Get The Clothespin
I doubt that few younger readers and particularly those in the present generation would know what a clothespin is, much less what it would mean to place a proverbial clothespin on one’s nose. They only need look at circumstances facing Republicans, conservatives and independents in the November election to understand the analogy.
Mitt Romney, suspending his campaign, gave what was one of the most inspiring speeches to CPAC and every single point was right on target. It illustrated that he is thoughtful, unselfish, principled and a true leader. It also raised his stature and I am sure that we will see Mitt in 2012. He put party and the future of this country before his ego and self interest; that is to be admired.
I have been very critical of John McCain and will continue to be throughout this election cycle. Conservatives will need to unite behind him, but to seal the deal and bring the party together for victory in November, McCain needs to assure those voters of several things:
· McCain needs to do more than promise to “build the border fence first”. He needs to promise not to allow amnesty. He also needs to hold corporations responsible for hiring illegal’s and MUST pursue a sensible deportation policy.
· McCain should be congratulated on his approach to cutting spending but he must pledge that he will also continue the tax cuts that have stimulated our economy for the last 7 years.
· McCain must pledge to protect this country by securing our ports and make it impossible for Islamists to gain access to the United States.
· McCain has already promised to appoint judges that won’t legislate from the bench BUT he must promise to appoint only judges that believe in the principles of the Constitution as viewed by the founders. The Left views it as a ‘living, breathing document’ and it is not.
· McCain must take a long look at trade policy and come up with a plan to build a level playing field with our trade partners.
Yes, abortion is a hot button issue to some on the Right. As I have stated many times, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, even though I find it morally repugnant and ethically vacant for a woman to choose that route out of convenience. Of course in the case of rape, incest or medical necessity, I would fully support and never criticize the ensuing choice.
McCain should just reinforce that we are in no way, going to federally fund or pay for the counseling of any woman who has an elective abortion. A “you play…you pay” attitude should be taken with this issue. Both sides have a point but the middle ground is to allow freedom of choice and it should end there.
This election is probably the most important in anyone’s lifetime.
We will choose between two candidates;
One will keep us on a stable path and one will saddle us with social spending and a huge health care invoice.
One will bring the war in Iraq to a stable end and one will ‘cut and run’ leaving Iraq in chaos.
One will champion business and self reliance and one will champion increased taxes and the nanny state with cradle to grave so called “entitlements”.
One will appoint reasonable judges who will follow the Constitution and the other will appoint judges who will usurp the Constitution and legislative process to spoon feed a social agenda to special interest groups.
One will stabilize the economy and one will throw us into a deeper recession and bring on inflation.
I do not like John McCain and disagree with McCain-Feingold which stifled free speech and amnesty for illegal immigrants who should simply be sent home. I do not like his alliances with people like Ted Kennedy and others who are closer to Socialists than Democrats.
However, this year, the alternative of voting for a rank amateur with no leadership experience and no record on which to judge his policies and beliefs is unthinkable. A rhetorically inspirational pied piper who makes Tony Robbins look like a high school kid in a speech class, should not lead the greatest nation on earth.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the loss of many of our freedoms. Clinton would rule from her own narrow beliefs and would allow no debate. We should not forget her secretive attempt to grab control of health care in the 90’s. There is nothing to show that she would be less heinous in her quest for power today. Beyond that, I think everyone would agree that Bill is an unwanted commodity and a caricature of himself.
McCain ain’t perfect by any means and he is definitely not of good temperament BUT given the choices, I imagine most of us will be at the department store buying clothespins sometime in October.
That may stimulate the economy but will do little to stimulate our enthusiasm; we can only wait for 2012 and hope………
As a sideline for Romney, I might suggest a business acquisition, one that would be sweet revenge and make a ton of sense; The Concord Monitor. That would certainly be a distraction from the angst we are about to face and it would be an interesting marriage and something fun to watch for the next four years.
Your Perception is Your Reality
Well Michael,
That is your opinion of course and if you look at your two candidates; one is a rank amateur who is a pied piper and the other is a devious......I won't use the word.
At least Romney spent millions of his own money. I am amused by the fact that the Democrats have raised about 3 times what Romney spent of his own money.
Who are these donors? I don't have $2600 to give to a candidate. My suggestion is that if they can afford to give to Obama or Clinton or anyone else and they want health insurance to universally cover others, then they should pony up and put their money where their mouth is.
Once again you use the military (an institution which you loath) when it is convenient. Bill Clinton did not serve and some reports say that he got deferments, as will Cheney and others. So they have no right to an opinion?
How is Obama qualified to lead the military? Hillary?
Romney is the only candidate that was sincere.
Romney is the only candidate
Romney is the only candidate that was sincere.
That is the biggest lie yet. Romney was trying to buy the presidency and he failed. People could see through his smooth snake oil salesman's performance. He was all smoke and mirrors and his positions would change with the wind. That is self-serving bull and that is all Romney is and was. Fortunately, he will now go to the ash heap of history where he belongs.
Again Your Perception....your reality
At the end of the day, Michael, this is not about any particular candidate but is about philosophy on how to move the country in the right direction.
Your angst and disdain for Romney is more about his wealth and politics that you do not agree with.
You completely ignore the Hillary and McCain flip flops. Obama is a deep dark secret as no one knows exactly what he would do. We do not need that kind of leadership right now.
If a politician believes something but then realizes that those views do not represent the voter or constituency and changes his views to meet their expectation, that person ceases to be a politician and becomes a STATESMAN.
We do not have many statesmen who represent us in Washington. Politicians always run on promises and deliver very little. They always interject their own personal beliefs in the absence of respect for the populace.
Take a look at Paul Hodes and more so Carol Shea-Porter. Both were not resoundingly elected and the latter by a slim margin. Rather than go to Washington and represent all of the people and make take everyone into consideration, they went to Washington and represented their political beliefs.
I know...I know.....this is business as usual and Republicans have done it as well. My point is that the founders expected that all people would be represented. That is a tough task but elected officials need to know this and live by it.
If the election was 70% to 30%, then that is a mandate. You have mentioned that we must protect the minority. Well, it should happen in this case as well.
Romney may have core beliefs but he changed positions to meet the needs of constituents. All of the candidates have on both sides.
I don't believe our
I don't believe our ancestors fought wars and revolutions so that someone who made a lot of money from the suffering of others could buy the presidency. I don't believe they would have supported a man of no principle, a confirmed liar of his caliber. The majority of the country believes we are and have been for sometime headed in the wrong direction and a Romney bought presidency (as well as a McCain presidency) would only continue the process of bankrupting our nation and selling it to the Chinese. We will become a third world nation within a short time if the Bush/Cheney Neo-con fascist polices are allowed to continue. And as far as being represented in Congress, we on the left who live in NH have not had that in decades. So now it your turn to have no one see things your way. Too bad.
Buying The Presidency
Michael,
First of all, they all buy the presidency. What is the difference if they get the money through self reliance and hard work or through donations from special interest groups???
In the end, they all are buying the presidency. Obama and Clinton have now raised 5X what Romney spent. The question begs that if they are really worried about the "starving people on the streets", they could take some of that money and donate it right now. The issue is that they are all hypocrites.
I also do not think our ancestors fought wars to force the average citizen to work every year until May before their taxes are paid. They must be spinning in their graves as they see some of the cockamamie things that the government spends money on.
Their vision was a defense of the homeland and free enterprise. It has morphed into an entitlement agenda, open borders, unbridled illegal immigration and a nanny state of moral relativism. I am sure they never envisioned that kind of cesspool of deterioration. I guess that is "progress" though!!!!
You should not lecture on our "ancestors" as the Left does everything they can do show disdain for the founders and our fathers who fought to make this country a better place for their children, only to have those children brainwashed by dogmatic idealists. Progressives have referred to the founders as "old white men", "slave owners", "irrelevant" and they revise history to paint a very different picture of them than in the past; concentrating on their character flaws to discredit their vailidity.
You take your statistics from polls, I imagine. At the end of the day, polls are only as good as they questions and the way they are phrased. It has been shown that asking a question different ways yields different results. I have seen the polls that show that a 'majority' of Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. However, does that mean that they support a radical Socialist agenda and higher taxes.
If you take your stats from polls, then you should support a border fence and deportation of illegals. Polls have consistently shown that over 3/4 of the population want illegal immigration stopped. I imaging though, like most of the Left that you cherry pick your issues and would not hold any of these polls as valid. Typical!
Although I agree with you on the Chinese, they pose a much more grave threat militarily and control the Panama Canal at present.
Your last statement really hits home because after 2000 and 2004, Democrats screamed for power sharing as there was no mandate. Well, there was no mandate in the case of Hodes and Shea-Porter, especially with the latter. So your real agenda now shows, like Congress, you will thumb your nose like a child on the playground who just got his chance to bounce the ball, running away with it because it is "my turn".
That is the attitude of progressives and Democrats; I have heard this from others whom I know. Your feeling about representing all citizens is, "Too bad".....remember that as the pendulum swings back and forth and one day, payback may be a bitter pill for you to swallow.
In any event, like Democrats, if Obama or Hillary are elected, don't be surprised if the other side works against them from day one. Per your statement above, I guess you would have to view that as fair. After all, that is what the Left did to Bush for the past 8 years.
Unfortunately, without compromise and sharing of governance, we will never come together as a nation. Remember, the population is pretty split; no matter who is elected, they need to start representing the people....not their party.
I am sure that you have read how Paul Hodes spent $200,000 on mailings to push a political agenda. It is strange that everyone did not receive those; only certain households. There are laws against using the budget in that way....hopefully the ethics committee will do it's job. But wait.......he is a Democrat......no hope of that I guess.
We could easily change the
We could easily change the word progressive to neo-con in your above screed and we'd have the history of the last eight years of republican domination. Talk about ethics....Tom Delay, indicted, and many others now in prison. Then there are all the war crimes of the Cheney/Bush administration. Those two should be sitting on death row.
Really?
Mike,
Read your comment above. Bush and Cheney should be on death row?
That qualifies you as a charter member in the "Looney Left" alongside MoveOn.org and those who think the WTC was an inside job and there was no holocaust. Are you sure you want to be part of that group?
I believe there are some congressmen who are Democrats, one from Louisiana in particular who is in the same boat on indicted. I might mention that Jack Murtha turned on his co-conspirators in ABSCAM and protected his butt. What Hodes did skirts the edge of the law as well.
I understand your logic though....if a person is a Democrat, they can do no wrong if they push your agenda.....a Republican is no good from the start; no matter how much good they might do.
Websters defines screed as: a: a lengthy discourse b: a ranting piece of writing
With that in mind I have copied your words below:
“Then there are all the war crimes of the Cheney/Bush administration. Those two should be sitting on death row”.
“We will become a third world nation within a short time if the Bush/Cheney Neo-con fascist polices are allowed to continue. And as far as being represented in Congress, we on the left who live in NH have not had that in decades. So now it your turn to have no one see things your way. Too bad”.
Great examples of screed, Michael!
Now a ‘rant’ is an incomprehensible explosion of emotion without factual backup. I see this emotion in your response but you can go to dozens of websites and read the same words written in the same way; all are extreme left leaning as they see a conspiracy around every corner.
Have they tested the water in Warner yet. The amount of letters with your point of view coming out of Warner suggests that the government is seeding the water with something.
I think they might be listening in on your phone calls too as they are just about ready to suspend the habeas corpus rights of Warner residents. Maybe they are planning a prison camp on Tucker Pond or better still a refinery.
I have heard that the ice is receding on the lake this winter…must be global warming. Wait...wait, I heard that the government is planning on erecting a giant nativity scene right off of I-89 to illustrate the seamless relationship between church and state. It will be lit, but not to worry, they are building in solar panels!!!! LOL
Honestly though Michael, it is always a pleasure to have you respond on this blog! It provides a nice diversion to my daily activities. Stay healthy!!
Juvenailia
This whole collection of screeds is profoundly juvenile.
If McCain does what the conservatives demand, he will lose the election. He tried that once and his campaign imploded. He stopped being genuine and lost his following among independents. There are more independents and Reagan Democrats that hard-core conservatives, and the middle has been responsible for all McCain's past successes.
If he does not do what the conservatives demand, he will lose the election because no Republican can win without enthisiastic support from those people.
I see no need to replay the Romney business. He's gone. We might not be alive in 2012.
Your Point
Unfortunately, your points on McCain are accurate. I know that you lean to the Left and Michael does as well, but an Obama win or a Clinton win is unthinkable.
As I have stated many times, the hard Left has taken over the Democratic party but the party still represents the views of only 50% of the population.
Don't count Romney out. You are old enough to realize that the same thing happened to Ronald Reagan when he ran against Ford. I worked for the Reagan campaign at that time and can tell you that liberals were counting him out forever after that. They were telling the story of the country readjusting itself to the Left. That did not work out very well, now did it?
Although I might agree that some of the response in this blog piece might be colorful, I find that the reaction to what I write results in this kind of response from the Left. Unfortunately, the only way to respond is in kind with people who are as doctrinaire and dogmatic.
I wish I had the mountains of writing and reasoning skills that you mention in your profile. I can only hope to attain that level of maturity some day I hope!
So, my question is; why are journalist types overwhelmingly oriented to the Left?
I am shocked that you'd be singing the praises of Romney, who is the biggest liar to come down the pike in years. Talk about flip-flop. The man stands for nothing. He tried to buy the election. Smart people realized he was a phony and didn't buy his snake oil like you obviously have. He quit because he knew he couldn't win. He had already spent millions of his own fortune and he and his family decided not to spend any more, but wait until another election season. When questioned why none of his sons were serving in the military, he said they had more important things to do....get him elected. Pure ego. You amaze me Mr. Bunker.