John McCain and the Petulant Right
February 6th, 2008 by adminWell, my man bowed out. Looks like it will be McCain against either Hillary or Obama. McCain was not my first choice, but he’s a good man. I don’t understand why the more popular radio talk show hosts are acting more like hysterical Kos kids than rational conservatives. And, quite frankly, it’s starting to piss me off.
I’ve been a Republican and a Conservative a lot longer than most of these people. As a kid, I was a member of the the Young Americans For Freedom — the youth corps of the John Birch Society. I was a follower of Barry Goldwater back before I could vote. My Aunt used to read William F. Buckley Jr. to me at bedtime. I’ve been a registered Republican for over 30 years.
And now these people want to pretend that I don’t know anything about being a Conservative. Shame on them. The most strident of them, like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity have defined a nice little corner of conservatism and pretend that *they* get to say who is and is not a conservative or a good Republican. They are full of it. They are not the “real” Conservative Right. They are simply the Petulant Right.
First, of course, the Republican Party is a party, not an ideology. It is a way of *generally* like-minded folk who agree on *general* political principles to get what they want done accomplished. The Republican Party is a pretty big tent, based on the general ideas of anti-federalism (aka New Federalism), individualism, and liberty. That leaves lots of room for variation, at least before the poison of the Petulant Right set in. There were “Rockefeller Republicans” who had one view, “Goldwater Republicans” who had another, hard-core libertarian Republicans who had another, social conservatives who had another, etc. There were (and, in spite of what the pundits say, are) pro-choice Republicans, atheist Republicans, Christian conservative Republicans, straight Republicans, homosexual Republicans, and, yes, even liberal Republicans who believed in small government liberalism.
These radio talk show people think that they can define “real” Repblicans and call everybody else RINOs. Not only is it insulting, but it makes them no better than the libertarian bloggers who are either not actually Republicans at all or who are openly Republicans by convenience only, who like to run around calling everybody they don’t agree with RINOs. The Republican party is not one of narrow-mindedness and petulance, and the voting public within the party are showing them this is the case.
The voting in the Republican primaries should be teaching these pundits that, in fact, most of us are more broad minded than they would allow us to be. Within the broad tent of Republicanism, there is room for compromise. There is room to recognize that in order to govern reasonably, you can’t insist that a candidate be ideologically “pure” in every little thing. The very idea that in a large national party *any* candidate “must” agree with you on every point is simply silly.
But the Petulant Right would rather be pure in their adherence to a rather bizarre and unworkable absolutist ideology and have no effect on the real political path of the country than get into the real world and make the practical compromises necessary to govern a real-live government. And that’s the choice the Ann Coulters and Laura Ingrahams of the party actually are trying to give us. To them, it is better to be irrelevant and pure than to make the hard decisions it takes to unify a nation. They like to pretend they hold the mantle of Ronald Reagan. They do not, and they are being ignored because they do not. Reagan was a uniter — who was able to show us that there was a way of reaching a broad consensus accepting a relatively small number of basic principles. Reagan was pro-life, but was not histrionic about it — what he actually said was that he really didn’t know what the right answer was, but that being as pro-life as possible within reason seemed to be the most prudent. Reagan was a New Federalist, but did not have a problem with national programs he felt were worthwhile. Reagan was a man of faith, but did not try to push every doctrinal belief he had onto us in form of law. And, of course, there was a Republican party before Reagan — the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, Rockefeller and Goldwater, Eisenhower (can you imagine what Ann Coulter would say about Eisenhower??), and yes, even Nixon.
And now these “pure” Republicans who want to “return” the party to its “conservative” roots want to to turn the Republican Party into an irrelevant tiny inward-looking exclusionist club that has no real meaning in the real world. They are no different than the libertarian Republicans who want to turn the Republican party into the Libertarian party. The Ann Coulters who want to engage in suicide-voting don’t want to save the party, they want to destroy it. Their battle cry is not conservatism. It is self-serving aggrandizement — apres moi, le deluge. They are not advocating principles, they are abandoning them. People who act like adults in the pRepublican Party recognize that there are things bigger than they are, and that even if their favorite person doesn’t win, those principles mean that the goal of the team is worthwhile. And those principles are the big things I mentioned — not every single little issue.
And that brings me to John McCain. The very thing that the Petulant Right hates about McCain is exactly the thing that they should like about him. He is fundamentally a man of principle. His principles are not *exactly* those of the Petulant Right, but they are real, and they are good. He opposes torture. Since when does a “real” conservative have to be pro-torture? He supports a compassionate response to immigration issues. Since when does a “real” conservative have to be a xenophobic thoughtless dogmatist? He supports an open political debate not corrupted by mega-monied big pockets. Since when does a “real” conservative have to support buying votes? Have some of his solutions not been the ones I wanted? Sure. I think McCain-Feingold sucks. But that’s the way it is with laws — not everybody can see the unintended consequences, and it’s simply unfair to pretend that the unintended consequences are the intended ones, and that he is not willing to fix what is broken.
And, of course, on many issues he’s pure Conservative — defense, second amendment, most economic issues, free trade, etc. But the Petulant Right won’t even give him that. Some have engaged in the most despicable activity of trying to denigrate his tremendous service to the country during the Vietnam War. Shame on them. Shame on them twice.
McCain is a good man. He is a man who has placed principle above his own political aspirations — which is why he was willing to go against the Petulant Right when it was in ascendance. And he will govern this country with principle. Most Republicans recognize that, which is why they are ignoring the Petulant Right and embracing the *real* and traditional Right. And, quite frankly, if the Petulant Right wants to take its ball and go home and seethe because they can’t be King and Queen, the Republican Party will do just fine. If it keeps nominating people of the quality of McCain, it has nothing to fear — from the Democrats on the left, or from the Petulant Right.
Technorati Tags: John McCain, Republican Politics, Republican Party, Primaries
Posted in Politics | 45 Comments »
February 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
As someone who will vote Dem, I find it (somewhat) comforting that the worst case scenario is John McCain. For the most part, everything you said about him is true. I was even considering voting for him in 2000 if he were the nominee.
He should spend less time pandering to “the base.” Unfortunately, your “base” is the Hannity-Coulter-Limbaugh-driven masses that expect GOP purity. It is not the GOP of Coolidge, Eisenhower, or even Reagan. Face it, within your own party, your are now the “fringe.” You might even be a centrist Dem and not even know it
February 8th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Actually, the “base” is not what you claim, any more than Code Pink represent the Democrat “base.”
The Republican “base” is what put McCain in the lead.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I guess the GOP in Iowa is not your base then.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
As much as the Dems in Berkeley are yours.
Of course, you mischaracterize the GOP in Iowa by your stereotypic generalization, but you know that. That’s why McCain is winning. Sorry to burst your bubble, there.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Why McCain is winning is befuddling to most conservatives because he has taken both sides of many conservative issues, such as immigration, the budget, and gay marriage. I wouldn’t relish being a conservative right now, because one doesn’t really know what they’re going to get if he’s elected. Granted, conservatives will vote for McCain because they don’t want Clinton or Obama. That’s fair. But McCain is indeed a maverick and no one knows what his policies would be except him.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Hardly. McCain is winning because he appeals most broadly to the Republican base. That you can’t make that fit with your stereotypes of either Republicans or conservatives only shows how skewed your stereotypes are.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I’m having trouble figuring out what you consider your base. It seems you argue on your referenced post from Evangelical Outpost that the GOP base has been coopted by the conservative purists. So…isn’t *your* base the one you wish to *return* to? and if that is so, then isn’t the GOP base what I suggest? Or are you considering the Limbaughs, Ingrahams, and Hannitys of the world an extremely vocal minority that just seem to have overwhelming popularity? Could you kindly give me a pundit or journalists who represents the base you describe? Mort Kondracke? Bill Kristol? Jonah Goldberg? Tucker Carlson? Pat Buchanan? Charles Krauthammer? Who?
February 13th, 2008 at 10:17 am
The base is the group that’s electing McCain by such a huge margin. That’s pretty simple. The vocal pundits of the social conservative right are exactly that, vocal pundits, and they no more represent the base than Code Pink represents the base of the Democratic Party.
As with Code Pink, there are areas where these pundits are very popular. We have our socially conservative lacunae just like the Dems have Berkeley — and these groups are important in their respective parties because they have a broad range of people who share *some* of their values and are fellow-travellers.
Thus, most Dems are not Code Pinkers, but a large number of Dems share their frustration with the US involvement in Iraq, even if they disagree with many of Code Pink’s antics, and with its extreme position. Similarly, a large number of Republicans share specific opinions with these pundits, but don’t share all of them or some of their extreme positions.
In fact, opinion among the pundits on the right is all over the place — Ann Coulter wants to be a suicide voter, Sean Hannity thinks McCain is not the best, but will support him, G Gordon Liddy thinks McCain is the best thing since sliced bread and has supported him since day one.
There is no one pundit that is the sole prophet for the Republican party, because it is a large and diverse party with multiple competing interests. The base is the group that bothers to vote in the primaries, and it is obvious that it also has multiple interests, but it is coming together to support McCain and ignoring the petulant right.
My complaint in the Evangelical Outpost article is that the power of the petulant right is overstated, their bully pulpit makes them seem more than they are, and that we Republicans should give them the weight they deserve — not the weight they claim.
The McCain victory is a profound slap in their face by the Republican party, and a well-deserved one.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Thanks for the detailed response.
So would it be fair to say that the base is further left than you?
And to confirm your comments about CODEPINK not being the Dem base…I had never even heard of them until you mentioned ‘em.
And let me lob a softball (or perhaps a grenade) your way. I am too young to remember JFK, but there have been comparisons made between him and Obama at least in reference to the enthusiasm of the voting public for newness, freshness, change, etc.. Speaking to my Dem in-laws they disagreed saying they felt RFK was a more apt comparison. From GOP-perspective and a conservative one at that, do you or your brethren see these characterizations as true/real or is it just propaganda in your eyes?
February 13th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Well, obviously — if the base and I were in sync, then Fred Thompson would already have the nomination in the bag.
But, in fact, *both* parties have drifted leftward in the past 50 years. The Republican party of today is about where the Democrat party was in 1950, at least in terms of big government.
By left, I’m going to assume you mean it in the traditional sense of strong central government with strong control of the lives of the citizens and almost complete control of the infrastructure and wealth.
The Republican party is very much to the left of me when it comes to anti-federalism and government entitlements. And that’s to be expected. Most Americans are addicted to entitlements, even Republicans. The only big difference now is how far the two parties want to go down the road to EU style socialism.
The Founding Fathers made the provision that only landed people could vote. The common wisdom is that they did that because of some sense of bigotry. That is not the case. They did it explicitly because their classical education told them that the one great poison of democratic republican governments was the ability to create entitlements. As soon as you had a government whose major purpose was to take from one group and give to another, the government became nothing more than a way for one special interest group to steal from another.
Thus, the Founding Fathers, believed that only those who pay taxes should be allowed to say how those taxes should be spent. Otherwise, you will just have millions of people deciding they are entitled to whatever the government can take from other people.
That is now the defining principle of the Democrat party. It *specifically* has the goal of creating a kleptocracy.
The Republican party has *also* drifted in that direction, but not nearly as far. But it has drifted, and it has drifted much farther than me.
As to your last question, I think that the comparison with JFK is not apt. JFK had some real accomplishments and demonstration of leadership and character under fire. RFK *is* more apt, but even then Obama pales in comparison when it comes to experience and accomplishment.
The substance-free infatuation with Obama really has no true comparison, because I personally believe that it is a reflection of the obsession with celebrity that has overtaken the US. His campaign is specifically based on the absence of substance. He is the Paris Hilton of politics.
Unlike JFK or RFK, Obama is a true postmodern candidate. He is fundamentally a tabula rasa with a pretty face. His statements of substance, rare as they are, are uniformly frightening and naive. The few policies that he has truly attempted to promulgate, such as the bill to require demonstration of specific social positions in alignment with Democrat platform by companies for federal contracts is not merely unconstitutional but Orwellian. But it’s Orwellian in a “gee, I meant well but never thought about the real consequences” way.
Frankly, Obama seems a more charismatic young Ted Kennedy to me than either JFK or RFK. His instinct for social justice is good. His goofy feel-good “what the hell” approach to policy is disastrous. I think that he would make a great firebrand liberal Senator, though I would despise everything he said. He *might* even make a good President in another eight years.
Today, however, he will be a disaster — simply because he has so obviously an abstract sense of what he wants to do, and absolutely no sense of unintended consequences. Giving him the presidency will be like giving a loaded pistol to a three-year-old.
To me, the difference between Hillary and Obama is like the difference between the Soviet Union and the Cold War and Al-Qaeda and the fundamentalist jihadists. When the US faced the Soviet Union, they were implacable enemies, but they had a common set of rules an a reasonable expection of some sort of rationality in their dealings. It didn’t mean that the Soviets weren’t despicable murderers, but you knew they weren’t going to set off a nuclear weapon just for the hell of it. In contrast, the Islamofascists are not driven by any particular rational expectations, and there is no expectation of rationality or reason. They may well set off a nuclear weapon just for the hell of it. Similarly, I oppose everything that Hillary stands for, but she’s smart and she is rational and she has a sense of consequences. I may think that her methods are dastardly and her goals are abhorrent, but she will act in a reasonable manner within the context of hardball politics and policy creation. Obama is not like that. He will just do stuff because it seems like a good idea at the time. Play softball with N. Korea? Sure, Kim’s just like us! Bomb Pakistan? What the hell, why not?
February 13th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Well said. Obviously, I disagree with certain points, but that is irrelevant. If B.O. is the Paris Hilton of politics (a tad harsh), then what was GWB, Nicole Richie?
I never quite understood the GOP opposition to many issues; lately, the one that confuses me most is the opposition to universal health care. Why is it acceptable for gov’t to pay for armies, police, fire, libraries, trash pick-up, and health care for the 60+ crowd? somehow providing health care for the masses is taboo. Granted your “kleptocracy” comment has merit if one had truly open borders, but there has to be a better option than, what is it, 40+ million uninsured?
February 13th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
You are mistaking principle with implementation. Both Democrats and Republicans believe that there should be “universal” health care. The difference comes from *how* that should be implemented. The socialist dems, because they believe that there is only one solution, equate opposition to socialistic government-control-your-life implementation to opposition to the goal.
This is *exactly* the same discussion as the school vouchers discussion. Democrats who see byzantine one-size-fits-all traditional public school as the only solution assert that anybody who has any other solution doesn’t believe in educating kids. It simply isn’t so — and the huge success of allowing people to make some choices in the education of their kids is clear demonstration of it.
The same thing is true with medical care. The big question is why do you only support a controlling stalinist approach to health care?
There are a number of reasons to oppose stalinist health care.
The first is the tyranny of medicine. The war cry of people who want to control every little thing in your life is that “if we taxpayers have to pay for your health care, then we get to say what you eat, drink, smoke, do, etc.” There is fundamentally *no* aspect of your life that will be left to your own devices if the socialist medical types have their way. Just think about some of the stuff that John Edwards proposed. Anybody who pretends to support individual liberty *cannot* support British NHS or even Canadian style health care.
The second thing is that it simply doesn’t work. The healthcare systems in Britain, Canada, et al. are either failing or are on the road to failing — both in terms of providing health care and in terms of bankrupting their respective countries. The regulatory cost of care is phenomenal. It passed 50% of health care cost in the US many years ago, and makes up *most* of the cost in socialist healthcare systems. Many people on the right feel it would be better to spend most of the healthcare dollar on healthcare rather than on *regulating* healthcare.
The third thing is that the government starts rationing health care on the basis of current political prejudice. Consider that guy in the UK who is not *allowed* to have his broken ankle fixed because he is a smoker. That kind of punitive social engineering has no place in medicine.
The fourth thing is that socialized medicine destroys the fundamental ethic of medical care. As a physician, I attended a medical ethics meeting at the federal government level a few years ago. One government bioethics person who was proposing changes to the federal health care systam for those under its umbrella (military, VA, medicare, etc) was proposing that the fundamental ethic of the physician-patient relationship be changed. The traditional relationship is that the physician should be the advocate of the patient within the medical system — attempting to get whatever the patient needs in order for good care. Instead, the federal guy said (a Hillarycare Clintonista, by the way), the physician should not primarily care for the patient, but be a conduit of national public health policy to the patient — that the “real” ethic was to do what was best for the government within the context of patient care. Thus, if it is more cost-effective to allow a sick patient to die in order to better fund preventative care for a young person, then the physician should not advocate care for the patient.
The consequences of stalinist medicine are significant. The reason we don’t want it is that we don’t believe that the British NHS, the Soviet radon caves, or the roach motels of Cuba with programmatic killing of patients through neglect are the direction the US wants to go.
Finally, of course, your claim of 40+ million “uninsured” is a false metric. Instead, tell me how many actually fail to get some sort of health care? The number is, in fact, very few.
The most interesting thing about that statistic is that if you look at the behavior of people who have the option, many *choose* not to have healthcare coverage. It’s an interesting and rational decision. A large number of these folk are younger folk who are in good health and want to spend their benefit money on other things — they opt out of health care coverage as a benefit. They do that because they know that the probability of “making” money on the insurance is small. It is actually more cost effective for them not to have comprehensive health insurance. In fact, it would be more cost-effective for them to carry *only* catastrophic insurance, and to pay the full bill of routine care out of pocket on a basis negotiated with the caretaker. Unfortunately, the stalinist healthcare supporters have placed such cost and charge controls as to make such choices impossible, and thus make it impossible for younger people to make rational choices.
February 13th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
So what is the GOP proposal for universal health care?
And not to change the topic too much, but what does your ilk really think about the mortgage bailout (freezing rates, extending time til forclosure kicks in, etc..) As a lib, I am actually against it. My wife and I bought a house within our means and we got a fixed rate mortgage we were able to afford. Sure we would have loved a nicer/larger/fancier house, but that would not have been financially prudent. In the end, why should I indirectly fund the bailout of others, the majority of whom should have known better. Don’t give me a “greater good” argument; if you do, socialized medicine will be right around the corner.
February 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
There are a number of solutions that have been proposed, mostly involved with allowing people to either keep their money from the taxman or to remove some of the regulation of the industry or to make insurance more affordable. The bottom line however, is that both the beauty and the devilment of free-market solutions is that there is almost never a one-size-fits-all solution. That’s why libs hate it — because it’s not a mindless kneejerk solution that removes decisionmaking and liberty from the patient. Accordingly, you will find different “conservative” solutions with different conservatives. Most of the current contenders had specific and very different proposals (unlike Obama).
For an overview of Fred Thompson’s view, see:http://www.fred08.com/Principles/PrinciplesSummary.aspx
and click on “healthcare.”
Once again, it’s a little like education. What is “the” solution for education? There is none. There are lots of solutions — and what we need to do is to provide people the tools and the liberty to choose which is right for them. For some it will be home schooling. For some it will be school vouchers. For some it will be a more competitive version of public schooling. For some it will be integration with parochial schools.
Similarly, the “best” solution for health care will depend on the individual. For some, it will be smart to rely heavily on health savings accounts. For others, it may be a subsidized voucher program. For others, it may be an employer-based insurance program. For others it will be something different.
The problem with the left is that there is only one solution — the one-size-fits-all solution that ultimately places all power in the central government and removes individual liberty, responsibility, and opportunity.
The best solutions in the United States have *not* come from the government, in spite of what Hillary and Obama pretend. The best solutions have *always* come when the government steps back and allows people to find solutions for themselves. That’s why the post office can’t compete with Federal Express, why those who opt out of the traditional educational system do so much better by all measures, and why the health care “crisis” will trivially be solved for 95% of the people in the country if the government would simply *allow* it to be solved.
And no, the Republicans, in general are universally opposed to housing bailouts. Certainly the “moderate” ones will be more likely to give the public what they want — they are always more likely to pander to the left. However, the idea that the banks were “predatory” in allowing people to make decisions is simply silly. The people took a chance and used bad judgment. They have *nobody* to blame but themselves, and it is their responsibility to fix their own financial boat.
The culture of victimization is owned by the left, not the right.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
>
You’re correct. Nevertheless, our “base” doesn’t want slave reparations, it wants far more moderate changes.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
wow that got fouled up, let me try again
February 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
*And no, the Republicans, in general are universally opposed to housing bailouts.*
Easy cowboy, I was agreeing with you there.
*The culture of victimization is owned by the left, not the right.*
You’re correct. Nevertheless, our “base” doesn’t want slave reparations, it wants far more moderate changes.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Just read “Healthcare” @ Fred08.com
First sentence: *Americans have the best healthcare in the world.*
Isn’t the first step in solving a problem admitting you have one? Sheesh, for starters look at the infant mortality rate…approaches third-world. Well maybe Fred is right..maybe we do have the best *healthcare* in the world…just not the best health.
I just can’t stand people who want to fix things they already consider “the best”
February 13th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
“Nevertheless, our “base” doesn’t want slave reparations, it wants far more moderate changes.”
No, it doesn’t want slave reparations, it want slaves. But you’re right, even slave masters can consider themselves “moderate.” Not even the Mafia wants to kill the businesses it extorts from completely. A keptocracy is still a kleptocracy, even if it does not drain its victims to death every time.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
“Isn’t the first step in solving a problem admitting you have one?”
Noting that you have the best system is not the same as saying it doesn’t have problems. In fact, Fred noted a lot of problems with the system — you just think of them a features, not bugs.
But in fact, the first step is not “admitting you have one.” The first step is making a realistic assessment.
Tell me, Eric. Which healthcare system in the world is *better* than that in the US? Certainly not Canada or France or Britain. Which system would you replace the US system with?
February 14th, 2008 at 12:54 am
ah, billo.
you’re not a Republican..you’re a Libertarian.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I’ll take that as “none.”
February 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Re-read #18:
*Well maybe Fred is right..maybe we do have the best *healthcare* in the world…just not the best health.*
February 14th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Well, then, Eric, why do you advocate stalinist solutions to “fixing” healthcare when healthcare isn’t what’s broken? The answer of course, is that it really doesn’t have anything to do with providing health care — it has everything to do with central state control and regulation of our lives.
If you want to fix what you call “health” then you need to address different questions altogether that have *nothing* to do with delivery of healthcar. If you want to use life expectancy and infant mortality as your measure, then you should address the things that skew those measures — low birthweight infants born to drug addicted single-parent women, drug-related deaths, and drug-related violence. The best healthcare possible won’t fix those issues.
Socializing medicine will not address any of those issues and will not fix what you want fixed. It will only destroy the excellent healthcare delivery we have in the US and add the mortality of Soviet/UK/Cuban health systems to the mix. It will *decrease* life expectancy, not *increase* it.
But, of course, the Dems will be even less likely than the Republicans to fix drug policy. They will pretend that it’s “healthcare” and “gun violence.” What a crock.
February 15th, 2008 at 1:35 am
People with enough money can indeed have the best healthcare system in the world. Those who don’t have enough money, and yes that includes those who choose not to insure themselves, don’t have access to that care. That is the problem to fix. Indeed, maybe it is outright socialism, but as an analogy, if Porsche is the best car in the world, a car most can’t afford, what is wrong with a system where everyone gets a car like a Ford Taurus. Maybe then, once everyone has a car one could mod your Taurus based on personal resources. Some will keep the standard rims; others could put on 17″ LeBrons for all I care.
So is it all about drugs? Which I assume you believe has to do with *moral decline*. That’s where your brand of social engineering steps in…abstinence education and faith-based 12-step programs. Fund that with my tax dollars and you have a kleptocracy and a theocracy all rolled up into one.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:36 am
The problem with forcing everyone to have a Taurus is that people are not machines and are not put out by cement factories running on five-year-plans. That’s what socialists don’t understand. Not everybody has their priorities. The one thing that a socialist simply cannot abide is the idea that somoeone might want to live their life differently than the state would allow. Oh, sure, you would allow them to put on different hubcaps, but the important stuff *must* be dictated by the state.
That’s why socialist countries always end up being hellholes. It turns out that when you treat people like machines, they lose the spark of innovation and creativity that freedom allows.
Indeed, we could all live in cement blocks, and allow people to paint the cement authorized colors inside their cubicles. That’s the kind of “freedom” that socialists want in the name of equality. It will kill the human spirit.
The fact is that as long as you allow liberty, people will not have equal outcomes. That means that some folk will do better than others, and some folk will want to spend their resources in ways you can’t control. We can make everything equal if we want. But such worker’s paradises are simply another word for hell.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Ah, the false hope of the free market… Just unleash all those entrepreneurs out there and the problems will fix themselves. If it weren’t for government interventions, I’m sure we’d have child labor laws and minimum wage, just to name a few. While we’re at it, let’s privatize local law enforcement…pahleez.
July 12th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Yeah, the socialist way is much better. Why, just look at the wonderful health care in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea, et al. The only difference between the soft socialized medicine of Europe and that of the workers paradises is in how quickly it is failing.
And, yes. That entrepreneurial spirit is *exactly* why we have what we have. Otherwise we would all be living in concrete bunkers living by the Soviet/French mantra of “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay.”
Your claim that because there some laws are good, then the government should dictate every facet of your life is simply silly.
Further, of course, private security has a long history and important place in American history, and an important place today. The socialist idea of an armiger class lording over a childlike helpless populace is not the American ideal, and never has been. The infantilization of Europe is one of the reasons for its decline — where the British are not even trusted with dinner knives and arrested for daring to chase off vandals throwing bricks through their windows. And, of course, the idea that work is bad for children is also wrong. Of course, nanny staters can’t tell the difference between exploitative work and good work, so all work perforce must be bad. But then, it’s only the *government* who knows what is good and what is bad, right?
But, at least *everybody* will be miserable — and that’s the fundamental goal of socialization.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Looks like the Republicans are the new Socialists now. Once again the false promise of the free market…capitalism for profits and socialism for [corporate] losses. Suddenly my schmuck Republican Wall Street friends with their $75K salaries and their $750,000 bonuses are big fans of welfare. Heck, the one’s without jobs are now even warming to the idea of socialized medicine. Go figure.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
What a crock. The false promise of the free market? Give me a break. Perhaps you have forgotten *why* these banks were giving out bad loans. Because it was good business? No. Because the Democrats forced them to.
And, of course, you forget *who* is fighting to make this bill as little of a bailout as possible. You can’t have it both ways, Eric — you can’t blame the failure of the bill to pass on the Republicans and at the same time blame the bill on the Republicans. Well, you can, but only if you insist on ignoring who really caused the problem.
You want to blame someone for this? Look in the mirror.
See http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/09/28/franks_fingerprints_are_all_over_the_financial_fiasco/
October 8th, 2008 at 2:42 am
The CRA really had nothing to do with this mess. I refer you to *The Big Picture* a blog the WSJ termed the creme de la creme of financial blogs. And we all know how left leaning the WSJ is…not.
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html
So you see:
>
Untrue. But nice try.
October 8th, 2008 at 2:43 am
try that again:
So you see:
*Perhaps you have forgotten *why* these banks were giving out bad loans. Because it was good business? No. Because the Democrats forced them to.*
Untrue. But nice try.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Heh. Yeah, only a Democrat would insist that a law forcing banks to give unqualified people subprime mortgages would never result in unqualified people getting subprime mortgages. You’re shocked, just shocked at the suggestion. Please.
The Democrats have been pushing this for years, and their Big Lie will only get them so far.
In contrast, the only folk who wanted to avert this in 2006 were Republicans — in particular John McCain.
See: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28973
But you knew that, didn’t you?
October 11th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
*law forcing banks to give unqualified people subprime mortgages*
Lie. You have no idea what the CRA did, do you?
October 12th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Lie? Poor Eric. Closing your eyes real tight does not make the world go away.
Look at the Federal Reserve Guidelines for implementation of the CRA:
1) Ignore age, location, and condition of property when assigning value so that unqualified assets will be valued in excess of standard market rates.
2) Ignore debt by applicants (e.g. “obligation ratios) because “it should be noted that the secondary market is willing to
consider ratios above the standard 28/36.”
3) Ignore credit history. “Lack of credit history should
not be seen as a negative factor, and “In reviewing past credit problems, lenders should
be willing to consider extenuating circumstances.”
4) Ignore employment history.
5) Accept welfare benefits and unemployment benefits as “income.”
The Federal Reserve manual is a manual on how to give bad loans. See:http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf
Further, of course, let’s see where those Fannie Mae folk are hiding now, shall we (from DailyPundit):
Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae . Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae’s accounting activities. At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, ” Raines, who long defended the company’s accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn’t proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that “mistakes were made” and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised. News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company’s books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years.” Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion.
Raines left with a “golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear. http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ The Government noted, “The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public. The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner.” These charges were made in 2006. The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits.
Tim Howard – Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard “was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a “stable pattern of earnings” at Fannie. In everyday English – he was cooking the books. The Government Investigation determined that, “Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae,”
On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant’s income statement to achieve management pay bonuses. Investigations by federal regulators and the company’s board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004.
Tim Howard’s Golden Parachute to soften his landing from leaving Fannie Mae was estimated at $20 Million!
Jim Johnson – A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO. A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you’ll see some interesting things about Johnson. Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson’s 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million.” Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae.
Johnson’s Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.
More importantly–WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor.
TIM HOWARD? Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama.
JIM JOHNSON? Johnson was hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee.
But you knew that, too, didn’t you?
October 13th, 2008 at 3:17 am
The enumerated list you give above is not part of the content of the PDF you referenced. Did you reference a blog of some sort alleging to reference that document?
October 13th, 2008 at 4:22 am
*FRANKLIN RAINES? Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor.*
Lie…Raines has never advised Obama about anything..ever. Thus, he cannot be his *Chief* financial advisor.
ANd, FWIW the rest of it is a lie, too, except for the Johnson selection for VP search (which he resigned after one week; he was never an advisor)
I find it shocking that you are posting a chain letter that has been debunked by multiple sources.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am
“The enumerated list you give above is not part of the content of the PDF you referenced. Did you reference a blog of some sort alleging to reference that document?”
It comes directly from that document. The quotes are directly from that document. Please Eric, there’s only so far your denial will take you.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Yeah, that Washington Post — a regular right-wing rag. I guess you’re right, only a fool would believe anything they report, right?
Just because Obama threw him under the bus along with his pastor, his mother, and his integrity doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Funny, isn’t it, that Obama hugs these people until someone notices. Suddenly, it turns out he sat in church for 20 years and never actually heard a sermon, and he has advisors that disappear as soon as people bring it up.
At least you are not so in denial that you deny Tim Howard and Jim Johnson. How do you explain *them* away, Eric?
October 14th, 2008 at 1:49 am
No….I did deny Howard. And Johnson was not an advisor…ever…and was on the VP selection committee for 1 wk.
The WashPost reference to Raines was in error. Again debunked.
This really is akin to the waking up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney chain-mail. It is a pathetic and desperate attempt on your part.
Now…how did he throw his mother under the bus?
Never..ever..thought this would happen…but we’re looking at a landslide. I hope Obama can do a good job in his first term, or else he’ll likely be a one-termer.
October 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Debunked? Hardly. I hate to tell you this, but a denial of inconvenient truths by Obama hardly counts as “debunked.” You know, sorta like his denial that he ever had a clue of what his pastor said after attending church for 20 years.
Or his ever-changing denials of his ties to ACORN. Tell me, Eric, which of Obama’s claims are the truth about ACORN, the truths from a week ago, or the truths today? (See: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/oops-obama-camp-caught-scrubbing-its.html ).
So, running the committee for one week doesn’t count? I guess if Obama throws you under the bus fast enough, it’s just the same as if you never existed at all. I wonder if the Obama White House is going to be like the Kremlin, with folk looking to see who is airbrushed out of the group photos each week. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/781141/barack_obama_taps_form er_fannie_mae.html
Tell me Eric, why did Obama *choose* Johnson to head the committee? Was he using good judgment then, or when he threw him under the bus. Which Obama do you support?
An Obama Presidency will be even worse than a Carter one. We have been without a major terrorist attack for six years because of the evil Bushitler policies. We will have a major terrorist attack within 18 months simply because Al Quaeda knows that Obama will play the game the same way Clinton did.
Obama, patting himself on the back for abandoning the evil corporate world, has forgotten that government does not produce. It only consumes. He truly believes that he can penalize productive people for being successful. The flight of capital from the US will be stunning — worse than the effect of Sarbanes-Oxley.
If you liked 1979, you will love 2011.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Tell me…William..how did he throw his own mother under the bus?
*If you liked 1979, you will love 2011.*
Anything different than 2000-2008, I’m willing to give a chance. McCain would be a third Bush term.
October 16th, 2008 at 8:47 am
I stand corrected. It’s his *grandmother* he threw under the bus, not his mother. It’s so hard to keep all the people he’s betrayed straight.
“Anything different than 2000-2008, I’m willing to give a chance. McCain would be a third Bush term.”
Yeah, that’s what they said in the Weimar Republic when they decided that any change — even that to a charismatic statist who lied about his positions — was better than sticking with a democracy.
Not all visions are equal, and the vision of the destruction of individual rights, individual property, and individual liberty is not a change for the better.
October 17th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Just vote for Bob Barr, already. If you see *that* much difference between (R) and (D) in this race, you must be picking out one or two pet issues.
If throwing people under the bus is the issue, then look at your fellow Repubs. McCain is flat as a pancake for being run over so many times. There are many non-Repubs like me who would have voted for McCain in 2000. He’s not the same man anymore. He’s a disgrace.
October 18th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Yes, McCain has been betrayed by many people, most notably the Democrats who praised him so much over the past decade for his ability to reach across the aisle to get things done.
A disgrace? Hardly, except, of course to Obamafascists who believe that sticking to *any* principles other than cult of personality and Marxist statism is disgraceful. If you want deceit, look to the Obamessiah.