Earlier yesterday I was blogging and tried to make the point that a decrease in revenues as the result of a tax cut isn't necessarily a bad thing.
In tonight's GOP debate centered around the economy, I looked for a candidate to utter similar words. That candidate was Fred Thompson.
Although he seemed to struggle in the beginning, he spoke to exactly what I had written just a few hours beforehand.
He talked about how we shouldn't confuse the "wealth of government" and the wealth of nations. That the government getting less money means there is more in "our pockets".
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Tax-Cuts Are Not Enough
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/opinion/09chait.html?ref=opinion
"most members of the Republican coalition preferred deficit reduction to tax cuts."
This article diverted attention away from my studies and has brought me back to blogging. This is probably for the best.
This article is attempting to paint the picture that the Republican Party is controlled by the "far-right" who spew myths about tax-cuts. The author presumes there is a disagreement among Republicans over whether we should cut taxes or reduce the deficit.
There shouldn't be a disagreement among Republicans- the answer is both. If asked the question, "Should the federal government cut taxes and cut spending resulting in a balanced budget?", most Republicans I know would scream "YES!"
The real disconnect in the Republican Party, the one that is partly causing Republicans to be so dissatisfied right now, is that few (or none) Republican politicians have made real efforts to decrease federal spending and reduce the size of government.
The Tax-Cut Coalition here in Minnesota has thousands of signatures, yet the state government continues to inflate itself.
So the debate over whether tax-cuts increase revenue is really a pointless debate. The real aim of a tax-cut should be to give Americans more of their money back, curb spending and reduce the size of government.
I doubt any of the GOP Presidential candidates will say this at this afternoon's debate.
But maybe they should.
"most members of the Republican coalition preferred deficit reduction to tax cuts."
This article diverted attention away from my studies and has brought me back to blogging. This is probably for the best.
This article is attempting to paint the picture that the Republican Party is controlled by the "far-right" who spew myths about tax-cuts. The author presumes there is a disagreement among Republicans over whether we should cut taxes or reduce the deficit.
There shouldn't be a disagreement among Republicans- the answer is both. If asked the question, "Should the federal government cut taxes and cut spending resulting in a balanced budget?", most Republicans I know would scream "YES!"
The real disconnect in the Republican Party, the one that is partly causing Republicans to be so dissatisfied right now, is that few (or none) Republican politicians have made real efforts to decrease federal spending and reduce the size of government.
The Tax-Cut Coalition here in Minnesota has thousands of signatures, yet the state government continues to inflate itself.
So the debate over whether tax-cuts increase revenue is really a pointless debate. The real aim of a tax-cut should be to give Americans more of their money back, curb spending and reduce the size of government.
I doubt any of the GOP Presidential candidates will say this at this afternoon's debate.
But maybe they should.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Good Intentioned Politics
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297681,00.html
Despite it's political popularity in Iowa and other farming states, it's becoming increasingly clear that biofuels are counterproductive. Not only would they fail in the market if it weren't for government subsidies, but they also defeat their entire green purpose.
Whether it's through carbon caps, gasoline taxes, or subsidized farmers, the government will not solve America's "global warming problem". Only the market can do it.
The government can create incentives for the market to work towards reducing carbon emissions, but that's all it can do. Luckily, global warming is only killing us 1 degree a century, so we've got some time to figure this all out. We don't need to rush out and elect leaders based solely on their promises to save us from the boogie man who is thawing inside the melting icebergs.
But that's how some people feel. The green-o's want us to sign the Kyoto treaty and destroy our economy in the name of a few polar bears.
You remember the Kyoto treaty, right? The one that lost in the Senate by over 90 votes?
Taking into consideration that the treaty wouldn't solve our global warming problems (not even by a long shot), shouldn't we be investing money in to preparing for climate change? Countless civilizations have dreamt they could change the weather, are we really naive to think that we can succeed?
We have a unique opportunity to use technology to adapt to global shifts in temperature, we shouldn't ignore it because of a movement of hippies turned political junkies.
Despite it's political popularity in Iowa and other farming states, it's becoming increasingly clear that biofuels are counterproductive. Not only would they fail in the market if it weren't for government subsidies, but they also defeat their entire green purpose.
Whether it's through carbon caps, gasoline taxes, or subsidized farmers, the government will not solve America's "global warming problem". Only the market can do it.
The government can create incentives for the market to work towards reducing carbon emissions, but that's all it can do. Luckily, global warming is only killing us 1 degree a century, so we've got some time to figure this all out. We don't need to rush out and elect leaders based solely on their promises to save us from the boogie man who is thawing inside the melting icebergs.
But that's how some people feel. The green-o's want us to sign the Kyoto treaty and destroy our economy in the name of a few polar bears.
You remember the Kyoto treaty, right? The one that lost in the Senate by over 90 votes?
Taking into consideration that the treaty wouldn't solve our global warming problems (not even by a long shot), shouldn't we be investing money in to preparing for climate change? Countless civilizations have dreamt they could change the weather, are we really naive to think that we can succeed?
We have a unique opportunity to use technology to adapt to global shifts in temperature, we shouldn't ignore it because of a movement of hippies turned political junkies.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Wow Rudy. Wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L63Ff_mGzs
It's powerful ads like this that honestly point out the reality of the war and this election.
It's powerful ads like this that honestly point out the reality of the war and this election.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9/11 Never Forget
With all of the politics going on at the Capital today with the General's testimony, lets' just stop to remember 9/11.
We were attacked by an enemy that paid no attention to our race, origin, political or religious beliefs. We were attacked as Americans.
After 9/11, we united as a country and performed miracles.
Today we are more divided than we were in 2001.
In Iraq and Afghanistan our troops fight and die in two wars they are unsure they have our full support on.
In Washington our political leaders debate what is the best way to fight this war.
In American homes, we are tired and frustrated of Iraq- despite Newt's correct assessment of a "phony war".
Here- lets pray for the 9/11 victims and those affected by the tragedy, our troops, both currently fighting and those who have fought, and their families. Pray for the reunification of our country. Pray that it can happen without another attack.
Pray that Dinesh D'Souza's words are eternally true.
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." - Dinesh D'Souza
We were attacked by an enemy that paid no attention to our race, origin, political or religious beliefs. We were attacked as Americans.
After 9/11, we united as a country and performed miracles.
Today we are more divided than we were in 2001.
In Iraq and Afghanistan our troops fight and die in two wars they are unsure they have our full support on.
In Washington our political leaders debate what is the best way to fight this war.
In American homes, we are tired and frustrated of Iraq- despite Newt's correct assessment of a "phony war".
Here- lets pray for the 9/11 victims and those affected by the tragedy, our troops, both currently fighting and those who have fought, and their families. Pray for the reunification of our country. Pray that it can happen without another attack.
Pray that Dinesh D'Souza's words are eternally true.
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." - Dinesh D'Souza
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Bomb Iran?
Recently a report was released that stated the Pentagon has developed a plan to wipe out the Iranian military in 3 days. Rather than looking to make "pinprick strikes", the director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center says “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military".
While I understand the general American public would not favor military action in another country, there are good reasons to consider it as a possible avenue:
- A message must be sent to Tehran that their behavior is unacceptable- It's possible that Iran has been funding and/or training the insurgents that have been killing Americans in Iraq. If this turns out to be the case, an ultimatum should be issued and if Iran does not comply, the message should be sent via bombing. We already have them breathing down our necks, promising to fill any "power vacuum" in Iraq if our plan fails there.
-Wiping out their military could help in nuclear discussions- It's a lot harder for the country to enrich uranium when their entire military is gone and they are faced with new financial challenges. The North Koreans may even be encouraged because they will see that the United States means business in regards to rogue states and WMD's. Recently the US and North Korea made some modest agreements about their nuclear program and they would see the benefits of compliance.
- The Iranian problem would become a main discussion topic in every American home- as it should be. It is clear that the Iranian President is completely nuts, and Americans are smart enough to recognize that. We are a nation that is frustrated in Iraq and a talk about Iran might sober us up to the reality of this long war against Islamic extremism.
- Any political fallout could be pinned on George W. Bush- Republicans worried about the election can simply oppose the action, and they wouldn't be hurt politically by it. Also, it might even help out Bush's approval ratings, as Presidents have always enjoyed high approval ratings during successful air bombings.
However, such an action faces obstacles:
-The bombing could unite Iranians behind a leader who otherwise could have been isolated- recent elections in the country show that the people dislike the direction he is taking them in. An American attack could provoke the country to unify under the leadership of their president. Not too many countries rejoice when they are bombed, no matter how few casualties there were.
- The international diplomacy progress we've made could be lost- We have the support of key countries, but the UN seems to be coming together to isolate Iran because of their nuclear ambitions. Such progress could be lost if we resort to a massive military strike. Conservatives do not think we should hold international opinion above national security, and we shouldn't, but it's possible that losing support may endanger us in the future.
- Resources would have to be diverted- The Air Force would have to devote men and women away from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to execute this plan. While the military is stretched thin, I honestly don't know what effect it would have on the Air Force.
This is a tough decision that our Commander-in-Chief is going to have to make. No decision is without its consequences.
Does he adhere to his promise to "never relent in the War on Terror"? Or does he attempt to preserve what little legacy he may have and leave the problems that Iran poses for the next President?
While I understand the general American public would not favor military action in another country, there are good reasons to consider it as a possible avenue:
- A message must be sent to Tehran that their behavior is unacceptable- It's possible that Iran has been funding and/or training the insurgents that have been killing Americans in Iraq. If this turns out to be the case, an ultimatum should be issued and if Iran does not comply, the message should be sent via bombing. We already have them breathing down our necks, promising to fill any "power vacuum" in Iraq if our plan fails there.
-Wiping out their military could help in nuclear discussions- It's a lot harder for the country to enrich uranium when their entire military is gone and they are faced with new financial challenges. The North Koreans may even be encouraged because they will see that the United States means business in regards to rogue states and WMD's. Recently the US and North Korea made some modest agreements about their nuclear program and they would see the benefits of compliance.
- The Iranian problem would become a main discussion topic in every American home- as it should be. It is clear that the Iranian President is completely nuts, and Americans are smart enough to recognize that. We are a nation that is frustrated in Iraq and a talk about Iran might sober us up to the reality of this long war against Islamic extremism.
- Any political fallout could be pinned on George W. Bush- Republicans worried about the election can simply oppose the action, and they wouldn't be hurt politically by it. Also, it might even help out Bush's approval ratings, as Presidents have always enjoyed high approval ratings during successful air bombings.
However, such an action faces obstacles:
-The bombing could unite Iranians behind a leader who otherwise could have been isolated- recent elections in the country show that the people dislike the direction he is taking them in. An American attack could provoke the country to unify under the leadership of their president. Not too many countries rejoice when they are bombed, no matter how few casualties there were.
- The international diplomacy progress we've made could be lost- We have the support of key countries, but the UN seems to be coming together to isolate Iran because of their nuclear ambitions. Such progress could be lost if we resort to a massive military strike. Conservatives do not think we should hold international opinion above national security, and we shouldn't, but it's possible that losing support may endanger us in the future.
- Resources would have to be diverted- The Air Force would have to devote men and women away from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to execute this plan. While the military is stretched thin, I honestly don't know what effect it would have on the Air Force.
This is a tough decision that our Commander-in-Chief is going to have to make. No decision is without its consequences.
Does he adhere to his promise to "never relent in the War on Terror"? Or does he attempt to preserve what little legacy he may have and leave the problems that Iran poses for the next President?
Newt's not running- but he's influencing
Although the Fmr. Speaker Gingrich has not entered the race for President, he's doing exactly what most Americans can't. He's changing the debate and the discussions today's candidates are having.
When ever Newt is questioned about the race, he consistently says that he wants to push policy ideas to candidates of both parties in hope that they will adopt them. If they do, he says "I won't need to run".
Although he's received little recognition for these policy ideas in the media, Republicans (and even some Democrats) are starting to pick up on his language and ideas.
Romney stated today in New Hampshire that a federal ID card for legal workers should be put in place. While that's not a new statement for Mitt (he started pushing for it a few months after Newt went public about the federal gov't vs. the private sector), his following statement is almost word-for-word Newt genius. He admits the federal government likely couldn't enact such a policy, he believes it "should be outsourced to the people that do this for a living... companies like MasterCard or Visa".
In Iowa, straw poll attendees could see Rep. Duncan Hunter speak about the border with Newt Gingrich. Also, Huckabee's speech included Newt's talking point about how the federal government can't find 12 million illegals, but FedEx can track millions of packages across the country. The punch line is "so why don't we send every illegal a package?" and Huckabee delivered the message perfectly.
As stated earlier, Giuliani stated that America doesn't need liberal solutions or conservative solutions, but rather "American Solutions". Hillary nearly used that statement word-for-word in her speech today.
It's possible that after the American Solutions workshop is over, Newt's ideas will be so well adopted, that he will not need to run for President. He will have changed the country and the presidency, all without having to go through the gauntlet that we have for an election.
When ever Newt is questioned about the race, he consistently says that he wants to push policy ideas to candidates of both parties in hope that they will adopt them. If they do, he says "I won't need to run".
Although he's received little recognition for these policy ideas in the media, Republicans (and even some Democrats) are starting to pick up on his language and ideas.
Romney stated today in New Hampshire that a federal ID card for legal workers should be put in place. While that's not a new statement for Mitt (he started pushing for it a few months after Newt went public about the federal gov't vs. the private sector), his following statement is almost word-for-word Newt genius. He admits the federal government likely couldn't enact such a policy, he believes it "should be outsourced to the people that do this for a living... companies like MasterCard or Visa".
In Iowa, straw poll attendees could see Rep. Duncan Hunter speak about the border with Newt Gingrich. Also, Huckabee's speech included Newt's talking point about how the federal government can't find 12 million illegals, but FedEx can track millions of packages across the country. The punch line is "so why don't we send every illegal a package?" and Huckabee delivered the message perfectly.
As stated earlier, Giuliani stated that America doesn't need liberal solutions or conservative solutions, but rather "American Solutions". Hillary nearly used that statement word-for-word in her speech today.
It's possible that after the American Solutions workshop is over, Newt's ideas will be so well adopted, that he will not need to run for President. He will have changed the country and the presidency, all without having to go through the gauntlet that we have for an election.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Doubting Petraeus
When things go poorly in Iraq- it's clearly poor strategy on the Bush administration.
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6781479
When things go positively- it's deemed as mixed and inconclusive results.
Can anyone explain this?
Granted even the military is hesitant to do any "cartwheels", but they've had their fair share of pre-emptive success stories (Mission Accomplished, "last throes...", etc).
But with a new strategy and a new general, we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that things are going better. Now is not the time to be back stabbing a brilliant general who may be turning the tide in Iraq.
Of course we must "trust, but verify" with Petraeus, but for now he at least deserves a pat on the back.
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6781479
When things go positively- it's deemed as mixed and inconclusive results.
Can anyone explain this?
Granted even the military is hesitant to do any "cartwheels", but they've had their fair share of pre-emptive success stories (Mission Accomplished, "last throes...", etc).
But with a new strategy and a new general, we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that things are going better. Now is not the time to be back stabbing a brilliant general who may be turning the tide in Iraq.
Of course we must "trust, but verify" with Petraeus, but for now he at least deserves a pat on the back.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
The Commerce department released a report recently stating that the US economy grew a solid four percent in the 2nd quarter, despite a few rough days on Wall Street.
Also, federal revenues continue to increase to higher amounts (and as percentages of the GDP) since the 2003 Bush tax-cuts.
All of this begs the question: If the tax-cuts are helping the economy boom and are increasing tax-revenues (especially corporate income tax revenues), why would any Presidential candidate, Senator or Representative want to undo all of that? What possible positive income could come from it?
Which provokes the title for this blog "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
A tax increase would be aimed at increasing tax revenues- but that's already happening with the tax cuts. It's possible a tax increase would temporarily bring in more money, but its harmful effects on the economy could drag us into a recession.
That could even decrease tax revenues- defeating the entire purpose of the tax increase.
Lack of knowledge in this area of taxes is all too common here in Minnesota, where just about anything can justify a tax increase- even when we just had a multi-billion dollar surplus.
Somehow, the right conversation is not taking place.
We should be discussing how to cut taxes further, knowing full well that revenues may still increase and Pawlenty may find new programs to start with the extra dough.
But, when revenues finally fall- then we know we have begun real progress towards limited government.
Also, federal revenues continue to increase to higher amounts (and as percentages of the GDP) since the 2003 Bush tax-cuts.
All of this begs the question: If the tax-cuts are helping the economy boom and are increasing tax-revenues (especially corporate income tax revenues), why would any Presidential candidate, Senator or Representative want to undo all of that? What possible positive income could come from it?
Which provokes the title for this blog "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
A tax increase would be aimed at increasing tax revenues- but that's already happening with the tax cuts. It's possible a tax increase would temporarily bring in more money, but its harmful effects on the economy could drag us into a recession.
That could even decrease tax revenues- defeating the entire purpose of the tax increase.
Lack of knowledge in this area of taxes is all too common here in Minnesota, where just about anything can justify a tax increase- even when we just had a multi-billion dollar surplus.
Somehow, the right conversation is not taking place.
We should be discussing how to cut taxes further, knowing full well that revenues may still increase and Pawlenty may find new programs to start with the extra dough.
But, when revenues finally fall- then we know we have begun real progress towards limited government.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Rudy's Tough Approach Extends Past Terror
A Rudy 08 event held in New Hampshire was aired today on C-Span as a part of their Campaign 2008 series. There was one part of the event that was particularly interesting, as it showed a side of Rudy that should make nervous conservatives feel better about a Giuliani nomination.
A college student pressed Rudy with, "I actually have been looking for a job every day since graduation and can't find one. My student loans are coming up soon and I was wondering what your plans about student loans, forgiveness programs, deferment programs, things like Americorp, the industry of student loans is outrageous and that whole package".
The politically correct answer would've been something about a federal program of assistance, to promise to lower interest rates, etc, but that's not what Rudy did.
In a kind and pleasant way, Rudy basically told her to get a job.
"Why don't you give us your resume and we'll help you get a job. Honestly, that would be the best thing... *applause*"
"...that's what I did very successfully as mayor of New York City, and that's find jobs for people".
The woman laughed and smiled as the crowd applauded Rudy's answer, even though he didn't answer the question! This was a sign of Rudy's brilliance and ability to woo over frustrated voters who seem to buy in to the Democrat agenda of the nanny-state.
Especially if the nominee is Hillary, women will be highly influential in 2008. Rudy has already shown he can get votes from mothers concerned about terrorism, but now he is beginning to show her can win on people concerned about their children's economic security.
This kind of answer would also work on the youth vote, who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama (1).
All of this ties into something that continues to amaze me about Rudy. He's disagrees with the Republican Party on a lot of key issues, but yet still gets relatively positive ratings from the base. John McCain, legislatively, is clearly more conservative, but yet he's losing support from the base- and they're going to Rudy.
1) At a straw poll at St. John's University in April 2007, Barack Obama won over 80% of the vote among people who identified themselves as Democrats
A college student pressed Rudy with, "I actually have been looking for a job every day since graduation and can't find one. My student loans are coming up soon and I was wondering what your plans about student loans, forgiveness programs, deferment programs, things like Americorp, the industry of student loans is outrageous and that whole package".
The politically correct answer would've been something about a federal program of assistance, to promise to lower interest rates, etc, but that's not what Rudy did.
In a kind and pleasant way, Rudy basically told her to get a job.
"Why don't you give us your resume and we'll help you get a job. Honestly, that would be the best thing... *applause*"
"...that's what I did very successfully as mayor of New York City, and that's find jobs for people".
The woman laughed and smiled as the crowd applauded Rudy's answer, even though he didn't answer the question! This was a sign of Rudy's brilliance and ability to woo over frustrated voters who seem to buy in to the Democrat agenda of the nanny-state.
Especially if the nominee is Hillary, women will be highly influential in 2008. Rudy has already shown he can get votes from mothers concerned about terrorism, but now he is beginning to show her can win on people concerned about their children's economic security.
This kind of answer would also work on the youth vote, who overwhelmingly support Barack Obama (1).
All of this ties into something that continues to amaze me about Rudy. He's disagrees with the Republican Party on a lot of key issues, but yet still gets relatively positive ratings from the base. John McCain, legislatively, is clearly more conservative, but yet he's losing support from the base- and they're going to Rudy.
1) At a straw poll at St. John's University in April 2007, Barack Obama won over 80% of the vote among people who identified themselves as Democrats
Monday, August 27, 2007
Democrats and The Iraq Study Group Report
Perhaps this response is a tish late, but I'm going to make it anyways.
Democrats have been constantly citing The Iraq Study Group for what it says about there not being a "military solution to Iraq". All their talk prompted me to purchase the book and read it- cover to cover.
Below are a few points that the report makes that fly directly in the face of the Democrats who cite it:
The report states that the war has not been lost and that "all options have not been exhausted (pg x)". It warns that if change does not occur, "the consequences are severe (pg ix)". The consequences are described in further detail, "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations (pg xiv)".
While the report states that the "United States must not make an open ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq (pg xvi)", it also says "the United States should significantly increase the number of US military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units (pg xvi, and repeated again in different terms on pg 70, 73)".
Further commenting on the issue of Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world (pg 34)". Also, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return (pg 38)".
As for their plans after a US withdrawal, they will attempt to "spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq (pg 34)".
Even moderate proposals for timetables are rejected, "the point is not for the United States to set time tables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose (pg 67)".
The group clarifies that they "believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support (pg 37)".
The book definitely describes some very difficult problems that we are facing in the country, but it definitely points us in a direction towards victory.
If only Democrats wanted us to win, maybe then they would recognize the numerous facts in the report that they continue to cite.
Democrats have been constantly citing The Iraq Study Group for what it says about there not being a "military solution to Iraq". All their talk prompted me to purchase the book and read it- cover to cover.
Below are a few points that the report makes that fly directly in the face of the Democrats who cite it:
The report states that the war has not been lost and that "all options have not been exhausted (pg x)". It warns that if change does not occur, "the consequences are severe (pg ix)". The consequences are described in further detail, "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations (pg xiv)".
While the report states that the "United States must not make an open ended commitment to keep large numbers of American troops deployed in Iraq (pg xvi)", it also says "the United States should significantly increase the number of US military personnel, including combat troops, embedded in and supporting Iraqi Army units (pg xvi, and repeated again in different terms on pg 70, 73)".
Further commenting on the issue of Al Qaeda, "Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world (pg 34)". Also, "Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return (pg 38)".
As for their plans after a US withdrawal, they will attempt to "spread the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq (pg 34)".
Even moderate proposals for timetables are rejected, "the point is not for the United States to set time tables or deadlines for withdrawal, an approach that we oppose (pg 67)".
The group clarifies that they "believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support (pg 37)".
The book definitely describes some very difficult problems that we are facing in the country, but it definitely points us in a direction towards victory.
If only Democrats wanted us to win, maybe then they would recognize the numerous facts in the report that they continue to cite.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Cannibalistic Democrats
Recently, Hillary Clinton made a comment that a terrorist attack would likely help the Republican Party and that she would be best qualified to confront the political implications of that in 2008.
She was quickly criticized by John Edwards who said that if a terrorist attack occurred, the last thing we should be is "engaged in a political calculation". Similar comments were issued by Richardson and Dodd.
What these critics are ignoring is that their Party's Senate Majority leader has already stated that Democrats are "going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war". Where's the criticism of Harry Reid? His comment was equally, if not more offensive, and yet these candidates are mum about their out-of-control leadership.
A few posts ago, I described how Howard Dean played the politics of fear and yet every Democratic Presidential candidate layed low on the topic.
Finally a couple Democrats have turned the focus on their own Party in these difficult topics in which Democrats regularly fumble words and confuse ideology.
If only Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were doing it out of a genuine care for the political process, rather than political calculations of their own.
Maybe then there would be some political backlash for what Obama said about US forces in Afghanistan.
She was quickly criticized by John Edwards who said that if a terrorist attack occurred, the last thing we should be is "engaged in a political calculation". Similar comments were issued by Richardson and Dodd.
What these critics are ignoring is that their Party's Senate Majority leader has already stated that Democrats are "going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war". Where's the criticism of Harry Reid? His comment was equally, if not more offensive, and yet these candidates are mum about their out-of-control leadership.
A few posts ago, I described how Howard Dean played the politics of fear and yet every Democratic Presidential candidate layed low on the topic.
Finally a couple Democrats have turned the focus on their own Party in these difficult topics in which Democrats regularly fumble words and confuse ideology.
If only Edwards, Richardson, and Dodd were doing it out of a genuine care for the political process, rather than political calculations of their own.
Maybe then there would be some political backlash for what Obama said about US forces in Afghanistan.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Jackels Among Lions
Today, Republican John Warner went public with his thoughts that President Bush should begin withdrawing troops from Iraq "by Christmas". Even with that statement, he rejects demands for Congressional timetables, saying that timetables should be set by the President, not Congress.
So what has Warner really accomplished here? He's graced national headlines for a day, but his comments have little teeth from a legislative point of view. The only thing his comments have done is embolden the Democrats and the insurgents simultaneously.
The political pressure has increased on Bush because of this, but most Republicans will still stand by the surge. It has dramatically decreased the amount of violence in the region, and only when security is achieved can real political progress occur. The General's report will soon reaffirm this and grant unprecedented public support for the change in strategy.
If Warner, and the other Republicans who have wavered in the War on Terror, gain political points, they could likely be temporary.
Republicans who continue to stand up for victory could be recognized in 2008 if a conservative nominee is able to communicate effectively the consequences of defeat. Otherwise, if more Republicans abandon this part of the War on Terror, we could have a party without an identity.
And that's much worse than any Clinton or Obama.
So what has Warner really accomplished here? He's graced national headlines for a day, but his comments have little teeth from a legislative point of view. The only thing his comments have done is embolden the Democrats and the insurgents simultaneously.
The political pressure has increased on Bush because of this, but most Republicans will still stand by the surge. It has dramatically decreased the amount of violence in the region, and only when security is achieved can real political progress occur. The General's report will soon reaffirm this and grant unprecedented public support for the change in strategy.
If Warner, and the other Republicans who have wavered in the War on Terror, gain political points, they could likely be temporary.
Republicans who continue to stand up for victory could be recognized in 2008 if a conservative nominee is able to communicate effectively the consequences of defeat. Otherwise, if more Republicans abandon this part of the War on Terror, we could have a party without an identity.
And that's much worse than any Clinton or Obama.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
What Would Please Obama?
Presidential candidates have been speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars about the ongoing conflict in Iraq, trying to garner up support and establish credibility to become the next Commander-In-Chief. Hillary took this opportunity to look tough, while Obama used his time to dismiss reports of success coming home regarding the troop surge.
Now that the surge that many Democratic leaders doubted would work, some even declared it had failed after a few days, the party's presidential candidates are finding themselves in a tough situation.
Hillary came out and commented on the success of our troops- and was bashed by fellow candidate Bill Richardson (we'll get into that later).
Obama admitted that the surge is working to reduce violence, but then declared victory was not possible (this one will be covered too).
But the underlying theme in all of this is that President Bush's strategy is working dramatically better than what any possible Democratic Commander-In-Chief ever imagined. Yet Obama is still not happy. One must wonder if there is any level of success that would garner an approval from the Senator from Illinois.
Obama isn't alone in this political dilemma. If Democrats are speaking out against policies, then admitting they are working, but promise they will be incredibly different than President Bush, is it understandable for average Americans to be confused and even worried?
It's common knowledge that our next President is going to win on a campaign of change and optimism, but how can one be optimistic when they declare the war lost? How can they run on change (for the better), when they let politics come in the way of what's best for our troops?
While I'd never vote for Richardson, at least he has the right idea with regards to our troops. If the war is truly lost, and no reasonable amount of money, resources, and life can harvest a victory from that country, then why would we allow us to lose one more soldier's life? If the situation is as dire as the Democrats would like us to believe, and they will so long Bush is in office, then why would we allow them to take control? If they are quick to back-stab our Commander-In-Chief, even when he is right, can we trust them with our troops?
Perhaps if the Democrats swallowed their pride and followed the path of Lieberman in regards to Iraq, the country could unite and win in that country. But until then, Americans with a desire for security and victory will be forced to vote Republican.
Now that the surge that many Democratic leaders doubted would work, some even declared it had failed after a few days, the party's presidential candidates are finding themselves in a tough situation.
Hillary came out and commented on the success of our troops- and was bashed by fellow candidate Bill Richardson (we'll get into that later).
Obama admitted that the surge is working to reduce violence, but then declared victory was not possible (this one will be covered too).
But the underlying theme in all of this is that President Bush's strategy is working dramatically better than what any possible Democratic Commander-In-Chief ever imagined. Yet Obama is still not happy. One must wonder if there is any level of success that would garner an approval from the Senator from Illinois.
Obama isn't alone in this political dilemma. If Democrats are speaking out against policies, then admitting they are working, but promise they will be incredibly different than President Bush, is it understandable for average Americans to be confused and even worried?
It's common knowledge that our next President is going to win on a campaign of change and optimism, but how can one be optimistic when they declare the war lost? How can they run on change (for the better), when they let politics come in the way of what's best for our troops?
While I'd never vote for Richardson, at least he has the right idea with regards to our troops. If the war is truly lost, and no reasonable amount of money, resources, and life can harvest a victory from that country, then why would we allow us to lose one more soldier's life? If the situation is as dire as the Democrats would like us to believe, and they will so long Bush is in office, then why would we allow them to take control? If they are quick to back-stab our Commander-In-Chief, even when he is right, can we trust them with our troops?
Perhaps if the Democrats swallowed their pride and followed the path of Lieberman in regards to Iraq, the country could unite and win in that country. But until then, Americans with a desire for security and victory will be forced to vote Republican.
Monday, August 13, 2007
McCain's His Own Worst Enemy
Last year, it was assumed the John McCain was a shoe-in for the Republican nomination in 2008. After all, Republicans tend to nominate "the next in line" and it would seem like Bush's low approval ratings would play right into the hands of the man who ran against him in 2000.
It's almost as though something dramatic happened. Now McCain seems to be slipping out of the top-tier of Republican candidates in recent polls and his staffers are fleeing faster than anyone could have expected.
The main-stream media have blamed it on his unpopular positions on Iraq and immigration. While the latter is likely true, the former is incredibly false. Winning in Iraq still remains very popular with the base, the block of voters McCain seems to be losing the fastest.
So if McCain is the most qualified candidate to lead America to victory in Iraq, and McCain has walked the thin line of supporting victory while criticizing the strategy, then why is he being associated with Bush and his falling support?
They both share a sense of stubbornness that is growing increasingly unpopular.
When questioned about why his immigration bill failed, McCain was quick to blame the "small minority of anti-immigration Republicans". Not only is this incredibly alienating with the group of people McCain is practically begging for the nomination, but it's just dead wrong. It was the vast majority of the base, along with many moderates, who became incredibly upset with his immigration bill.
This isn't the move of a maverick- it's the move of someone completely out of touch with the American people.
In a presidential debate, Gov. Romney made negative remarks on McCain-Feingold and McCain responded with a low defense, blabbing about "getting rid of the money in politics".
After years of implementation, McCain-Feingold has not reduced money in politics and it has been detrimental to the Republican Party. McCain simply ignores these facts and parades on old themes that just don't resonate.
Recently when he was asked about his dismal numbers at the Iowa Straw Poll due to his snubbing of the event, he called the event "worthless". He did something similar back in March when skipped CPAC, citing a "scheduling conflict" while every other candidate spoke to thousands of attendees.
After examining the record, in the end, McCain can only blame himself for his demise.
Rudy can take unpopular positions with the base and remain high in the polls-because he doesn't alienate the base. McCain has taken less important unpopular positions (in relation to Giuliani), and yet seems plagued by them.
And this has lead the people to see the Maverick as someone who really isn't an independent thinker at all. Because of his fall, Republicans in search of an electable moderate will bypass McCain- and turn to the pro-choice, pro-civil union, and pro-gun control Mayor Giuliani.
It's almost as though something dramatic happened. Now McCain seems to be slipping out of the top-tier of Republican candidates in recent polls and his staffers are fleeing faster than anyone could have expected.
The main-stream media have blamed it on his unpopular positions on Iraq and immigration. While the latter is likely true, the former is incredibly false. Winning in Iraq still remains very popular with the base, the block of voters McCain seems to be losing the fastest.
So if McCain is the most qualified candidate to lead America to victory in Iraq, and McCain has walked the thin line of supporting victory while criticizing the strategy, then why is he being associated with Bush and his falling support?
They both share a sense of stubbornness that is growing increasingly unpopular.
When questioned about why his immigration bill failed, McCain was quick to blame the "small minority of anti-immigration Republicans". Not only is this incredibly alienating with the group of people McCain is practically begging for the nomination, but it's just dead wrong. It was the vast majority of the base, along with many moderates, who became incredibly upset with his immigration bill.
This isn't the move of a maverick- it's the move of someone completely out of touch with the American people.
In a presidential debate, Gov. Romney made negative remarks on McCain-Feingold and McCain responded with a low defense, blabbing about "getting rid of the money in politics".
After years of implementation, McCain-Feingold has not reduced money in politics and it has been detrimental to the Republican Party. McCain simply ignores these facts and parades on old themes that just don't resonate.
Recently when he was asked about his dismal numbers at the Iowa Straw Poll due to his snubbing of the event, he called the event "worthless". He did something similar back in March when skipped CPAC, citing a "scheduling conflict" while every other candidate spoke to thousands of attendees.
After examining the record, in the end, McCain can only blame himself for his demise.
Rudy can take unpopular positions with the base and remain high in the polls-because he doesn't alienate the base. McCain has taken less important unpopular positions (in relation to Giuliani), and yet seems plagued by them.
And this has lead the people to see the Maverick as someone who really isn't an independent thinker at all. Because of his fall, Republicans in search of an electable moderate will bypass McCain- and turn to the pro-choice, pro-civil union, and pro-gun control Mayor Giuliani.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Democrats and the Politics of Fear
As mentioned in my last post, Howard Dean made it clear that the only way to end the Iraq War is by electing a Democrat. Is this not the same "politics of fear" that they have accused Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans of partaking in? Despite this obvious truth, no Democratic Presidential candidate has been asked this hardball question, despite how the media reports the Democrats have been asked "very tough questions" at the debates.
If this was the only thing the Democrats were exploiting fears on, I could dismiss their actions as cowardly and self-interested. Unfortunately, these same dirty tactics have been used in the recent 35-W bridge collapse.
The Star Tribune published a cartoon in which the Lt. Governor of Minnesota was blamed for the bridge collapse. Also, an editorial alluded that Pawlenty's gas-tax veto stifled revenue that could have gone towards roads. If that wasn't enough, one Minnesota state legislator went as far as to blame global warming for the weakened bridge condition.
Although I am disgusted with all of this, I can't say I am surprised. I've seen these methods before.
In the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, a clear failure of government on all levels, the majority of the blame fell on President Bush as the Democratic Mayor and Governor escaped relatively unharmed (politically). In this bridge tragedy, the Democratic Mayor and the state legislators of the area have not taken a political hit regarding the infrastructure of Minnesota bridges.
It's almost like Democrats, and the media, travel along the chain of command searching for a Republican to blame.
Then it was Bush, now it's Pawlenty.
If this was the only thing the Democrats were exploiting fears on, I could dismiss their actions as cowardly and self-interested. Unfortunately, these same dirty tactics have been used in the recent 35-W bridge collapse.
The Star Tribune published a cartoon in which the Lt. Governor of Minnesota was blamed for the bridge collapse. Also, an editorial alluded that Pawlenty's gas-tax veto stifled revenue that could have gone towards roads. If that wasn't enough, one Minnesota state legislator went as far as to blame global warming for the weakened bridge condition.
Although I am disgusted with all of this, I can't say I am surprised. I've seen these methods before.
In the disaster of Hurricane Katrina, a clear failure of government on all levels, the majority of the blame fell on President Bush as the Democratic Mayor and Governor escaped relatively unharmed (politically). In this bridge tragedy, the Democratic Mayor and the state legislators of the area have not taken a political hit regarding the infrastructure of Minnesota bridges.
It's almost like Democrats, and the media, travel along the chain of command searching for a Republican to blame.
Then it was Bush, now it's Pawlenty.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Democrats-The Real War Mongers
Howard Dean has told voters that electing a Democrat is the only way to end the War in Iraq, but he fails to mention is his party's candidates have other places on their "Countries to Invade" list. Of all the Democrats running for President, two have mentioned two respective nations they would like to see the United States involved in.
After being called inexperienced because of his comments on meeting foreign leaders, Sen. Barack Obama fought that criticism by saying he would send American troops across the borders of the nuclear power Pakistan. That comment really shrugged off that whole "inexperienced" image now didn't it? Oh and I even forgot to mention Pakistan is a close ally in the War on Terror.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Biden promised to send US troops in to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide where U.S. security is not threatened whatsoever.
However, not a single GOP candidate has recommended entering in to another conflict, especially another Middle Eastern one. Yet the GOP is being labeled as the Party of War by the same liberals who desperately want an Obama Presidency.
With the exception of Ron Paul, every Republican candidate is pushing for finishing the job in Iraq and rebuilding our military strength.
The Democrats seem to be uninterested in either of those goals, opting to stretch our military (even further) and finding a new war for which they can cut funding.
You may not see us Republicans turning in to hippies with our own brand of peace songs, but lets consider which political party will promote the safest foreign policy.
After being called inexperienced because of his comments on meeting foreign leaders, Sen. Barack Obama fought that criticism by saying he would send American troops across the borders of the nuclear power Pakistan. That comment really shrugged off that whole "inexperienced" image now didn't it? Oh and I even forgot to mention Pakistan is a close ally in the War on Terror.
Not to be outdone, Sen. Joseph Biden promised to send US troops in to the Sudan to stop the Darfur genocide where U.S. security is not threatened whatsoever.
However, not a single GOP candidate has recommended entering in to another conflict, especially another Middle Eastern one. Yet the GOP is being labeled as the Party of War by the same liberals who desperately want an Obama Presidency.
With the exception of Ron Paul, every Republican candidate is pushing for finishing the job in Iraq and rebuilding our military strength.
The Democrats seem to be uninterested in either of those goals, opting to stretch our military (even further) and finding a new war for which they can cut funding.
You may not see us Republicans turning in to hippies with our own brand of peace songs, but lets consider which political party will promote the safest foreign policy.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Rejoice Republicans! (for once...)
Yesterday, voters in the MN district 28B went out in record numbers to vote in the special election to replace former Republican leader Steve Sviggum.
Despite the fact that:
- Republicans were pummeled in 2006
- Drazkowski, the Republican candidate, had been charged with beating his daughter and had issues with child support
- State Senator Dick Day had a record of speaking out against Drazkowski
- The Democrat most likely outspent the Republican
- The Star Tribune endorsed the Democrat two days before the election
Drazkowski won the election with nearly 53% of the vote overall, and a demanding lead of 15 points in Goodhue county.
Although the Democrats are claiming they gained ground because Drazkowski did not gain as many votes as Sviggum had in 2006, there are important signs of optimism for Republicans from this race:
Conservatism is alive and well- Steve Drazkowski took conservative stands on most issues, and because this election was the only item on the ballot (with the exception of Kenyon), it shows a mandate for conservative reform in St. Paul.
Democrats can no longer count on negative campaigning to win elections- Democrat nominee Linda Pfeilsticker ran a mostly negative campaign, focusing on Draz's rough divorce and dropped charges of child abuse. In the end, voters looked past his baggage and entrusted him to succeed Sviggum because he was willing to take stands on issues while Pfeilsticker avoided giving direct answers to most questions.
The tide is turning- and it's coming back to the right. Focusing on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex health benefits, this race showed that the Iraq War is not going to ultimately destroy the Republican Party. People in this area are increasingly anti-Iraq War and yet they still came out to elect a Republican. Although the war is not an issue in state politics, surely a good deal of the anti-Republican sentiment comes from troubles overseas. Just ask all the MN House Republicans that lost their seats in 2006 if they think the war hurt them in the election.
As long as Drazkowski avoids scandal and continues the conservative voting record of Sviggum, his numbers can only go up- With very little time to prepare for the election, Drazkowski had very little time to make his case to the voters. Every one of his ads and newspaper interviews showed exceptional communication skills and let the people knew who the real Drazkowski was. With time, voters will increasingly begin to forget his baggage and recognize him for the stands he makes in St. Paul.
I just hope State Party leadership is smart enough to see this victory for what it is- a blueprint for victory for other MN House Republicans in 2008.
Despite the fact that:
- Republicans were pummeled in 2006
- Drazkowski, the Republican candidate, had been charged with beating his daughter and had issues with child support
- State Senator Dick Day had a record of speaking out against Drazkowski
- The Democrat most likely outspent the Republican
- The Star Tribune endorsed the Democrat two days before the election
Drazkowski won the election with nearly 53% of the vote overall, and a demanding lead of 15 points in Goodhue county.
Although the Democrats are claiming they gained ground because Drazkowski did not gain as many votes as Sviggum had in 2006, there are important signs of optimism for Republicans from this race:
Conservatism is alive and well- Steve Drazkowski took conservative stands on most issues, and because this election was the only item on the ballot (with the exception of Kenyon), it shows a mandate for conservative reform in St. Paul.
Democrats can no longer count on negative campaigning to win elections- Democrat nominee Linda Pfeilsticker ran a mostly negative campaign, focusing on Draz's rough divorce and dropped charges of child abuse. In the end, voters looked past his baggage and entrusted him to succeed Sviggum because he was willing to take stands on issues while Pfeilsticker avoided giving direct answers to most questions.
The tide is turning- and it's coming back to the right. Focusing on issues like illegal immigration and same-sex health benefits, this race showed that the Iraq War is not going to ultimately destroy the Republican Party. People in this area are increasingly anti-Iraq War and yet they still came out to elect a Republican. Although the war is not an issue in state politics, surely a good deal of the anti-Republican sentiment comes from troubles overseas. Just ask all the MN House Republicans that lost their seats in 2006 if they think the war hurt them in the election.
As long as Drazkowski avoids scandal and continues the conservative voting record of Sviggum, his numbers can only go up- With very little time to prepare for the election, Drazkowski had very little time to make his case to the voters. Every one of his ads and newspaper interviews showed exceptional communication skills and let the people knew who the real Drazkowski was. With time, voters will increasingly begin to forget his baggage and recognize him for the stands he makes in St. Paul.
I just hope State Party leadership is smart enough to see this victory for what it is- a blueprint for victory for other MN House Republicans in 2008.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Pawlenty's Gas Problem
For months, Gov. Pawlenty had stated that Minnesota was not an "undertaxed state" and proudly vetoed the gas tax. After the unfortunate incident where the 35-W bridge collapsed, some legislators have sunk to new lows and have already politicized the tragedy.
Critics of the Governor have made statements that he vetoed a tax that would've brought more money in for roads, and under this new pressure, Pawlenty is contemplating passing the gas tax.
Is Minnesota undertaxed now?
After governing from the center during this term, he finds himself in a difficult place. The obvious answer is that money for roads should come from the 2.1 billion dollar surplus. The obvious scapegoat is the financial black hole that is light rail and the transportation amendment that was supposed to boost road funding.
But Pawlenty can't criticize these things- he supported them. Now he finds himself almost forced to accept a gas tax he knows is bad for Minnesotans.
He can still dig himself out of it if he just makes it clear that funding for the road will be provided-just not through an unnecessary tax. Such a move would energize the unenthusiastic conservative base and would have little ramifications on him from moderates if he were to run for a third term. After all, by 2010 the funding situation likely will have been resolved- gas tax or no gas tax.
We as conservatives need to reassure our Governor that we will defend him against the media- as long as he defends the money in our wallets.
Critics of the Governor have made statements that he vetoed a tax that would've brought more money in for roads, and under this new pressure, Pawlenty is contemplating passing the gas tax.
Is Minnesota undertaxed now?
After governing from the center during this term, he finds himself in a difficult place. The obvious answer is that money for roads should come from the 2.1 billion dollar surplus. The obvious scapegoat is the financial black hole that is light rail and the transportation amendment that was supposed to boost road funding.
But Pawlenty can't criticize these things- he supported them. Now he finds himself almost forced to accept a gas tax he knows is bad for Minnesotans.
He can still dig himself out of it if he just makes it clear that funding for the road will be provided-just not through an unnecessary tax. Such a move would energize the unenthusiastic conservative base and would have little ramifications on him from moderates if he were to run for a third term. After all, by 2010 the funding situation likely will have been resolved- gas tax or no gas tax.
We as conservatives need to reassure our Governor that we will defend him against the media- as long as he defends the money in our wallets.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
First Post
Hello all!
Welcome to Minnesota's Conservative Beacon, a blog that shines the right-wing light for all Midwesterners to see.
In the future I'll be blogging about national, state, and local politics from my home here in Minnesota. Feel free to reply with your own thoughts and get the discussion going.
Yours Truly,
Minnesota's Conservative Beacon
Welcome to Minnesota's Conservative Beacon, a blog that shines the right-wing light for all Midwesterners to see.
In the future I'll be blogging about national, state, and local politics from my home here in Minnesota. Feel free to reply with your own thoughts and get the discussion going.
Yours Truly,
Minnesota's Conservative Beacon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)