Sunday, December 14, 2008
Until then, I want to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy New Year!! Don't party too hard now y'hear???
-- Larry "Dawgman"
Friday, December 5, 2008
Those of the liberal persuasion are fond of saying that our Big Three automakers are in trouble because they're making cars that Americans don't want to buy. Uh, excuse me, but I don't think so. They certainly made enough of those big gax-guzzing SUVs and there were an awful lot of them on our higways -- until gas hit four bucks per gallon earlier this year -- so it looks like lots of folks were buying them. Everyone except liberals, that is, who vastly prefer their Mercedes-Benz's, BMWs, and Volvos, with the bicycle racks on top and the Obama or Kerry bumper stickers on the rear. The libs are in love with anything and everything European, including their socialized society, but that's another story altogether, for another entry.
The Big Three have always, and still do, make cars in accordance with the demands of the American public's tastes, and our tastes have traditionally gravitated toward bigger vehicles, whether for the sake of families, for work, or for whatever the need. Of course, when the gas crunch smacked us down, they couldn't give the guzzlers away, so they took a soaking, as people sought smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. They found what they were looking for, primarily from the Japanese and other Asian automakers. Major trouble.
But the truth is, our Detroit automakers were already in trouble well before OPEC decided to stick it to us again. Now they've all got their hands out, looking for a handout from Uncle Sam. The Democrats are coming, with all their free goodies, and everyone wants a share of the pie, it seems. Sorry, Detroit, but I'd give a firm "no" to your request for financial aid. If it were up to me, you could all go file that Chapter Eleven right now. Because that would allow all of you to reorganize and oh, brother, do you ever need to do that!
Detroit's problem was that it was relying too heavily on the bigger SUVs and full-size pickup trucks that sold like hotcakes for years on end; they didn't offer nearly as many smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles in their model line-ups. So, when OPEC and the oil speculators stuck it to us earlier this year, they were caught with their panties all the way down. Gas prices went to nearly five bucks a gallon in some locations and all of the sudden, the Big Three couldn't give their big, gas-guzzling products away. The demand for guzzlers disappeared overnight and Detroit had few alternatives to offer. The Asian manufacturers, who were always known for their smaller, fuel-stingier models, had a field day. The Big Three couldn't compete; it takes time to redesign and retool the plants and it costs money. They weren't making much money right then and then there was that union, the UAW.
Increasingly exhorbitant union demands had been draining Detroit's corporate wallets for years. The average Detroit autoworker makes about $75,000 per year in combined wages and union-guaranteed benefits; the average worker at a non-union Japanese-owned firm makes about $38,000 per year. A large percentage of the domestic worker's yearly take is in those benefits, which have grown unbelievably and unrealistically lavish in recent times. How many employers out there pay their laid-off employees 90% (yes, that's ninety percent) of their salaries up to four years after they're laid off? How many other employers offer fully-paid healthcare plans for their retired employees for the rest of their lives? Those are but two of the lavish benefits that the UAW has secured for their union workers. Is it any wonder our automakers are on the verge of bankruptcy? Is it a little more understandable now why some American companies, like Wal-Mart, have refused to let their employees unionize? That sort of thing would bankrupt any company, in time.
Every government bailout plan I've seen for the Big Three has tied into it somewhere one or both of two things. First, Congress wants to buy shares of their stocks in return for the money they loan them; secondly, there's some mandate to produce "greener" cars and trucks. Therein lies the greatest risk associated with any bailout. I can read between the lines here, can't you? In the first instance, it's a poorly disguised effort to buy out our automakers and exert government control over their operations. The second instance ties right in with that -- the government wants the ability to dictate what kinds of cars are manufactured and thus what kinds of cars we're allowed to own and drive. My dear readers, this is spelled "S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M," plain and simple. Greater government control over our lives and lifestyles. And this is just the tip of the iceberg, when it comes to what we're going to see over the next four years, if we don't stop these politicians who now have the power that they've craved for so long.
So, no -- no bailout for Detroit. Let them file for bankruptcy reorganization and allow them to reorganize. The minute they file, the union contracts become null and void, so maybe it will get them out from under the burden of the UAW. Many companies have gone under Chapter Eleven protection and come out of it stronger than ever. Why can't the Big Three do likewise? Get rid of all the deadwood in their operation. Correct the mistakes of the past and strengthen the management of the companies. If they get bailed out all the time, they'll never learn and they'll make the same blunders over and over again in the future. And don't believe the nonsense about losing seven more jobs for every one autoworker's job that's lost. That's crap. If the carmakers close up shop for a reorganization, do you actually believe that they're going to stop making auto tires? Or brake components? Or headlamps? Or engine parts? I don't. There's too many cars out there that need those parts -- about 300 million or so of them.
Detroit can remake itself and our auto industry can become strong once again. But a bailout is not the way it should be done.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
In the Holy Bible, Book of Genesis, it recounts how Abraham's son, Jacob, wrestled with an angel, attempting to gain God's blessing. Seeing Jacob's sincerity and determination, God allowed him to win that wrestling match and indeed did bless him. God changed Jacob's name to Israel and told him that he would go on to found a great nation, of God's chosen people. He also told Israel that "Whomever would bless your name shall be blessed and whomever would curse your name shall be cursed."
Israel did indeed become a great nation, the ancestral home of the Hebrew people; the Promised Land, given to them by God after Moses freed them from the Egyptians. It was conquered by outsiders several times over the years, always because the Hebrew nation had displeased and angered God in some way. Approximately forty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, in A.D. 70, the Romans devastated it, reducing the Temple of Solomon to rubble and running the Jews away from their promised land, scattering them all over the world. That dispersion lasted until 1948, when the modern nation of Israel was reborn, exactly as Old Testament prophecy had predicted it would be, right down to the very day. Biblical prophecy has always been fulfilled. It always will be, because that prophecy has been given by God Himself.
Over the years of the dispersion, that little strip of land remained barren and empty, except for Arab nomad tribes who traveled through it. After the Islamic faith was born, around 650 A.D., the Muslims conquered all the Middle East, including the Hebrew's ancestral homeland. Nations like Syria and Jordan were founded, bordering on that desolate strip of desert. Yet no nation ever claimed it at all. It sat there all those years, unclaimed and largely uninhabited, as if waiting. It became known as Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, but it was never a nation unto itself; only an unoccupied and unclaimed territory.
Some Jews began moving back there in the late 1800's and many more settled there from Europe, both before and after World War Two. They brought with them agricultural know-how and after they built irrigation canals, the land began to bloom again and flourish. The Islamic Arabs grew jealous and since their ancestors had conquered it in the name of their god, Allah, they began trying to run the Jews away again, now wanting those crops for themselves. The Jews, of course, resisted and fought to retain their ancestral homeland which they had regained at last. This was the beginning of the Middle Eastern strife which is still going on today.
Palestine was then a British Protectorate and the Brits struggled to keep the two factions apart, away from each other's throats. Finally, fed up with the entire affair, Britain put Palestine in the hands of the newly-formed United Nations and withdrew. In 1948, the U.N. partitioned Palestine, giving the smallest portion to the Jews and the rest to the Arabs living there, who now called themselves "Palestinians." When the U.N. officially recognized the Nation of Israel, that was the last straw for the Arabs and Palestinians. War after war followed, right up to today.
Today there is a persistent belief that Israel is the cause of all the stife in the Middle East. That notion, of course, has been planted in people's minds by the Palestinians and other Muslims who dominate that region. Personally, I hardly think that is the case, considering that the Jewish claim to the land that Israel occupies is much, much older than the faith of Islam itself. The problem lies in the Islamic belief that once a land is conquered in the name of Allah, it can never be returned to those who claimed it before it was conquered. Put in the simplest terms, the Muslims stubbornly refuse to recognize any Jewish claim to the land on which Israel sits; it was conquered for Allah and it is Allah's land now. They believe that steadfastly and will not budge an inch. Every Muslim nation surrounding Israel shares a common desire to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.
The United States is, at this writing, still allied with Israel, although that partnership has suffered much and gotten weaker in the past few years. The question is: How much longer will that alliance last? Our politicians, even George W. Bush and our Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, have seemingly bought into the notion that Israel is the cause of the problems in the Middle East. It' s like they prefer to honor the Islamic claim, rather than the much older biblical Jewish claim. Political Correctness has taken its evil toll on our diplomacy nowadays and Israel has been scolded, time and again, for daring to even defend its right to exist. We let despot leaders like Iran's president (whose name I won't attempt to spell) speak at our universities, cheering on a man who denies that the Holocaust ever took place, is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and whose country has now, according to a
recent N.Y. Times article, enriched enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon. Anyone care to guess who that weapon will be used against, once it's built??
In January, Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th President and I fear greatly for the future of our continued relationship with Israel. Obama is almost hopelessly naive on foreign policy, vowing to talk to despotic rulers all over the world, with no pre-conditions at all. From what he's said in past speeches and interviews, he appears to be more pro-Palestinian than any of his predecessors were. And to top it off, Vice-President-Elect Joseph Biden has plainly said that Obama will be tested soon after he takes office. There will be some kind of world crisis that will call for action on Obama's part. And we will find out how weak or strong he truly is.
I can pretty much guess what that crisis might well turn out to be, and it's probably going to come within the next six months. Israel is going to strike Iran's nuclear facilities. They will have to; their very existence depends on it. Israel, a tiny nation surrounded by other nations who despise them, can ill-afford to let Iran build a nuclear bomb, or other device. They know full well that it would be used on them almost immediately, so it's a simple matter of survival on their part. It's coming -- mark my words.
I hope Obama is ready for something like this, but I have my doubts that he will be. In his politically correct mind, any pre-emptive strike by Israel would be seen as a dire transgression against one of the nations that the PC crowd loves to coddle so much -- never mind the fact that Iran is a first-class terrorist nation and one of the world's biggest troublemakers. A nation that has labeled America as the "Great Satan." Yet the PC'ers seek only to kiss their rears, naively believing that they'll somehow magically start liking us, if we're nice to them. Yeah. Right. Tell me another fairy tale.
Obama would likely severely denounce Israel for such an attack, completely ignoring the survival aspect of the matter. Israel's response won't be apologetic, especially if they elect a new, hard-liner Prime Minister. Our already strained relationship could worsen and even end altogether. That is my fear and it plays right into the End Time prophecy of Revelation. A reading of Revelation will show you that Israel is all alone in the End Times; it makes mention of no allies of Israel and no mention of any nation that could be interpreted as America at all. Israel will be attacked and God will protect her, perhaps with a devastating earthquake, as many theologians believe.
That attack will come suddenly, with no warning at all, and the prophecy mentions Gog and Magog as the attackers. Gog is believed by most to be modern-day Russia, while Magog may be Iran, or some other Middle Eastern power. That makes perfect sense, because Iran and Russia are bosom buddies, to say the least. Would Russia and Iran combine their forces and attack Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on Iran?? I can very well see that happening, in the next few years. Will Obama break our alliance with Israel? That could very well take place, too. Such a thing would not only leave Israel all alone with her enemies, it would make this country subject to God's curse, as he told Jacob/Israel in the Bible.
I don't know that all this will happen. I don't claim to be a prophet myself. I only know that it is very possible and I believe that the Obama presidency is going to change things in the world in ways that we can't imagine. Problem is, I don't think they will be good changes at all.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Perhaps, with the notable exception of Obama himself, I should dub this year as the "Year of the Retread." Because this allegedly "fresh and new" administration is poised to run on leftovers from the last Democratic administration. The appointment of The Dutchess as head of the State Department may be Obama's way of tossing a bone to her supporters, most of whom reluctantly voted for him after he beat her out for the nomination. But that hardly accounts for all the other former Clintonistas, beginning with "Rahmbo" Emanuel and veering hard left from there. Or is that really turning to the center? Hard to tell how this will play out. Obama may indeed head toward centerfield, once he's inaugurated. There is quite a bit of incentive, after all, for him to do so. He'll want that second term and he's smart enough to know that if he overreaches, becomes unpopular with the voters, and the Republicans can get their act halfway together, that sophomore season could well be denied him, ala Jimmy Carter.
That said, however, any supposed desire to govern from the middle may not be possible. There is a very leftist-led House and Senate to contend with, as well as the far-left lunatic fringe represented by the admittedly socialist billionaire, George Soros and his MoveOn.Org crowd. Obama would have to weigh his popularity with the public-at-large against his approval rating by the more rabid leftist members of his own party. And he might have to fight his own Congress, to remain centered at all. Would he veto any far-left legislation that lands on his desk, even if doing so would make him popular with the public? I just can't see him doing so. His hand would be forced in such a situation, to prevent a civil war within his own party.
And we can't forget that Obama is himself a dedicated leftist of the first caliber. Any detectible move to the center might be merely a feint, designed around generating popularity and attempting to calm the fears of many who didn't vote for him. As for his collection of Clintonistas and The Dutchess herself, they are no indication of a centrist stance at all. I would remind readers that Bill Clinton was forced to govern from the center, because of the Republican-controlled Congress he got stuck with in 1994. Democrats have the whole ball of wax now, for at least the next two years, and the GOP is in disarray, due for a major overhaul. If the Democrats can retain their majority in 2010 and Obama can stay popular enough to win re-election in 2012, look out! Once he's a lame duck, there'll be no more attempt to hold the center at all. Better hold on for that sharp left turn.
I may be checking out truck driving opportunities in Australia by then.
Nothing makes my conservative blood boil nowadays more than Republicans who have seemingly capitulated to liberal/socialist ideals and are attempting to convince voters that Republicans can manage the vast federal leviathan more efficiently than the very ones whose policies created most of it in the first place. How ludicrous can you get? As I said last week, nobody can outspend a tax and spend liberal Democrat and nobody can out-socialize a socialist; to even attempt to do so is futile and will only result in making one look like a prize boob.
Which is pretty much what Republicans ended up looking like after the election on Nov. 4th. We have indeed lost our way, as a party with viable alternative ideas, if our leadership insists on competing with liberals for control over liberal programs. And we will continue to lose elections, running the risk of virtual one-party rule in the future.
This trend must be brought to a screeching halt, ASAP. What happened to traditional GOP opposition to liberal schemes and ideas? What happened to the GOP which stood for spending cuts and downsizing the federal government? With giving incentives to business for job creation and the gradual weaning of able-bodied recipients off of welfare programs and back into the workplace again? Is the idea of a "hand-up, but not a hand-out" totally lost nowadays? It's quite clear that the GOP has become so much like the Democrats when it comes to Big Government that there is now little difference to offer voters who are fed up with it. In frustration, many potential voters sit home on election day, allowing the Democrats to win almost by default. This is what happened in 2006, and it happened this year as well, though in smaller numbers. The "silent majority," who grew so loud 25 years ago have become quiet again, and the situation is much more desperate nowadays than it was during the 1980's.
The next two to four years are probably going to determine whether us traditionalist Americans can salvage what's left of the country we've always known and loved, or whether we'll be plunged headlong into the Democrats' idea of a socialist worker's "paradise." Remember this: There's no going back, once it happens. If it does, the America we've always known will disappear forever into history. It's next to impossible to reverse things once they've been completely socialized. This game is played for keeps.
That is what's at stake. Our future freedom to determine our own path in life. We do have a handful of Republican leaders who are fighting socialism tooth and nail. I'm with them, 100%, but we need many, many more. And we absolutely, as a party, must return to the platform and principles that once made us so strong. If we can't do that soon, it's going to be the end of the world, as we know it, I'm afraid.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
To say that the GOP has serious problems is the understatement of the century. Our party is a total train wreck, derailed by George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" concept, which has led in turn to a moderate/liberal takeover of the party leadership and an almost complete dismissal of the conservative principles that Ronald Reagan put in place in the 1980's. Those principles unified our party and made it formidable at the polls. A force to be reckoned with. Voters had a clear choice in the booth on election day. Not anymore, unfortunately. No personal disrespect intended to President Bush, whom I still believe is a good and decent man in his heart of hearts, but if this is to be his legacy, then who needs it??
Mr. President, sorry to break the news to you this way, but your compassionate conservatism has failed. Twice. It doesn't work. I once heard the word "insanity" defined as doing the same thing, over and over again, and expecting different results. That's a pretty good definition, if you ask me. How many elections does the GOP have to blow before it finally catches on? The public, as of now, has little to no confidence in the leadership ability of Republicans. The election of Barack Obama proved that conclusively; when people prefer to take a chance on an inexperienced, naive junior senator, rather than trust the much more experienced Republican candidate, something is definitely wrong with your party brand. It's time to put the GOP ship into a drydock and overhaul it. This is what we must do if we ever expect to win another election in our lifetime.
The state Republican committees will be assembling shortly to elect a new Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Whom they select is of the utmost importance up through the next presidential election cycle. We have got to bring our party back to its conservative roots again, so the election of a strong conservative chairman is an absolute must-do. Of the two frontrunning candidates for the post, my pick is Michael Steele, who is the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland. Mr. Steele is an African-American who is also a very strong conservative and would, I believe, provide just what the party needs in the leadership for its future.
Michael Steele is young, energetic, and enthusiastic -- something that the GOP needs an immediate infusion of in the worst way. We badly need younger blood to replace the old, worn-out blood we've had for far too long. The Republican Party has got to break with the "stuffy old fogey in the gray flannel suit" image that it has been stuck with for years. That was okay for Reagan, considering his age and that he was set in his ways, but nowadays that image is woefully outdated. We've got to obtain a more youthful image which reflects the changing of the guard, generationally. The key to this is in running, appointing and electing younger, conservative Republican leaders.
Sarah Palin was a great start. She'll be back and I think will have a bright future in national politics for years to come. And there are others, like Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, the first Indian-descended candidate to be elected. Like Gov. Palin, he is young, intelligent, and a strong conservative. He will, I think, become a future superstar as well. There are more like them out there and the party has got to find them and persuade them to seek public office.
We Republicans have got to re-define ourselves and what it is to be a Republican. We have to take off the gray flannel suits and replace them with sport jackets worn over jeans. Let the public know that we aren't all 70-year-old Wall Street bankers, riding around in chauffuered limos; more of us than you think wear jeans, leather biker jackets, ride Harleys, and drive our own Camaros to work. We are blue collar, we are conservative Republicans, and we're coming after you liberals who want to destroy our country and way of life!!
If we can do that, then maybe we can take back our party and our nation in the future.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The left has succeeded, over the past eight years, in characterizing "conservative" as a dirty word in American politics, much as we did the word "liberal" primarily during the Reagan Era. Maybe we had it coming. I don't know. But it has certainly worked well for them. It has gotten to the point where far too many politicians, who were formerly considered conservative, are now acting apologetic for being what they are (or once were.) Under President Bush's enigmatic "Compassionate Conservatism" (and I still can't figure out what that means, for the life of me), we have gone steadily downhill and moderate, outright liberal, and RINO Republicans have hijacked our party right out from under us. We are still very much the base of that party, but we've been steadily swept under the rug for eight years. Gee, thanks, George W.!!! You've managed to disenfranchise the heart and soul of the Republican Party and replace it with "Democrat Lite!" No freakin' wonder we've lost the past two elections!!!
Voters now have no clear choice at all. If Republicans are going to act like Democrats, then why not just elect the genuine article and be done with it? This is like trying to replace the original product with some off-brand, half-assed copy. It is futile. You can't outspend a liberal Democrat (although the RINOs in Congress have tried to.) You can't out-socialize a socialist. And you definitely can't make deals with socialists. You'll end up losing your shirt every time. And so we have. Abraham Lincoln -- the first GOP president -- is probably tossing and turning in his grave. So are our Founding Fathers, and all they stood for. What happened to the small central government they created? It grew into a leviathan and lately the Republicans, who once stood for shrinking it, have aided only in increasing its size even more. We are in deep doo-doo if this trend continues much longer.
This blogger will never apologize for his conservatism. Political Correctness be damned!! I am a Reagan Conservative and am very proud of it. I hold my head high, because I know the truth. I know how things really do work in America, and don't base my beliefs on some illusory, self-serving idea of how I think they should work. I am both a realist and a true intellectual, and not a pseudo-intellectual, as so many on the left side of the street are prone to be. And I'm convinced that's the best way to be, especially in these troubling times. You can join my new conservative underground, by reading me, and by taking part yourself, if you happen to agree with me.
Lose any shame that you've been made to feel. Free yourself and work to take back our political party again. Patch things up so that we can re-emerge, once the liberals screw things up (and they will, trust me.)
It's going to be a wild ride, the next four years. Will you join me?
Friday, November 7, 2008
Latest numbers I have:
Total Votes Cast: Approx. 121,000,000
Obama Votes: 64,000,000
McCain Votes: 56,000,000
Obama Wins By 8,000,000, counting Missouri as a probable McCain win.
As you can see, not nearly a landslide, but more than enough to make Barack Obama our next president. The numbers this time, in fact, were almost identical to the numbers in 2004, when President Bush won re-election to his second term. John McCain tightened up the race a lot in the final week, but just couldn't close the gap and pull ahead of Obama. Still, there was no "inevitability" to Obama's victory; it was very close in some of the battleground states. The last I heard, Obama won the race for Ohio, always a key state, by only one percentage point. But it was enough. President-Elect Obama will be inaugurated on Jan. 20th, and for the first time in 17 years, a Bush presidency won't be followed by a Clinton one.
I was a solid McCain supporter, but I'm not a sore loser, as the Democrats have been for the past eight years. I congratulate Senator Obama on his victory and sincerely wish him well. I will pray for him, as I have for every president, and hope God will guide him onto the right path for America. Our future as a nation depends on that. We will see how our new leader does, as time moves on.
In the meantime, for closure, I will dissect this long, long election cycle and offer up my "autopsy," or analysis, whatever you want to call it.
What Won It
In a nutshell, consistency did more to win this election for Obama than anything else. Yes, I know -- the constant chanting of "change, change, change" and "yes we can" got very old, and even maddening at times, but Obama's campaign stayed on track the whole way. His message, although I didn't like it at all, never swayed off track one bit. From the beginning, even during the primaries, it became apparent that this election, from the Democratic point of view, was going to be a referendum on the policies of President Bush. At times it seemed that Obama was running more against Bush than against his actual opponents, prompting John McCain to lash out at him in one debate, telling him that if he wanted to run against President Bush, he should have ran four years ago. But it worked; that message stayed consistent throughout and with the election of Barack Obama we now have a complete departure from the so-called "Bush Doctrine." I have many doubts about the wisdom of at least parts of that (the national security part of it, especially), but it won this election for the Democrats.
What Lost It
McCain's inconsistency and his refusal to take on Obama and expose his policies. He finally did go on the offensive, in the final week or two, but it was too little, too late by then. Sarah Palin was on offense from the outset, was muzzled for awhile, then apparently broke free from her handlers and became herself again, but she couldn't do it all alone and she got little help from McCain until the end. Again, too little, too late.
I got the distinct impression that McCain's refusal to take the fight to Obama most likely came out of fear of having the "race" card played on him and being labeled as a racist by the media, who played the role of Obama's attack dogs from the outset of the campaign. Obama could be comfortable as "No-Drama-Obama," with the media doing all his dirty work. McCain didn't have that luxury and he was the one who had to do the fighting. He didn't start doing it soon enough. McCain stayed on defense too long and let Obama run out the clock on him. You can't win a ball game if you stay on defense all the time. You gotta outscore your opponent. That's what McCain failed to do.
A Crucial BlunderThe Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage debacle and the economic fallout that resulted couldn't have come at a better time for the Democrats, who always benefit from an economic downturn, historically. McCain fumbled the ball badly when the crunch hit, suspending his campaign and rushing back to Washington, while Obama remained calm, vowing that the debate would go on and that there was no reason to rush. McCain then got trapped into voting for a quick-relief bailout bill that was so pork-laden that it almost oinked. This, after he'd vowed to end congressional earmarks completely. That, quite frankly, left McCain looking like a fool, and Obama looking much more presidential. Touchdown, Obama. McCain came off as way too panicky -- never a good quality in a president. McCain's campaign was tied, or leading Obama's before that happened. McCain lost that lead and never recovered it. End of story.
Obama's "Huge" Youth Vote: Didn't happen, as usual. Voters aged 18-29 in 2004 equalled 11 percent. Voters in same age group in 2008 equalled 11 percent. No gain. Same ol' same ol'. Voters in that age group are still more interested in where the next party is, as they always are. They went to the Obama rallies because it was the latest "cool" thing to do. But no more of them showed up at the polls than ever do.
Sarah Palin Was A Drag On The McCain Campaign: Not so. Sorry, if you think that, but you're not thinking, if you do. Once Sarah was able to become Sarah again, she wooed the conservative base of the Republican Party very effectively. She took on Obama's policies in McCain's absence on that subject, but of course, one voice is never as effective as the collective shouts of the media are. Sarah Palin, every conservative's "sweetheart," is the biggest reason that the campaign was able to stay as close to Obama as it did. She was one of the greatest assets, not a drag at all. She gained some long yardage, but McCain kept fumbling the ball. It was his election to lose, not Sarah's, and he did just that.
Ex-Hillary Voters Will Flock To McCain. Here's one I bought into myself, lock, stock and barrel. It didn't happen. So sue me. McCain wound up with very few disgruntled Hillary voters at all -- maybe three percent, at best. The vast majority of them held their noses and voted for Obama.
America Is A Racist Country. The media, Revs. Jackson, Sharpton, and Rev. Wrong are going to have a hard time making that allegation stick from now on. 60% of Obama's support came from white voters and Hispanics. When you can sweep a state like Iowa, which is 93% white, there's little racism involved. You should be proud of your country all the time now, Michelle Obama. No more excuses.
The Biggest Loser
The national news media is the biggest loser in this campaign, due to their rampant, undisguised love affair with Obama from Day One. I don't have to tell you that when any organization becomes this biased, they render themselves completely useless. That's just what the media has done, with most people.
I agree completely with commentator Sean Hannity: 2008 is the year that journalism officially died in America. Our news media is a total disgrace; it has become nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the left. There are a few conservative and middle-of-the-road newspapers still around, and Fox News is still somewhat more balanced and fairer than the Big Four, but that's about it. If you want to get all the facts and both sides of an issue, you're forced to turn to internet sources most of the time. Traditional network and print news has been slowly dying for the past several years, and this year put another king-sized nail in their coffin. R.I.P.
What Lies Ahead
It don't look good, I'll tell you that, but this is a subject for a future entry, all to itself. I need some time to come down from my post-election "hangover" and gather my thoughts. Here's a little hint, to tide you over until then: Beware of Congress, as much or more as Obama!!! More to come, later on.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
CAPITALISM: You own 20 cows. You milk your cows every day and process the best-quality milk that you can, always striving to be the best at what you do. Your dairy business begins to thrive and over the next few years, you are able to buy up all your competition's cattle. You now own 500 cows and have a milk monopoly. You become wealthy and then you sell your dairy business for millions of dollars more and retire while you're in your 40's.
SOCIALISM: You own 20 cows. The government taxes your profits and redistributes the money to unproductive people. You can't buy any more cattle and expand your business. Jobs are lost.You're forced to sell off some of your cows in order to stay afloat. This continues until you can no longer compete in the marketplace, then the government seeks to move in and take over your dairy when you're almost bankrupt. Bureaucracy then takes over the operation of your dairy (see below).
BUREAUCRACY: The government takes over your dairy business. It spills half of the mik, then lets the other half spoil. Nobody has any milk.
COMMUNISM: You own 20 cows. The government confiscates all of them. You own nothing. Everything becomes government property, assigned to people according to their importance to the state. You are forced to work, under threat of imprisonment, and are paid not in money, but with "credits" you can redeem for necessities in a government-run store. The amount of credits you get again depends on your value to the state. If you complain or protest, you are "re-educated," or imprisoned. Hard-line dissidents tend to disappear forever. You are essentially a slave, owned by the state.
NAZI/FASCISM: You own 20 cows. The government's Secret Police shows up in the middle of the night, steals all your cattle, executes you, then throws your family in a concentration camp. Everyone the government considers undesirable is imprisoned and forced to do hard labor. They are true slave, paid nothing; given only enough food and water to keep them barely alive. Only a favored few are allowed to profit, under strict government control. Basically Communism on steroids.
Now, which system would YOU rather live under?? Our capitalist/free market system, or one of the others?
Please VOTE on Nov. 4th. IT MATTERS MORE THAN EVER IN THIS ELECTION!!!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Really? Not so fast, Democrats. There's one tiny little thing that you're overlooking here; the election hasn't taken place yet! Yes, the election. You know -- that little "formality" we have every four years, where the people go to the polling stations and actually vote for the candidate of their choice. That election. Remember now? Your candidate actually has to win that election, by amassing enough electoral votes among all the states to put him in the White House for the next four years. That hasn't happened yet, and it's not over until it does. Don't get ahead of yourselves and don't get too cocky and overconfident. That's when you usually lose.
The people of America will decide who our next president will be, on Tuesday, Nov. 5th. The pollsters don't get to decide and the media doesn't get to decide. The people do. That's us -- me and you, and millions more like us, all across this nation. So, in spite of all the overconfident boasting and all the Democrat-favoring polls that the media concocts, it will all come down to that, just like it always does. We will decide this thing for ourselves. ACORN and similar liberal groups can register dead people and 7-year-old children to vote, and they can register all the homeless people, imprisoned felons, and illegal aliens that they want to; that sort of thing goes on in almost every election, but it seldom, if ever, works at all. The fraud gets discovered and eradicated and the honest people's votes are what carries the day for the winner.
And who do I think will win this thing? I'm hoping, of course, that John McCain will come out on top, when it's all over, and things appear to be sliding in his direction now, from what I've seen and heard in the past week. The national polls (the ones you can trust, that is), have tightened up dramatically. The Democrats appear to be in their "frantic campaigning mode," not a good indicator of the "lock" they claim to have. And I heard from reliable sources that the Dems' own internal polls (the ones we never see) indicate that they're losing in most of the battleground states. So things are not what the Democrats and their media allies would have you believe.
And one thing to remember about McCain -- he's as strong a finisher as anyone I've ever seen; he winds things up with a bang. That's his style. He doesn't give up and he never quits; that's the old warrior spirit in him. That's what got him through five years of captivity and torture in the Hanoi Hilton prison. In the primaries, his campaign was given up as practically dead, early on. But he battled relentlessly back and won. The proof of that is the position that he holds right now. Don't ever count John McCain out of it. That would be a serious mistake.
One lesson I learned, back in the days when I used to engage in a little sports betting, was that there's simply no such thing as a "lock." Oh, you might be fooled into thinking that you have one. A strong, powerful, nationally-ranked team plays a little team that nobody knows anything about and it looks like the mismatch of the century; that little nothing team is about to be booted clean out of the stadium. It looked that way in January of 1986, at the Sugar Bowl, when the #2-ranked Miami Hurricanes played a little underdog team from Tennessee --our own Volunteers, who weren't even ranked in the Top 25 nationally. They got to that bowl because it always hosted the Southeastern Conference champion and we'd had a great year in our conference.
Miami's players were all cocky and overconfident, thinking they could just "show up and win" and the sports gurus all thought the same thing. But there was a game they had to get through first. The 'Canes lost miserably to the Volunteers that New Year's evening -- 35-7. We took them apart on the field, then spit them out. It was a thing of beauty, if you were a Vol fan. The Hurricanes went back to Coral Gables totally spent, with their pride destroyed and their heads hung low. The Hurricanes learned, just as I did in my betting days, that on any given day you can play a lousy game and lose your shirt.
There's no such thing as a lock, in politics, as in sports. It'll pay to remember that, the next time you hear the Democrats saying that they have one in this election.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
I'm going to give you some reasons why this conservative writer holds Gov. Palin in such high esteem.
First, I don't love her for her looks. Oh, yes, I've noticed that she's a very attractive young woman. I'm a normal man, after all. Undoubtedly, there are some men out there who will vote for the ticket, based on her beauty alone. Many voters do base their votes on such intangibles as looks, true enough. There are women who list their attraction to Sen. Obama on his looks, either partly or completely. And some women will vote for the McCain/Palin ticket because she's a woman; they'll vote for any woman, of any party, of any ideology, simply because she is female. And undoubtedly, some African-Americans will vote for Sen. Obama based on his skin color alone. Those sort of things always happen -- every election. It's almost proverbial. Those are all the wrong reasons to vote for anyone, in my opinion, and it's potentially dangerous, but it happens every election cycle, nonetheless.
My attraction to Gov. Palin is an ideological one. I love her conservatism, her obvious strength of character, and her reform-oriented mind. Mitt Romney said, back in the primaries, that "Washington is broken." If anyone in this entire campaign ever made a truer statement, I don't know who that would be. Because Washington is broken. Very broken. It needs fixing ASAP, and from what I've seen out of Sarah Palin, she might just be the right one to fix it. She certainly has the track record to back her up. As Alaska's governor, she took on the old-time, well-rooted "Old Boy's Network" in the state and turned it on its ear. She made a lot of friends, and some enemies as well. She stepped on some toes. But that's what it takes, to do the job that needs to be done. And she proved to be tough enough to do the job. They started calling her "Sarah Barracuda" in Alaska. She left to join McCain as his running mate holding a nearly 80% approval rating among her constituents. No small feat, for any politician, on any level of government. Damned impressive, if you ask me. The lady's no slouch.
However, there's another level to Sarah Palin, and that's where I really connect with her the most. I adore that "hockey mom" side of her more than anything else. She's a real person and she's one of us. Middle-class background. She knows what it's like to work a real job for a living, unlike so many in government who have never really done so at all. She knows what it's like to live from payday to payday, balance a family budget, shop for necessities, nurture kids and work a job at the same time -- in short, she has lived most of her life just like we live ours. She's not out of touch at all, but most assuredly in touch with mainstream Americans. And that's something we desperately need in government nowadays -- a politician who knows how most regular people live, what they go through, what makes them happy, and what angers them. And now we have that in Sarah Palin. Thank you forever, John McCain, for introducing us to this fine lady! What a fantastic asset to any campaign!
Win or lose on Nov. 4th, Sarah Palin is going to be a force in national politics for some time to come. She's headed for rock star status, I believe (although as a friend of mine pointed out, she's far more of a class act than any rock star. And I agree with that.) My prayer for her is that she won't succumb to the "D.C. Sydrome," as so many others have done. Don't drink the water in Washington, Sarah -- there's something funny in it! And don't ever lose the qualities that people like myself love in you. Somehow, I don't think this woman ever will.