When one declares oneself to be a conservative, one is not, unfortunately, thereupon visited by tongues of fire that leave one omniscient. The acceptance of a series of premises is just the beginning. After that, we need constantly to inform ourselves, to analyze and to think through our premises and their ramifications. We need to ponder, in the light of the evidence, the strengths and the weaknesses, the consistencies and the inconsistencies, the glory and the frailty of our position, week in and week out. Otherwise, we will not hold our own in a world where informed dedication, not just dedication, is necessary for survival and growth.

William F. Buckley Jr., Feb 8, 1956, NR

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Positive Outlook........Half Full or Half Empty?


I am going to expand a little on Robert's last post called the Call to Conservatives. I do not like Obama. Let me make that loud and clear right now. I have a problem with a lot of his policies and I have the feeling that in the future, we will be addressing them as time goes on. The election is over, done, finito and no amount of whining and complaining is going to change the outcome. The worst possible thing we, as conservatives can do right now, is to wallow in self pity instead of fullfilling the vision that we see as our future. I ask you what good it does to sit on our blogs and complain? What possible good does bitterness serve us? As individuals we can make a difference. As a united front, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish but as evidenced in the comment section of the last post, we are not.

"You must start with a positive attitude or you will surely end without one." ~Carrie Latet



It's actually a very easy concept to grasp. When I first learned to ride my bike, I fell down time and time again. It would have been very easy to just sit down on my bruised butt, cry a little bit (or a lot), and complain about how hard it was to ride, and give up. I didn't do that. I got back on the bike, probably a little more gingerly than before, mind you, but I got back on and tried again. I fell again, but I got right back up, and tried again. After a bruised butt and ego, and a lot of Band-Aids, I finally learned to ride my bike. It wasn't easy, and certainly wasn't always pretty but I did not give up. I rode that pink bike with the handlebar pom-pom's, like I was Lance Armstrong. Eventually, I even managed to ride with no hands, but that is getting off track......Anyway, the point to this little flashback was to demonstrate the importance of a positive attitude.

"It is our attitude at the beginning of a difficult task which, more than anything else, will affect it’s successful outcome.”
~William James

It might feel good to sit on our blogs and whine and complain about the state of things, but until we take a pro-active role in changing things, nothing will get accomplished. We need to have a positive outlook in order to make the changes that are necessary to bring our vision to fruition. We need to stand by our convictions and fight with all the ammunition in our corner. This country needs direction and we need to be the ones to supply it. Together we can do that.........

"Sometimes we are limited more by attitude than by opportunities." ~Anonymous

"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it." ~Anonymous

"I never saw a pessimistic general win a battle." General Dwight David Eisenhower

"If you have the will to win, you achieved half your success; if you don't, you have achieved half your failure." ~ David Ambrose

28 comments:

TAO said...

Who was it that once said, "The nebobs of negativism..." :)

As conservatives we need to accept the fact that our convictions are not only anti-Obama and anti-Liberalism but they were also anti-Bush and anti-Republicanism.

You cannot say I support Bush because he made us more secure but I did disagree with him on other things and more than you can say "I do not like Obama."

Because Bush knew that we supported a strong defense he KNEW then that he could get away with murder on everything else.

Its not tax cuts that matter but rather spending that matters. Lets quit fooling ourselves into believing that tax cuts are better than borrowing from the future because borrowing costs us a lot more.

Reagan and Bush used government to manipulate the economy just as much as Clinton and Obama have or will.

Once we agree that the lessor of two evils IS NOT A GOOD CHOICE then we can begin to change.

Once we realize that when we say we want less government involvement in our lives that applies to all things we can change.

Once we realize that when we say we want government that does not benefit one group over another and that applies equally to the poor and the rich then we can change.

Once we realize that freedom and individual responsibility are absolutes and not some pick and choose buffet then we can change.

Once government realizes that we have changed then they will change too! But we have to change first...

Chuck said...

I agree with Tao in that the real issue is spending. I also agree that Bush oversaw too much spending. I do believe though that some of it was unavoidable.

The point is, a lot of the money was not unavoidable. The GOP became the very thing they were supposed to be against. They spent like drunken sailors. They used our money to bring the pork home in an attempt to keep themselves in power.

It's even more than spending though. Spending being the problem in itself is a simplistic argument. One could argue that pork is not such a bad thing if it pumps money into a local economy and creates jobs. The problem is the spending that is spent on the spending. We have a too bloated bureaucracy.

For example, putting $10 million into a local economy is money well spent if it creates enough jobs. The problem is that there are $5 million in administrative costs spent in Washington for the $10 million that goes back home.

This doesn't even address the prtion of that $10 million that is eaten up by regulatory costs and waste at the local level. So what we get is a bill for $15 million to pump maybe $7 million into the local economy.

This is what we have to control. Government waste, run away administrative costs, and uneeded regulatory spending is killing us.

Helene said...

In response to the post submitted by Jennifer today, I would like to say that Jennifer it seems to me that you get the picture although you seem to have also had a bit too much of the kool-aide offered by Robert. And Robert I RESENT the snide comment about me
hiding form the black helicopters which are undoubtably ( which should be spelled undoubtedly) looking for me. I didn’t realize that you were a comedian as well as an amateur journalist.
I was not aware that my not having a “profile” puts me into the category as a troll or someone that has little or no weight in their commenting. Sorry but I am not a blogger as you are. (or tries to be).
However I do thing that I have more than earned the right to speak my mind when it comes our new President. I also resent your making me sound as if I am some sort of a ranting moronic lunatic.
As to your question “how did I find you?”
Your blog was listed on the side of another persons blog with the title “A Call To Conservatives” This caught my attention.

You called my post an emotional tantrum. Well perhaps if you had a relative MURDERED by those ANIMAL that we now have locked up in Guantanamo Bay. Are you aware that some of those terrorists have already been released and have been captured twice, how may of our soldiers have to be killed by them before we wise up and do the right thing and by that I mean throw away the key. We should never close it down, you just can’t release those animals back into the world to be killing American Soldiers.
This story that you wrote about supporting Barack Obama is very noble of you. But it is nothing but Hog-Wash to me. I am amazed and dumbfounded by the news that in his first few days in office, our brand new president Barack Obama signed an order that would close Guantánamo Bay within one year. Is the state of our economy not more important? And where does he intend to put these terrorists?

Maybe our democratic politicians would like to keep them as guests in their homes. Maybe the liberal media journalists would like to have them as guests in their homes. Keep them nice and comfortable. Give them their rights.

What about the rights of my brother, Vinny D'Amadeo, and the 3,000 other people who were killed on 9/11? Every time I hear another story from one of our liberal politicians or journalists about the torture and rights of these terrorists, it feels like I am being kicked in the stomach again. How quickly everyone has forgotten about the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.. I don’t know about you sir, but I for one will never forget.
My brother will never see his four boys grow up. My nephews will never have their dad in their lives. My sister-in-law lost her husband forever. My parents lost their son forever. My family has been hurt in a way that can't be described in words. However, all I keep hearing about are the rights of these terrorists. And I am fed up with hearing that! Fed up from hearing it from the weenie Liberal politicians, from the weenie Liberal news media and from so called “Conservatives” like you that just don’t have the backbone to stay the course. You people talk about diversity how about diversity in opinion? Why do you mock mine? Is my opinion worth any less than yours? Geneva Convention does not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, these are people what do not wear uniforms or belong to any organized army.
As for my support of Barack Obama, I do not agree with ANYthing that he has done or has promised to do. I do not trust him. I do not trust any of his advisers or the people that are behind him. And other that his being Black, I do not understand what people see in him. I'm SICK of having to compromise. Don't forget Obama on Homeland security. No sharing info between CIA and FBI.. No wiretaps, no Waterboarding, no uncomfortable surroundings for captured combatants/terrorists. No to Guantanamo Prison. Yes to recognizing rights of terrorists. Even if they do not have any rights. No to anything and everything that the George W. Bush administration has used for the past 7 years that worked and that insured no terrorist attacks on American soil. Well, at least Joe Biden warned us, didn’t he! I don’t know where you live Robert, maybe in the cornfields of Iowa where you will be comfy and safe but us folks here in New York do not feel that safe. And Jennifer, you “Half full or half empty glass” is a lightweight analogy. You called my post a childish, and bitter, attitude, well maybe it is.That was exactly the way I felt about Roberts "Call To Conservatives"
Although whining and complaining will not to change the outcome. That’s true but it sure will make ME feel better and Supporting Obama will not..... Why should I support him? Obama has voted with his Ultra Liberal party 100% of the time. Is that his idea of bipartisanship. Conservatives are supposed to give up their convictions and do as they're told. Now he's telling Republicans that they shouldn't sit and listen to Limbaugh, because if they do, they'll never accomplish anything. And this is coming from the guy who thinks he can "accomplish something" by sitting down with and listening to what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to say.
Support him"? Give Obama a chance? A chance to do what? Robert, I haven’t yet heard YOUR opinion on these Gitmo prisoners! Let’s be honest, you know they will be tried and released in the U.S. because no jury will have the courage to find them guilty, let alone will witnesses be willing to testify. And do you think that our Gvt. Will be willing to expose our CIA agents to the rest of the world or tell our secrets regarding their capture. I guess you just expect them to have good will and go back to where they came from. Think about that before you mock my post next time around. Robert, I think that you may very well mean well but you seem to be very naive and I think it won’t be long before all your bubbles will burst.
His speeches sound like sermons and I don't need to be "inspired" or told “How to fix America by the likes of him. Sorry for the length of this post. But I had to get this off my chest.
Helene

Shaw Kenawe said...

I read this op-ed in today's (1/26/09)Los Angeles Times. It is written by Mickey Edwards, who was a long-time friend of Ronald Reagan, who served him, served in Congress, and was a founder of the Heritage Foundation.

I think the serious people here would do well to read this and think about what he is saying.

I agree with everything Mr. Edwards sets out in this essay. And most people I've read on this blog may very well agree with him as well.

Remember, this is coming from a man who knew Ronald Reagan before he was governor of California.

Here are the first few paragraphs, the link to the rest is below them.

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it's "the problem"); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable). This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense.
[snip]
A shocker: The Constitution, which we love for the limits it places on government power, not only constrains government, it empowers it. Limited government is not no government. And limited government is not "small" government. Simply building roads, maintaining a military, operating courts, delivering the mail and doing other things specifically mandated by the Constitution for America's 300 million people make it impossible to keep government "small." It is boundaries that protect freedom. Small governments can be oppressive, and large ones can diminish freedoms. It is the boundaries, not the numbers, that matter.

What would Reagan think of this? Wasn't it he who warned that government is the problem? Well, permit me. I directed the joint House-Senate policy advisory committees for the Reagan presidential campaign. I was part of his congressional steering committee. I sat with him in his hotel room in Manchester, N.H., the night he won that state's all-important primary. I knew him before he was governor of California and before I was a member of Congress. Let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan.


Reagan, who spent 16 years in government, actually said this:

"In the present crisis," referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He then went on to say: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work." Government, he said, "must provide opportunity." He was not rejecting government, he was calling -- as Barack Obama did Tuesday -- for better management of government, for wiser decisions.
[snip]
The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-'60s, or to Reagan's in the '80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.

American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency).

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

And, watching, I suspect Ronald Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak.


Source: http://tinyurl.com/aemp5c

I'd really like to know what conservatives think about this essay.

Thanks.

Robert said...

Helene, I need to address a couple of your points, although I am debating with myself about whether to do it or not. My dad always said that when someone is determined to make an ass of themself, the best thing to do is to get out of the way and let them.

“Jennifer it seems to me that you get the picture although you seem to have also had a bit too much of the kool-aide offered by Robert.”

You begin from a false premise – that in some way there is some manner of kool-aid in my perspective. My premises run contrary to both the Democrat party and to the Republican Party. You also co-relate my belief that we need a higher standard of behavior among our representatives, and that begins with eliminating the name calling, finger pointing, and absurdly wasteful activities such as whether a President received oral sex from an intern. I disagree with such behavior in the White House but was it really worth the tens of millions of dollars to investigate something the New York Times would have done for free? I think not.


“However I do think that I have more than earned the right to speak my mind when it comes our new President. I also resent your making me sound as if I am some sort of a ranting moronic lunatic.”

You have not earned the right to speak out against the President, you were given that right by God and it is protected by the laws of this nation. I seek to deny neither your right nor you ability to do so. However, the continuous cacophony of childish rants and raves and spitballs because you don’t like the outcome of an election is, in my opinion, not only counterproductive but damaging to the conservative cause.

On the subject of Guantanamo Bay. You wish to hear my opinion, here we go. I do not presume to know your background, not do I presume that you know mine. I will give you just a couple of points on mine so that you understand the basis for my opinion.
1) I am a Marine, and a combat veteran. An honest to God, roll in the mud and shoot them between the eyes infantryman. I served in Desert Storm and beyond.
2) I worked for the Dept. of Homeland Security for five years. Part of that time was at the Homeland Security Operations Center, a fusion center of every government agency that is involved in any way with defending our nation. I was the liaison for the Transportation Security Administration. I worked with CIA, DIA, NSA, DOD, and every other acronym there is. It is two open, windowless room where everything intel and operations passes through to the Secretary for Homeland Security.

Gitmo was required several years ago. This “war” was one that Americans had ignored for decades, and we were unprepared for the issues that surrounded this new unconventional effort. I have supported the use of Gitmo and President Bush’s efforts to utilize it as he has used the facility. However, it has been in operation six years and it is time for our policy to mature. Have you read the Executive Order signed by Obama? I have. There is nothing in the Order about releasing prisoners within the United States. In fact, it specifically says to release them in their home countries or in a third party country.
I spoke earlier of your right to speak out against the President because of our laws. I am not afraid to use the due process structure of our laws to prosecute terrorists. In fact, I support the moral high ground. It is the basic reason we fight this war; they oppose our democracy and freedoms and we abhore their radicalism. When they are the recipient of that which they hate, it does indeed place us on the moral high ground.
That being said, I have no problem with one of our personnel putting a round through their foreheads instead of capturing them either.




“What about the rights of my brother, Vinny D'Amadeo, and the 3,000 other people who were killed on 9/11?”
I am sorry for your loss, as I am sorry for the tens of thousands of people touched by the attacks on 9/11. I did not lose anyone on 9/11, but I have lost Marine friends in the subsequent wars. I do not seek to undermine your loss, nor to deepen it. However, you have not heard anything from me regarding abandoning the war on terror, nor that we should change our strategy of using our military forces to combat it. I would encourage you to dig a little deeper in this blog and read what has been written about homeland security and defense.

“I'm SICK of having to compromise. Don't forget Obama on Homeland security. No sharing info between CIA and FBI…”

I am not sure where the compromise comes from. In the real world, the nation is developed form the center. The nation is governed from the center. Compromise is the nature of diplomacy and politics, and is required for there to be any actions that we will take, either domestically or internationally.

Regarding the info sharing, the laws pertaining to information shared between the FBI and the CIA are for a purpose. Please remember, that the rights of criminals/terrorists are the same rights that protect you. The only difference is that you don’t need them….yet. The CIA and FBI are not the same type of agency and do not have the same mission. Trust me on this, the information that needs shared is being shared.

“I don’t know where you live Robert, maybe in the cornfields of Iowa where you will be comfy and safe but us folks here in New York do not feel that safe. And Jennifer, you “Half full or half empty glass” is a lightweight analogy.”

I live in Alabama. I feel safe because my little city is nowhere on the list of places that need to fear terrorism. If they come here, my personal arsenal stands ready to defend my home. Until then, I don’t care if they are locked in Gitmo or at Leavenworth.

A positive approach is not a lightweight analogy. It is an attempt to repair what is wrong with the conservative movement and to change the reason that Obama is President! Again, read further in this blog. If there is blame to be placed regarding the occupant of the White House, it rests with the GOP and with conservatives.

Again, I state that everyone should fully support President Obama. That should not be confused with kneeling before any agenda he has, or any legislation he proposes, or any Order he issues. We should fight those based on solid reasoning, not emotion or partisan silliness.

I would rather be wrong in my opinion and the President succeeds, than be right in my opinion and the nation fail.

Jennifer said...

Helene,

Actually tea is more my style.....I don't even let my kids drink kool-aid! I totally understand the fact that you don't trust Obama, because I don't either. Not one little bit. Regardless of that fact though, he is our president. I think you may be confusing support and loyalty. I support him because he is the POTUS, and I am a citizen of the United States. Certainly not because I like him or trust him. I found it very disturbing that he lifted the ban for funding of oversees abortions his first day in office when the economy is in deep, deep trouble. I think his priorities are totally screwed up.

I am not going to comment at this time on Guantanamo Bay because honestly I have mixed feelings and wont spout off about something I am still forming an opinion of.

I am sorry about your brother, it was a tragedy, and no one is making light of that here!

Support does not mean to blindly follow. He doesn't represent my morals, beliefs, or policies and I will most definitely fight him. I just think that it is important to have the right kind of attitude if we are to accomplish anything. If you or anyone feels the need to whine and complain on their blogs then I am not trying to stop you, but to me the bigger picture is what is really important and that is what we are striving for.

Angie said...

Alright Robert. I wasn't going to add a post here, but I am going to give Helene the benefit of the doubt, and believe that she really did lose her brother on 9/11. And in your first paragraph to her you basically accuse her of being an @ss:

My dad always said that when someone is determined to make an ass of themself, the best thing to do is to get out of the way and let them.

Now, I almost didn't read the rest of your response because my first thought was, "here is this woman who lost someone on 9/11 and you are trying to undermine her credibility by insulting her."

Robert, I agree with your premise, and I think I understand that you are suggesting Conservatives do not play horrible Saul Alinsky type left-wing tactics because we shouldn‘t play by our opponents rules, rather make our own. I also agree on the power of the positive attitude. Nothing bothers me more than some fellow conservative wallowing in self-pity and acting as if the US becoming the next Cuba is forgone conclusion.

But my point is, if you want to talk about the moral high ground, start with yourself first. Remove the board in your own eye before complaining about a splinter in Helene's. She says she lost her brother on 9/11. If you want to get through to her, and not just prove that you are better than her, then show some compassion.

Belinda said...

I agree 100% with supporting President Obama. His success is our success and vice versa. Our country was founded to give the people the right to vote for and elect our presidents, and the country has spoken. Not everybody will be able to accept it as easily as others, but we all need to try. Pitching a fit over who was elected does about as much good as beating your head into a wall - in the end you just end up with a headache. We pretty much have to "agree to disagree" and try to find common ground to work towards what will better our country. Arguing or getting offended will not get us anywhere.

A good friend of mine is liberal down to the bone. There are plenty of things we do not agree with... there are however also things we do agree with. If we can take our common ground, however large or small it may be, and try to build on it we could accomplish so much more than "no, I don't like that."

I feel like we have the upper hand either way. If he does a good job, GREAT and if he doesn't... we can chalk it up to democrats and liberals ruining it all. :)

Robert said...

Angie, thanks for visiting and for commenting. I appreciate Helene's visits as well, and I hope you both come back often.

I extend compassion for anyone who loses a loved one. However, that does not require me to give a pass to someone who enters this place, with little knowledge of where I stand on issues, and being insulting. That is the comment about being an ass, and I stand by it.

I believe that we are at a crucial point, as we have been before and will again, in our nation's journey. There are many issues, among them terrorism, social security, and the national debt, that have been ignored for deacdes while we play politics over prayer at football games and Brady Bills that were completely ineffective. We ned to take the moral high ground and find real solutions and engage in statesmanship, and not politics. At the moment, the momentum and the good will is with President Obama. I see no better time to find a new voice and a new focus for the GOP.

Thats doesn't mean give in, kneel down, or not stand up to bad ideas. It simply means to discuss the ideas themselves, and not spend our time chasing blue dresses and expensive haircuts.

An American that cares! said...

There is something called free speech in this country and we all have the right to voice our opinion on the election outcome. Or the support of Obama or not. If you do not like seeing or hearing someone that disagrees with you then maybe you shouldn’t be blogging about it.
Quit whining about everyone that don’t agree with you. Stop being a blind zombie and drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, which you obviously do. Do you really think we will be convinced to do something we don’t believe in just because you blogged about it and it’s you opinion. If you do, you are naive. It just means you can look forward to more disapproving statuses about our new socialist government. If these people here that disagree with you on your stance to support Obama ..
Obama and this entire crew of Clintonites are all Socialist from Hillary on down, it is very clear. And you want to support this! George Soros did not spend all that money on Obama campaign for any other reason.
Have you been under a rock all the time? I don't care that he won the election; my issues with him are still the same: socialism, globalism, anti-Constitutional, terrorist ties, corporate greed..... These will all, and MUST be, under close scrutiny by EVERYONE, no matter who you voted for.
And why have you question this young lady Helen as to the validity of her post. Why question her at all? What was the meaning of your leading sentence?
“My dad always said that when someone is determined to make an ass of themself, the best thing to do is to get out of the way and let them.”
She didn’t seem that way to me! In fact I did a google search on her brother’s name. (maybe you should also)
You talk about being such a staunch Conservative, well how about having a bit fair in what your fellow staunch Conservative’s say of feel?
I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power. The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might even require confrontation. Not just to follow as sheep Or as others here have said drink the koolaide. When Bush was elected and then re-elected... I specifically remember all those Hollywood big-heads, such as Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, and Sean Penn etc ranting about moving out of the country if Bush won. Of course that is moronic, but support this Socialist and Support his UN- American policies, I don’t think so.
Goodbye George Bush, Hello Obama, Hello Socialism, Goodbye Freedoms.This is exactly where we are headed.
Perhaps, it's time you did a little homework on socialism so you understand what is coming along with this guy that you are asking us to support.
As for you Jennifer, I have read your blog and i am shocked that you have aligned yourself with this!

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Saying we support Obama as a President but we do not like him and do not support his policies is exactly what the left said about the troops when they said they support the troops and not thier mission.

No one can have it both ways. If we say we support the President then we also are supporting the man in the office and what he does.

I respect the office because but not the office holder. I cannot say I support him because he is President because I do not agree with anything he is doing or wanting to do. I supported Bush because I agreed with most of what he did. I opposed certain things like some of his immigration stands, the increase in entitlements and the bailouts.

But as a whole I suppoted him and what he did as President. I cannot say this about Obama and as such cannot blanketly say I support the President becuse I totally disagree with him.

Respect for the office and support of the office holder are two different things. If Obama succeeds he will take this country down a path never intended by our Founders and totally opposite of my principles andmy beleif in what this country stands for and who we are as a country and a people/

How then can I support a man who is polar opposite of my principles and beleifs. He wants to take mu country down a path I beleif will lead to weakening and a destructive road to our nation. How can I with any conscience support that regardless of what office he is holding. I do not want his policy to succeed because it is wrong for the country as I see it.

Therefore as a citizen it is my Constitutional responsibility to oppose him and what he is doing. If he proposes something I agree with then I can support that particular policy but his general agenda is something I cannot support.

Opposing this agenda is not whining it is doing something about because that opposition especially if it is expressed is telling others what that agenda will do to the country and thedamage it creates.

This is not being a pessimist. In your quote from Eisenhower about a pessimistic general, he was refering to a general being optomistic in the fact that he led and planned with the optomism that his strategy and his men would achieve victory. As a general he could not support an opposing general because that would mean defeat. He could respect his opponent as a commander but not support or agree with his strategy because the opposing general had as his gola and agenda the defeat of the army that Eisenhower commanded.

That is why I can say I respect the office but not the office holder. Nor can I wish him success because success in his agenda means failure for my country and that I can never support.

Patrick M said...

To get back to the original post, A positive, proactive direction is where we must go if we are to win in 2 years, and 4 years, and beyond. We need to have a positive direction to take the country, not just be the "not Obama" people. How often do you watch football and cheer against a team?

After high school and college, I was fueled by the bitter. I was angry because people didn't like me. I was pissed because of a sucky decade of schooling. And politically, I was focusing on the negatives during the Clinton years.

It was 2002 when I took my first step toward enlightenment, when I was approached by someone who I had despised in high school (a bully). What struck me as amazing was that I had had a positive impact in his life. Later that year was my high school reunion, and I took the idea that I had brought good to the lives of others to me. And it made a difference.

And now I'm applying that to my view of the Obama administration. Doesn't mean I don't yell at the TV when he says something stupid (and I'm sure I'm just getting warmed up). But it does mean I will be there without anger when he (rarely) does the right thing. And it means my blog won't degenerate into a bastion for anger.

I'll leave you with a simple quote which sums up my feelings over the whole election:

"Suck it up, you're not dead." - Me

Victor's Voice said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Victor's Voice said...

Great post Helen, and I am very sorry for your loss.
I stand with you on this. I can well understand why you are against closing Gitmo and so am I. Closing Gitmo is just a stupid idea. Obama described Guantanamo as a "sad chapter in American history" and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed. Is what we should be supporting? The man wants to close Guantanamo down and bring the AlQaeda terrorists to US soil to prosecute them in our courts? This is insane. They are terrorists, even if they did not commit acts of war they belong to terrorist groups. Hold them in Guantanamo. We dont want them loose on our streets. We should be taking care of prosecuting them there in Guantanamo and taking care of business there. Obamas decision is lunacy. If this is the way he is going to operate he will be a failure. Some of these are the same people that are responsible for 9-11 As Helen has said.
Under plans being put together in Obama's camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

I dislike his policies, his stance on guns, abortion and the Constitution (yes the constitution). If Obama supported the Constitution he would release his certified Birth Certificate.

I dislike how so many worship the man. That scares me about any man. Blind obedience has never been a good thing.

I dislike how when questioned on anything the questioner gets attacked from so many different angles (Joe the Plumber).

I dislike some of the associations he has had in the past and some of his less then stellar judgments.
Obama has voted with his party approximately 100% of the time. That's his idea of bipartisanship. Conservatives are supposed to give up their convictions and do as they're told. Now he's telling Republicans that they shouldn't sit and listen to Limbaugh, because if they do, they'll never accomplish anything. And this is coming from the guy who thinks he can "accomplish something" by sitting down with and listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
He’s a puppet for the leftist. He finds it necessary to run down others in order to keep himself propped up. Obamas’ body language speaks volumes. Arms crossed insolently, head turned, sneer on his lips and nose in the air. My first thought upon seeing this pose was immediately, this guy thinks he Mussolini. Of course, the average American is now so ignorant after 30 years of deliberate educational dumbing down that they haven’t ever seen the images or are aware of the thought and crowd control techniques used by the dictators of the 30’s.
Give Obama a chance? A chance to do what? To make an even bigger idiot of himself?
Are we stupid and ignorant to just support this man blindly and go along with whatever he says and does. That’s what happened in Germany.

Jennifer, you seem to like famous quotations, How about this one: “Those who follow blindly are fools.”

I, for one, will not pretend to support this president as he leads us down the path of destruction. He is corrupt, immoral and anything BUT the 'Christian' he pretends to be. I really am afraid for the security of our country.. I'd say. Protest! Speak up! Don’t just say “I will support him blindly!

Jennifer said...

VV...If you had actually read any of my posts or comments, you would know that I've NEVER once said to "follow blindly" In fact, I spoke out against it many times. Did you not read where I said I will fight him tooth and nail, when I don't agree with his policies? Did you miss the part where I said I didn't trust him. Did you miss the part where I said that I don't agree with most of his policies? Apparently you did. If you are going to quote me at least get it right......

Victor's Voice said...

Jennifer I was directing that quote to you, not my entire post. Boy you people here are not only BLIND but you also have very short fuses. Looking around your site, it looks like you can dish it out but when someone else does it you get all high and mighty and uptight.
Perhaps you shouldn’t blog on such controversial subjects or perhaps you shouldn’t be blogging at all.
Talking about quotes that you seem to like so much.
How about
"If you can't take the heat, STAY out of the kitchen".

Jennifer said...

I know exactly who you were quoting to and that is why I answered you. If you read my comment in my above post my exact words were

"Support does not mean to blindly follow."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let me get this straight, you can come over here and attack us and we are not allowed to defend ourselves?

All I was doing is correcting your quote that you said to me......

“Those who follow blindly are fools.”

Like I said before try reading our comments before spouting off in error!

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

I think the trap that we can fall into is this. If we say we do not want this President to succeed because of ideological differences, those who support him claim we are wanting the country to fail and by not supporting Obama we are wishing ill for the Nation.

If that were true then the Founders would have never signed the Declaration because they did not support the leadership of the Colonies and as such rebelled starting a Nation that they could believe in and support.

Even they respected the British Monarchy but had little respect for Charles. And especially his agenda against the Colonies.

It is not wrong to wish Obama's agenda to fail. We are not unpatriotic if we do not want what he is trying to do to succeed.

Arguing among ourselves on this is futile because it falls into the trap that the media and the left wants us to fall into. Looking like spoiled children who did not win and as such we have a bad attitide against their messiah.

Opposing him is not a bad attitude but proof that we beleive what we stand for and that we will not just stand by and watch him take this country down the tubes!

In reading the comment thread and knowing Jenn's beleifs as well as her posting from the past, I beleive that most here are on the same page but just saying it differently. VV expressed his absolute disgust with Obama and what he wants to do to this Nation. Jenn expressed her like disgust but was a little more cordial to Obama the President, because of the office he holds.

That is why I mentioned in my last comment that we should be careful in saying we support the President but not his policies, because that is the same argument that the left used in saying they supported the troops but not their mission.

We either support the man and what he is doing or we do not support him BECAUSE of what he is doing. But we can still respect the office and not the man holding the office. As such I will challenge him at every opportunity because I cannot sit back and just watch him destroy this land that I love.

Gayle said...

Victor said "Perhaps you shouldn’t blog on such controversial subjects or perhaps you shouldn’t be blogging at all." Perhaps, Victor, you should consider the right of anyone to run a blog, even us! Why don't you go attack liberal blogs? Just curious.

I agree that we should respect the Office of the President, Robert, and I believe you agree that we should hold Obama accountable. I really don't see what the problem is here. Perhaps it's simply a matter of your naysayers not understanding what you wrote. You said "The worst possible thing we, as conservatives can do right now, is to wallow in self pity instead of fulfilling the vision that we see as our future. I ask you what good it does to sit on our blogs and complain? Well, perhaps it's necessary to vent every so often in order to get rid of the frustration, but I've seen blogs that have actually cussed out the people who voted Obama in. I think that does no good whatsoever. In fact, it certainly will not help anyone decide that conservatives are reasonable people! But I will hold Obama accountable and disagree with him on every point that I disagree with him on, and there's no one on this blog who would disagree with my right to do so. So, unless some people enjoy being bitter, what's the problem?

I like this quote: "I never saw a pessimistic general win a battle." General Dwight David Eisenhower. Pessimism very rarely helps anyone with anything but determination does. I think that's in a nutshell what you are saying, Robert, and I agree with it, but I also agree that those who want to be pessimists surely have that right. Why they should choose to be pessimistic is beyond me, but that's okay. :)

Jennifer said...

I am going to say this and then I am closing comments because frankly this back and forth arguing that has nothing to do with the topic mentioned is pointless.

The next post is well written and I think we need to focus on going forward,

I do not blindly support or follow Obama....period. I think people are getting hung up on the word support so I am going to break it down so there is no misunderstanding.

I do not trust Obama.

I do not like most of his policies.

I will fight him tooth and nail when he does something I don't agree with.

I do not like him as a person, nor most of his "friends."

His first days in office he has been a big disappointment and is already starting to piss me off.

I am not against your right or complain, I will certainly be doing it too.

BUT

I am just trying to go into this with a positive attitude and a vision for tomorrow.

He is the POTUS and I am a citizen, which means he is my president. I will not lower myself to doing the same things that we criticized. the liberals of doing.

I will encourage him, because to wish his failure, we are also the ones who will lose. We are the ones who will suffer.

What I am simply suggesting here is to focus on bringing back conservatism back to the GOP.

Jennifer said...

Gayle, while I was writing my comment you wrote your's and all I can say is AMEN!

Shaw Kenawe said...

I do not trust Obama.

I do not like most of his policies.

I will fight him tooth and nail when he does something I don't agree with.

I do not like him as a person, nor most of his "friends."

His first days in office he has been a big disappointment and is already starting to piss me off.


I am just trying to go into this with a positive attitude and a vision for tomorrow.

He is the POTUS and I am a citizen, which means he is my president.

I will encourage him, because to wish his failure, we are also the ones who will lose.


Jennifer,

You've stated unequivocally that you do not like Obama nor his friends, you do not trust him, nor his policies, that his first few days in office have pissed you off.

Then you say you will support him? Encourage him?

How can you encourage someone you don't trust or like?

This just doesn't make sense to me.

You want to encourage him? But you dislike his policies? To encourage him is to wish him success in his policies, no?

I simply don't understand this.

You seem to be confused.

Gayle said...

Thank you, Jennifer. I should have referenced you instead of Robert because you wrote the last post. Sorry!

Jennifer said...

Okay, forget what I said about closing the comment section because I think we are finally getting somewhere. Maybe with some calmer minds we can actually get to the point of this post and finally realize we are all on the same team.

I couldn't agree with you more Ken. I think we all feel the same way but are expressing it different. In my last post I tried breaking it down in case anyone misunderstood it. You make a very valid point about using the word support and I think that is where this whole thing started from. Respect may be the better word here.

The whole purpose of this blog is to bring us CONSERVATIVES together, not set us arguing. That is exactly what the liberals want. If we keep this bickering over the little things the bigger picture will never be realized. I think that is what we all want, am I right? To get the GOP back to conservatism. To have a conservative congress in 2010 and a conservative president in 2012. The only people we are hurting with all this bickering back and forth is ourselves, and I won't continue it.

Jennifer said...

Sorry Shaw.....don't mean to confuse you....apparently I have been doing that a lot lately. Anyway, support was apparently a bad word to use in this situation.

He is my president and as such I will not resort to the disrespect that was shown Bush. I will not wish the country harm to be able to say "I told you so." When he makes a policy I agree with I will praise him and when he makes one that I don't, I will disagree heartily.

Hopefully that came out a little clearer.......

Victor's Voice said...

You know I did not say anything much differently that what The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...
We seemed to agree on most of the issues Yet you say that I attacked you. Where? How?
Where did my post say anyting much differently?

He said>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Therefore as a citizen it is my Constitutional responsibility to oppose him and what he is doing. If he proposes something I agree with then I can support that particular policy but his general agenda is something I cannot support."

And I believe that what he said is also the way that I feel.

What exactly do you call "Supporting the President" If you and I think the same, where was my post an attack?

You said.."I do not trust Obama.

I do not like most of his policies.

I will fight him tooth and nail when he does something I don't agree with.

I do not like him as a person, nor most of his "friends."

His first days in office he has been a big disappointment and is already starting to piss me off."

So what are YOU supporting?
What YOU outlined is exactly my thoughts.
Now you can close the comments, I'm done here with this topic and with this site.

Jennifer said...

Seriously, I think you must have selective hearing or in reading in this case.

First off, I said that I am not closing comments because I thought that we were actually getting somewhere. It's right there spelled out clearly above your comment.

What I took offense to was this quote "

Jennifer, you seem to like famous quotations, How about this one: “Those who follow blindly are fools.”

ESPECIALLY when in the comment right before that I had specifically mentioned that is something that I wouldn't do.

Yes, we do agree on many of the same things, but I did not accuse you of "following Obama blindly" like you did to me. Like I said AGAIN, in my post above that support was probably not the best word for it, but apparently you missed that comment too????

It is your choice to leave this site or not, but if you can't understand that we all have the same goals and interests then you are right, your probably better off on those "conservative" sites that are more concerned about complaining than finding an answer.

Robert said...

I truly don't understand the complications about this issue.

I do not support a liberal agenda or liberal policies that infringe upon the Constitution or increase government. I support the POTUS regardless of which party he belongs to or whichever ideology he subscribes to...I wish him great success in diplomacy and if he chooses to build political coalitions...To do otherwise is to wish ill upon our nation.

It is time to grow up as a nation and as a party. How many of the comments the last few days talked about how "they" treated President Bush and how "they" acted childishly? You hated it then, right? So why do you feel justified in acting that way now?

I am asserting a new methodology, one that our forefathers actually used when framing our Constitution....nothing more, nothing less.