzenegger when he first took office?  He was vilified by the press.) The state has had budget surpluses, and the increase in demands for left-leaning special projects has been increasing faster than the GDP increase in the state.


Proposition 13 further altered California politics by requiring a two-thirds majority for tax increases either at the state or local level. This requirement along with a constitutional provision requiring a two-thirds majority to pass a budget – the result of a proposition passed in 1933 – means it is far more difficult to raise taxes or pass a budget in California than in other states. For more than 30 years California has been living with a system of minority rule in which 34% of the legislature or a local community can stonewall the majority. Facing this post-Proposition 13 system, California’s various interest groups have increasingly used the ballot box to protect themselves – but by so doing have mandated budgetary havoc.

But O’Leary carries water for the Left, blaming the state’s troubles on the unwillingness of the people to be taxed more.  With the state income tax of California is 9.3%, the sales taxes are 8.25% (often above 10% when including local taxes) combined with a cost of living that puts any earners above the $50,000 Federal/State Tax threshold, it’s absolutely ludicrous to blame Prop 13 on the state’s budget woes.  So the heroes are the 60% majority Democrats who want to increase the tax burden on the people and business, not those who are fighting the overtaxing, a state that already hoists a 19.3% tax burden upon people who already pay 30% income tax to the Feds.

Of course, the problem is the property tax and the fact that taxes are just so gosh-darn hard to raise in California, and the evil conservatives who have an objection to handing over more than 50% of their paycheck to the government.


The ‘Oogedy Boogedy’ Conservative

Kathleen Parker at the WaPo must looooove hate-mail.  Her latest piece talks about the ‘Oogedy Boogedy’ conservative– you know, the one who clings to guns and God– and then demands the GOP toss the Evangelical Christian aside because they’re too loud about their religion.

To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn’t soon cometh.

Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. And, the truth — as long as we’re setting ourselves free — is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that.

Jonah Goldberg has an excellent rebuttal.  I highly recommend you read it.  And here’s mine.

Christians are called to Jesus and God, and part of that calling is evangelization.  Some believe it’s done through preaching, others by works.  In any way, we are called to Christianity and to follow its precepts in total.  We can’t be closet Christians.  In fact, last Sunday’s Gospel from the Catholic year was exactly about that.

14“Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money.

19“After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’

21“His master replied, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!’


24“Then the man who had received the one talent came. ‘Master,’ he said, ‘I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.’

26“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28” ‘Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

So, if we do as Kathleen suggests, and “keep religion in our hearts where it belongs”, then we are turning our backs on our mission and are behaving like the wicked servant with one talent!

I happen to believe the GOP can do both, be a Christian party and be a Conservative party, and it’s a matter of priorities on how we get elected.  Conservative fiscal policies will win us the next election, and reducing the size and interference of government in our lives will be the best policy.  None of this is anathema to Christianity.  Building a solid society must come first, but a society that is moral and just, and religion plays a big part in that.

Kathleen suggests it’s the White Christiany Oogedy Boogedy-ness of the GOP that cost them the election.  She’s wrong in many ways, and to cannibalize the morality of those in the party to further some political dream is nonsense.  We lost the election because people were a) still upset about the war, b) upset about the economic downturn, c) unable to get behind McCain because he was a centrist and d) disgusted with the latest rounds of GOP scandals.  It had nothing to do with G-O-D.

But in a way, I agree.  We can’t run primarily on social issues.  That’s the domain of the Democrats.  Run on strengths of foreign policy and economics and you’ll defeat the Democrats.

About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).



World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 133,056 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy