Happy Thanksgiving
From those of us at thelobbyist we wish you and your families and friends a great Thanksgiving. Enjoy your turkey and football, and please try not to kill anyone while shopping tomorrow.
-nick
Podesta hearts dictators, Israel, and the Zombie Congress
Apparently John Podesta is unfamiliar with the American system of government. I just don’t get what these guys are thinking when they make these kind of statements.
“One of the best ways for the Obama administration to achieve results of that nature, in the short-term, is through substantial executive authority to make and implement policy. As noted in the Constitution and the laws of the United States give the president the ability and responsibility to act as the chief executive using the authorities granted to all presidents such as executive orders, rule-makings, agency management, and public-private partnerships.”
I mean there’s a system. Elementary school students are introduced to a cartoon bill and understand that there is a process we have to take. I’m not sure the Podesta realizes that those are the kind of things leaders in power use to become… what’s the word… dictators.
David Milstein has a great article on the Daily Caller today. He discusses the “peace process” with Israel and Palestine. I think he has a real insight on the fact that there really isn’t anything to talk about.
Sarah Field (@SEField)over at Liberty Central, Inc, has nick named the current Congress the “Zombie Congress”. Best thing I’ve read all day.
This has to be the craziest video I have seen in awhile. I love conspiracy theory, I just don’t buy most of it, but it’s funny so I’ll share it:
p.s. Wow, this article had tons of errors. I think most are fixed now. That’s what I get for using a speech to text program and then not editing.
Quantitative Easing Explained
Sorry @MelissaTweets, You Can’t Put Social Issues On Hold
Yesterday in a post by Melissa Clouthier, whom many of you know as @MelissaTweets on Twitter, she discussed the “needless division between social cons and fiscal cons”. Clouthier believes that the 60 new congressmen and six new senators that make up the new conservative entrants into Congress are already finding areas within the Republican agenda to disagree with rather than coming together to fight against liberals and progressives. Clouthier points to an article in Politico in which the GOProud and some tea party leaders have called for Republicans to focus only on fiscal issues and leave the social issues at home for another day
Clouthier proposes the question, “Does this mean that the majority of Republicans or even Independents no longer care about social issues like abortion and gay marriage?” She says no. But she goes on to list several reasons why many do not want social issues at the forefront of any discussion in Congress at the moment.
She lists the following, and I respond to each:
1) “If the country goes belly up, the social issues become moot.”
This just doesn’t make any sense. I’m not quite sure what world an individual lives where they believe that social issues are no longer important just because there are economic hardships. We can look back to many times in our countries history in which social issues were still fundamentally important even in times of strife or struggle. Consider the foundations of our country. When Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence the focus of this declaration was to establish liberty and freedom from tyranny from the British Empire. The states at this point in time existed under the harsh thumb of taxation and the watchful eye of British troops. The main point of the Declaration of Independence and what the representatives from each state as a whole were uniting together for was to establish independence from this foreign power. And yet one of the main struggles in writing the document for Jefferson was the social issue of slavery.
2) “Social issues serve to divide in a time when the American populace needs to be united against an overreaching government.”
This is true…well the back bit. The current administration of the United States along with the actions of Congress are overreaching. The government is spending more money than they take in and they are taking on responsibilities they were never intended to take on and spending tax money on programs that they were never empowered to create.
We know that the government is acting in a far-reaching manner because the creator of the Constitution, James Madison, stated, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents”.
However at the same time the Obama administration has pushed back against social issues as well. The administration has financially supported abortion in foreign countries, has encouraged the gay agenda, has fought against traditional moral values, and spit in the face of the fact that our country was very much founded as a Christian nation. Part of the very definition of conservative-libertarianism (Which Clouthier claims as her ideology, as do I.) is that the individual who holds that ideology is an individual who finds that there is tension between liberty and morality. The very nature of the conservativism within conservative-libertarianism is to maintain a strong belief in traditional moral and family values.
I hold that an individual who is willing to throw away part of their ideology to fight for another part of their ideology never held true to the first part to begin with. You cannot simply put on speckled glasses and focus on one sector in which the Obama administration and current Congress have been detrimental. The administration and out-going Congress have rendered havoc in both fiscal and social arenas. Why in the world would we as conservatives allow our fundamental principles and beliefs to be trampled on for the sake of money. Because in the end, that is exactly what we are doing. I will not apologize for the statement and belief that moral social values are the bedrock of society. I have no desire to be fiscally rich and morally bankrupt.
3) “Limiting the government necessarily also means stopping the funding to egregious socially repugnant issues.”
Clouthier’s third point is abstract. She isn’t wrong but she isn’t right either. You can limit the funding of “egregious socially repugnant issues” (By the way I love your phrasing of that Melissa!) and it will deal with many social issues via limiting or stopping the funding that backs certain social programs. However not all social issues are social programs just like not all social programs have anything to do with social issues. So limiting or stopping funding for certain programs is not the end-all be-all solution for social issues.
Her example of Gov. Christie’s defunding abortion clinics in New Jersey as solely a fiscal policy solution just doesn’t work either. You can paint a white horse black but that still doesn’t make it a black horse. Christie is dealing with social issues. Just because he dealt with it via fiscal means through rescinding funding does not mean that he was not dealing with a social issue.
Now don’t get me wrong, Melissa Clouthier is a fine conservative-libertarian. But I think that she missed the boat on this one. I did not send my representatives to Washington to have my ideology represented in part. I want my representatives to be debating and discussing the issues, all the issues. I want them debating social issues. There is nothing wrong with debate and discourse. Additionally, there is nothing even remotely insinuating that debate and discourse over social issues will prevent a conservative representative or senator from carrying out their due diligence when it comes to fiscal issues. There is no evidence, especially considering that none of these rookies have even taken a step into the halls of Congress, that they will not be able to deal with social issues and deal with fiscal issues at the same time.
Finally, someone please explain to me when we would get back to social issues if we put them on hold? Who decides when the economy is back on track? How good would it have to be? And who would decide what is good? Who is the almighty and ubiquitous voice we trust to say, “Okay everyone, we have now won the fiscal battle in Washington, it’s now okay to start discussing and defending social issues”. The idea is ridiculous. Getting fiscal issues “right” in D.C. could be a 20 year battle, conservative majority or not. And who decides what “right” is? Let’s also bare in mind that conservatives don’t totally agree on how to get fiscal problems solved either.
Fiscal issues are “how issues” and how issues will always exist and those problems will always need to be solved. Social issues are “why issues” and why issues will always be questioned and debated. You cannot put social issues on hold in the legislature anymore than it would be possible to decide that our country would put fiscal issues on hold and reserve that time to discuss social issues.
We Won, Now Let’s Find Some Perspective
Today is a great day for Conservatives. There is a weariness in our souls that has somewhat dissipated. But something has been troubling me for some time now, and I think that it is important that we all take a minute to find some perspective.
I’ve repeatedly heard from television talking heads, my radio, and politicians that now the work will begin to reduce spending, provide tax breaks, repeal Obamacare, push nuclear energy, so on and so forth. But folks, that’s just not going to happen. I’d be willing to bet that none of that happens.
This election was not about actively reversing trends. We just don’t have the power to do that. Our side will not be able to push an agenda, and even if our side could do that, the likelihood of President Obama signing anything Conservatives sent to him is slim to none. In military strategy you have the “rollback” and you have “containment”. The rollback is the complete annihilation of the enemy. And containment of course is a strategic blockade.
What this election was truly about was creating a two year containment or a blockade. We all saw very clearly how much damage could be done in two years with a Progressive president and a Congress full of his sheep. The results of this election simply keep President Obama in check, when he was clearly not in check the last two years. 2012 should be Conservatives goal for really seeing a reversal of trends.
Perspective is an important thing, and it will be increasingly important as we edge closer to 2012. Why? Mainly because Conservatives have made a stand, the Tea Party has made a stand, and that passion, involvement and trend needs to continue into the 2012 presidential election. If we lose perspective though, and talking heads and politicians begin waxing poetic about how they are about to roll all of Obama’s policies back over the next two years, then the reality is that Conservatives could be in the same pot of boiling water in two years time that Liberals and Progressives are currently sitting in.
Now is not the time for politicians to be making promises that Congressional Conservatives do not have the power to act on, and talking heads and radio show hosts should be reminding viewers and listeners of this fact. We would simply be setting ourselves up for failure. Under-promising and over-delivering should be the slogan of every Conservative in office right now. For the last two years we have been playing a football game without a defense or an offense. We just got our defense in play to keep Obama from out right scoring. But the reality is that we won’t have an opportunity to get an offense into the game until 2012. If we all keep that in mind over the next short 24 months, and keep our passions and involvement high, then we can take back the Senate and potentially the presidency and start the Republican Rollback of the Progressive movement.
Political Attack Ads, Circa 1800
Bill Whittle Explains Wealth Creation
The Extremists Are Coming
Gibbs Blames GOP For No Tax Cuts, Press Doesn’t Bite
You can find the video here, as we can’t embed RCP videos. The discussion between, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and the press is pretty comical. It’s very apparent the media isn’t going to be swayed by Gibbs fairly ridiculous spin on why there is no tax cut bill in play and why blaming the Reps just won’t cut it.
-nick
