Reverse Party Logic Proves Faulty
By Billy Hallowell | May 3, 2009
“Agree with her or not, she seems like a sweet kid who means well.” HotAir.com’s Allah Pundit recently Tweeted this reassuring proclamation to his followers. The subject: Meghan McCain. The context: Her political philosophy. Surely, Allah Pundit’s right. Meghan does, indeed, have good intentions. But it is her somewhat anti-conservative viewpoints about which direction the Republican Party should head that drive a wedge between her and her constituents.
In reality, Meghan’s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.
Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday’s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely).
Two, Contrasting Perspectives
So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.
In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn’t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I’d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.
This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.
The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it’s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama’s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.
Clinging to the Outer Fringes
Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat’s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That’s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy’s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.
The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn’t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I’d advise against such a move.
If you follow the Democratic model, you’ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy — John Kerry — to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.
A State of Shear Dormancy
When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don’t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we’ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets.
What simply doesn’t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.
As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain’s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn’t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.
To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement’s heart and soul. It’s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America’s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.
Conservatives, for what it’s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America’s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.
It’s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.
Topics: General | No Comments »
Embryonic Stem Cells: Obama’s First, Official Bi-partisan Move?
By Billy Hallowell | April 19, 2009
Liberals were singing President Obama’s praises last month when he overturned Bush-era restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research. Unfortunately for the left, this move has been post ceded with restrictive regulation on how these cells may be used – a relatively welcome game-changer for most conservatives.
While destruction of human life for scientific benefit is surely reprehensible, the newly minted restrictions are paramount in that they represent Obama’s first attempt to remain somewhat neutral on a domestic issue of importance.
From the relatively unpopular bailout, which was pushed into law despite Republican discontent, to incessant acts of misgovernment, this administration has taken somewhat of an anti-conservative stance on a cornucopia of social and political issues. And while I still remain opposed to tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research, the results of the administration’s stance could be playing out in a much more detrimental way. According to FOX News,
“Draft guidelines released by the National Institutes of Health reflect rules with broad congressional support, excluding more controversial sources such as cells derived from embryos created just for experiments.”
Despite Obama’s overt attempt at leftist appeasement through the overturning of President Bush’s executive order, it appears the president is considering the rally cries of the opposing party on this issue.
Perhaps this newfound openness to issues associated with the right to life movement is reflective of the synergy many conservatives are creating in their attempt to rally together against those who would seek to pursue looser restrictions on abortion (as if the words “restriction” and “abortion” exist conversantly in Obama’s legislative agenda).
It is also quite possible that Obama recognizes his need to respect a massive portion of the populace’s rejection to his anti-life stances. Either way, this is somewhat of a step in the right direction.
Some scientists are, no doubt, disappointed. While many had hoped for no restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic research, the National Institutes of Health is requiring that all cells used must come from “…clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away.”
Aside from Obama’s first, and thus far only, compromise, the most ironic portion of the new regulatory system is as follows (as per FOX News):
“The guidelines also demand that the woman or couple who donate the original embryo give proper informed consent. There are other options for such donors, such as donating the embryo to another infertile woman, and all must be explained. The donation must be voluntary, without pressure from scientists.”
These regulations are surely a step in the right direction. With many claiming that embryonic stem cells are a hopeless endeavor, and with scientists finding more useful and less controversial methods of using and extracting stem cells (from amniotic fluid, by adapting adult stem cells, from umbilical chords, and without harming a fetus), one wonders why Democrats are behind the times in their incessant urge to pursue this method.
Still, it is encouraging to note that the government is not deregulating to the point of no return. While I am hopeful that common sense and logic lead the president and Congressional Democrats toward the realization of more optimal and viable options, I’ll take this compromise and pray for more.
And as ironic as it stands, I must congratulate President Obama for making his first attempt at moderate governance. Now, let’s hope he does the same in other sociopolitical realms.
Topics: General | 1 Comment »
Spending America’s Future into Oblivion
By Billy Hallowell | March 11, 2009
Ideological Barriers to Change
As Americans cope with immense fiscal challenges, Congressional spending continues to spiral out of control. Living out Rahm Emanuel’s tweaked philosophy of never allowing “a serious crisis to go to waste,” Democrats are spending at an enigmatic rate – and some Republicans are following suite.
According to The Wall Street Journal, back in Nov. 2008 Emanuel told a group of corporate chief executives the following:“Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”
These are not the words of a fiscally-conscious lawmaker. “Things” that could not be done before – like what? And if “things” could not be afforded before, how would the nation, in the midst of a financial melt-down, suddenly have the resources to finance said “things?”
Clearly, Emanuel is speaking about ideological policy here, not systematic reform. This is not the time to sacrifice the future by printing money for the purposes of furthering the Democratic perspective. The most recent bailout and the subsequent spending bill that has already cleared the Senate are so poorly comprised and so detrimental that they can only result from such an ill-focused outlook.
And perhaps most preposterous was Emanuel’s assertion that the current climate will foster the hopenchange, bi-partisan rhetoric that Obama thrived on during the campaign: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”
Good news? Silver lining? Despite such talk of bipartisanship, Washington is more divided than its been in decades, as the most recent stimulus had not one of the House’s 178 members voting in its favor. As Republicans and a small group of Democrats rally to control spending and vote down abuses, their colleagues have chosen to continue wasting tax-payer dollars, while abusing the powers that have been bestowed upon them by the American people.
Recent Fiscal Abuses
While most Americans are facing unemployment prospects and struggling to meet their most basic needs, out-of-touch Congressional members have slipped thousands of irrelevant pet projects into the latest spending bill that President Obama promises to sign.
Back in Sep. 2008, Obama said, “…when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely” – a promise he has already broken. One cannot help but wonder what happened to Obama’s campaign pledge to take “a scalpel” to bills that contain pork-barrel spending. Instead, massive spending and fiscal deviance have dominated.
At this rate, it’s becoming difficult to follow just how much money Congress has spent. First, there was the stimulus passed by Bush and the Democratic Congress at the end of 2008 (over $700 billion). Then came Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package – cleverly entitled “The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Now, Congress is slated to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, intended to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is wrought with pork.
According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, it contains 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion. A mere glimpse at the projects that have been inserted showcases a lack of Congressional responsibility and moral fabric. In this case, both parties are to blame. While Democrats have been leading the charge to irresponsible spending, Republicans who have earmarks in the bill are jumping on board in hopes that their projects will be funded.
The irresponsibility is paramount. At a time when Americans are hurting, Rep. Jerrold Nadler has earmarked $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, with Sen. Lindsay Graham is attempting to filter $950,000 to the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Additionally, $800,000 was earmarked for the purposes of “oyster rehabilitation” – whatever that means. And these are only a few examples (remember, there are nearly 9,000 to choose from). Clearly, these pork-laced projects have little to do with helping the American government meet its operating costs and everything to do with unpatriotic, self-interest.
Now, more than ever, America’s lawmakers need to cut unnecessary costs. As President Obama asks Americans to use less electricity, to trust his administration and to have faith in the system, he must also ask Congress – and his inner conscious – to make similar concessions. Our nation is deep in debt and the longer the people stand idle, the more tattered the country’s future will be. Now is the time for rhetoric-free, action-based fiscal conservation.
For more information about Billy Hallowell, go to www.williamhallowell.com. For booking information about Billy and other speakers and programs, go to www.pathufindmedia.com.
Topics: General | No Comments »
Iraq’s Provincial Elections Auger Well For Obama’s Troop Withdrawal Plan
By Webster Brooks | February 8, 2009
Iraq’s critical January 31 provincial election wars are over. With the Iraq Election Commission reporting 90 percent of the vote, the stunning results have far reaching implications for the upcoming referendum on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), December’s parliamentary elections and President Obama’s proposed U.S. troop withdrawal plan. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s “State of the Law†coalition emerged as the big election winner. The advocates of stronger central government gained substantially against Kurdish and Shiia demands for more provincial power and the Sunni minority participated broadly for the first time in three national elections.
The surprisingly peaceful and fair elections were marked by contentious intra-group campaigning as Sunni Awakening Forces challenged the dominant Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party, and four Shiia parties (Maliki’s DAWA Party, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the Sadrists and the Fadhila Party) battled across Southern Iraq for electoral supremacy. Despite a lower than expected turnout of 51 percent, seven million Iraqi’s voted for 14,000 candidates vying for 440 provincial and local offices.
Topics: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Iraq | 1 Comment »
It’s Time To Call The Republicans’ Bluff!
By Steve Levine | February 7, 2009
Once again, the Neanderthals in the Republican party are wielding their ideological wrecking ball against the foundations of the American economy.
Not content to have precipitated the current economic crisis with their disgraced supply-side, trickle-down tax cuts obsession, Republicans are pushing the same proposals to fix the economy that created the mess in the first place.
Why anyone — least of all a president who received a huge popular mandate just 90 days ago to abandon those policies — would even LISTEN to Republican ideas about how to stimulate the economy – defies logic. To sacrifice an effective rescue plan on the chimerical altar of “bipartisanship†is at once infuriating and insane.
Republicans have absolutely NO credibility on economic matters. This is the same gang of know-nothings who never opposed any of George W. Bush’s massive spending and tax cut bills that created the current crisis.
Obama should remind them of that, tell them that he’s pushing through a bill heavy in spending and job creation with a minimum of tax cuts, then DARE them to oppose it with a filibuster.
It’s time to call the Republicans’ bluff
Topics: Barack Obama, Congress, General, Politics 2.0, Republicans | 1 Comment »
Obama’s Foreign Policy - The First Fourteen Days
By Webster Brooks | February 5, 2009
Topics: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Video, YouTube | No Comments »