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

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Farewell, My Friends.......

This is not an easy thing for me to do, because truly I had such high hopes for this blog and our success in making a true difference. Fulfilling a vision that I had for my country's future. I know I am not the most eloquent writer so I left some of the really tough ones to those more equipped to do it justice and tried to put my unique spin on things. Lately, as most of you have probably noticed we have pretty much disappeared off of the face of the earth and have only been kept up to date with Ken and TAO's guest posts. (Thank you by the way!)

My emotions and feeling have been through the ringer lately because I just don't feel like I fit in anymore. I consider myself a conservative because I truly want less government interference in our lives, and less spending. I thought conservatism was about individual responsibility! What I was truly surprised to find though was this blind hatred. This all or nothing mentality. I just don't have it in me to hate the man and wish his failure. To some, this does not make me conservative and so be it. I am tired of trying to convince people of my views. I personally think it makes me an optimist. It makes me realistic and practical...to steal TAO's words. I have fought hard against Obama, since he first became a candidate and don't like him any more now. He scares me, especially when I think of what he has done with this stimulus bill, or BULLSHIT as Patrick likes to describe it. :-) I have a feeling that there are a lot of emails in store for me, to my lovely NJ representatives. in the future.

I am not giving up the fight nor am I giving in. I just don't feel that this blog is right for me anymore. I feel like everything I've written lately has brought in some people and opinions that completely contradict everything I am trying to say and these are not liberals, but conservatives. I am not accomplishing my goals and that really was my whole point in this endeavor. This blog is better run by those that share the same views and opinions and mine definitely seems to be completely my own right now. I treasure all the authors and commenters here, and hope that you will continue to fight the good fight in whatever way you think best. I will continue to visit and give you my input (I'm too stubborn to stay away) but being an author here will only continue to cause questions about what conservatism means or doesn't mean and that is another issue that has been talked about to death. I find the constant bickering harmful in the big scheme of things, and that was never my purpose here.

I also have some personal issues that have been taking up a good majority of my time, and if I can't do something with my whole heart, I don't do it. It's not fair to me and it certainly isn't fair to the readers. So I will leave with a heavy heart knowing that what I am doing is best for me and the sake of the blog. Thank you for giving me this chance to write and be heard even if you didn't happen to agree with me all the time, or any of the time for that matter. I truly am thankful for the friends I've made and the times we've spent together bringing this blog to fruition.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

So What Is A Conservative? Guest post by TAO

I seriously debated whether or not to post this because I am tired of the same old rhetoric that has been taking place here at CC. When we started this blog we had a vision but it seems that we can't even get past defining what beliefs make up a conservative. If we can't agree on what conservatism is about, how the heck can we bring others to our cause? Frankly, what I have seen lately is disheartening. If the public opinion of Obama starts to drop, where is the conservative movement? Are we there, with a solution? With a vision? With anything? Have we thought about how to win people over or are we simply content to sit on our blogs and complain about how things aren't going our way. This was a well written post about what conservatism is about and two words stick out.....realistic and rational. Is that how you would define yourselves? I certainly hope so because that is what this country needs right now. I have highlighted a few of the statements that really stood out to me.

So What Is A Conservative by TAO

WOW! Post one favorable article about Obama and the hate mail is overwhelming and the followers are falling like leaves in a fall windstorm!

So, lets ask the existential question: What is a Conservative?

Yes, and I mean 'existental' like in existentialsim; like in starting from disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.

Traditional Conservatives believed in smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, isolationism, and in the concept of live and let live.

Now, very simply, did Ronald Reagan give us smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, isolationism, and or did he remove the government and society from infringing on our personal lives? Not really. Bill Clinton actually gave us smaller government and balanced budgets but he failed in a couple of other areas; so he is also a 'not really' too but since he never claimed to be conservative then that really comes as no surprise. Did George Bush, Sr. achieve any of the conservative values that some of us hold dear? Not really, but then again he never claimed to be a true conservative.

Then we come to George Bush, Jr., and we have the biggest government we have ever saw, lower taxes, the greatest deficit we have seen, and he has put our personal liberties at risk all over the place but we allowed it because it was done for national defense. I will not even discuss isolationism....

We need to accept the fact that 20 years of supply side economics, the great idea that Ronald Reagan implemented and George Bush, Jr., followed up on has led us to the economic collapse that we are experiencing today. Economically we have turned back the clock to the 70's in regards to some statistics, the 80's for others, and now the stock market is at 1997 levels.

Now along comes Barack Obama and the hatred and anger felt by a newer version of conservative thought is just appalling. Now, you can point to the liberals and their hatred of George Bush as a justification for your own actions but true conservatives are realistic and rational and they do not need to point fingers to justify their own actions.

Now, one thing about conservatives is that they were never followers; they would rather walk alone than blindly follow anyone. I cannot sit here and and find pride in myself nor try to justify the fact that I want a President to fail. I didn't want George Bush to fail but I did not agree with his decisions in a lot of his policies and I cannot let him hide behind the fact that he kept us safe or he was strong on defense. The truth of the matter is a President is responsible for everything and the success and or failure of his tenure is determined by the totality of his actions.

That is true no matter who the man is or which party the man professes allegiance to.

This financial meltdown was as predictable as a scheduled freight train; it is hard for me to believe that I am the only one that saw it coming and sold all my investments in 2008. It really isn't hard to understand that you have not really created any economic wealth if the median household income is stagnating.

It also isn't all that hard to grasp that concept that if you believe that WWII was what ended the depression then you also believe that government spending does create economic growth because WWII represents nothing more than immense government spending for war material. In this particular case the government all centralized economic planning.

When David Stockman, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Dick Cheney are all running around claiming that "deficits don't matter" all conservatives should have an issue with that because we know that deficits do matter. It makes no difference who the President is or what his party affiliation is.

Alan Greenspan did a wonderful job killing the internet bubble with increasing interest rates. Why did he not do the same with rising real estate values? A bubble is a bubble. Now Alan has gone from being a disciple of Ayn Rand to being a socialist by claiming, "...we just might have to nationalize banks once every 100 years or so to get a fresh start...." That wasn't Barack Obama that is trying to nationalize the banks its actually conservative republicans.

This country is a mess; it is a mess due to greed and arrogance. Both of which existed well before Barack Obama became a Senator let alone President.

I am sorry but I do not want him to fail. Because if he fails this country will suffer deeper and longer than what is necessary; that means all of us will suffer.

I may not like the stimulus package anymore than I liked the bailout package and I am not going to switch to calling on TARP and the other a jobs program. TARP is a bailout package for our financial system and the stimulus package is nothing more than worthless tax cuts and spending.

Neither of which would have been necessary if we had had true leadership in the White House and in Washington over the past 20 years.

We all know that all economic decisions are based upon the simple equation of supply and demand. For 20 years we fertilized supply with tax cuts and various other programs and no matter what tax cuts are wealth redistribution if they are not fair and across the board. Programs that benefit the poor are income redistribution and tax cuts that favor the rich are wealth redistribution. What cuts one way also cuts the other.

A majority of Americans were disgusted with George Bush and that was why they voted for Barack Obama in record numbers. That is the way representative democracy works. That is why, if you want to keep the party in power that you believe represents your values the best then you should demand that they do not rob and steal or take bribes, that they should not hit on male interns, and that they should make government smaller and balance the budget.

If you truly believe in the principles of conservatism then it would seem logical that it would be easier to expect the party that you support to believe in your principles and govern by those principles than it would be to expect the opposition to believe as you do.

We have already nationalized AIG, that occured under the Bush Administration. We will have a 40% stake in Citibank by the end of the week and by April that will be up to 60%; that is more than half which means they will be nationalized and the same thing will eventually befall Bank of America. It may not be what the American people want but the executives of Citibank, Bank of America, and quite a few others have no problem with it.

So, what does that tell YOU about free markets when the titans of capitalism are begging to be nationalized? When people begin to claim that something is TOO BIG TO FAIL...thats socialism plain and simple.

One thing conservatives understand is that it isn't just the poor or minorities that expect something for nothing from the government; some of our biggest and most powerful companies and quite a few rich people expect the same thing. Thats why government must play fair and impartial; something it has failed to do for the last 20 years.

Sorry I cannot entertain you with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity rants; no one is paying me big bucks to type bullshit....

If Barack Obama can cut the "inherited" deficit (which is what he really said) in half by 2013 then good. But I also want to know what he plans to do about the deficits he will create; I also want to see his budget and see if he plays any of the tricks that are so popular in Washington in regards to our true deficit. I will also want to see how sincere everyone in Washington is about dealing with our future liabilities.

If a man is willing to roll up his sleeves and deal with the reality of our current situation then I do not care what color he is or what party he associates with. I will get right in the trenches and help. Its not about the man, its not about the party, its about the country; my country and yours.

But I am not interested in leadership that 'fiddles' while the country slowly crumbles and burns. If being conservative means hoping and praying for the failure of a black liberal President then I am not that type of conservative. If being a conservative means doing the right thing, putting your country first, and respecting the rights and opinions of others then by God sign me up!

Conservatives are realitistic and rational; they will call a spade a spade. They are not bimbo cheerleaders for one party over the other. If you are a conservative then you believe in individualism and you respect thinking for ones self both by yourself and by others. Its not about seeking out only those that agree with you or finding comfort in being part of a commentators fan club.

Its not that complicated and it does not involve doing mental flips and turns. Its pretty cut and dry and direct to the point.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Obama Signs Stimulus...Guest Post by Ken Taylor


"So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause." Senator Amidala, from Star Wars II Attack of the Clones.

America as we have known it and loved it came to an end in Denver, Colorado as Barack Obama signed the single largest transfer of power to the federal government that he calls, "The Economic Recovery Package." Obama socialism in The United States has begun and it began with, "thunderous applause."

The 787 billion dollar socialist spending bill, rushed through Congress without a single Senator, Representative or citizen having the first opportunity to read or review this massive transfer of power to the government shakes the very foundation of our Nation as the end of Constitutional individual freedom and responsibility is being replaced by government control and socialist programs designed to create dependency rather than freedom.

The rush to pass without review was intentional in order to get a Presidential signature before Americans had an opportunity to protest this government take over at the hands of Obama and the Democrats. In their tingling leg worship of Barack Obama the media refused to vet this take over and the American people were denied an opportunity to find out what this President and the Democrat Congress are forcing down our throats.

More than 32 new government programs are included in this debacle. Programs designed to eliminate self reliance and force government dependency. All without the first opportunity to find out what is being forced upon us nor the details of this deconstruction of our Constitution and our Republic.

And because of blind worship of an inept President the bill was signed to, "thunderous applause." Using 10 pens which cost the American people 78.7 billion dollars per pen Obama with a air of arrogance signed a portion of his name with each pen and then proclaimed with the satisfaction that his American socialism had begun, "it's done."

Yes my fellow Americans, "it's done." The beginning of the end of our freedom. "It's done, " the beginning of the end of Constitutional principles that have sustained our Nation since 1788. "It's done," the beginning of a European style socialism created by Obama for Obama and because of Obama. "It's done, " and it was done with ,"thunderous applause."

Ken Taylor

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Guest Posting by Ken Taylor


The House version cost 820 billion dollars. The Senate version, 837 billion dollars. Now the, "compromise," only a measly 789 billion. The bill will have a price tag after interest of well over one trillion dollars awaiting the President's signature. Resulting in Barack Obama having his victory to begin the march to socialism in America.

Whether it is called ,"The Economic Stimulus Package," or, "The Economic Recovery Package, " this bill which will be sent to Obama's desk and soon after we wil witness the greatest transfer of power to the federal government in the history of The United States. Little of this debacle has any chance of creating a job or stimulating any aspect of the economy.

It is loaded with liberal pet projects and massive government spending all of which is designed to give control through spending to the government. Arguments against it are called un-American. Proposals that cost less by removing the pork were not even considered. Proposals that actually put money back into the pockets of the American people through legitimate tax rate cuts were called old and failed ideas.

As the bill began receiving stiff opposition from House and Senate Republicans and especially as the American people started seeing through the garbage and realizing that this bill was nothing more than a liberal wish list of spending and government programs, poll numbers began drastically dropping and the bill was quickly losing favor with the people.

Obama reacted with frustration and anger similar to a child who was not getting his way. The only thing missing was the stomping of feet and tears because we heard the whining and the small tantrums as he spoke to House Democrats during their 100 thousand dollar retreat in Williamsburg, Virginia.

In his press conferences, radio addresses, speeches at various functions Obama has used every opportunity to insight fear in the American people in order to get his way and force this bill down our throats though its passage. His attitude has been, "whether you like it or not we are facing Armageddon and only I can save the day with my bill."

Using phrases like, "the worst economy since the Great Depression, " which it is not, and ,"total economic collapse," also words like, "catastrophe," and , "Armageddon," if the bill was not passed Obama created an atmosphere of fear. He is used this fear as a tool to get the bill passed and literally scare the country into accepting socialism.

In the final analysis that is exactly what this bill is. The beginning of a complete and likely irreversible march to socialism in The United States and Obama is using fear to get his way. He does not care what it costs, he does not care what the ramifications will be, he does not care that this total socialist spending bill is contrary to everything that our Constitution stands for.

He does not care that the bill does almost nothing to stimulate the economy. He only cares about changing the very fabric and foundation of our country from a free Republic of and by the people to a government controlled socialism with Barack Obama as its leader and author. This is what he meant when he campaigned on the mantra of change and the change from freedom to socialism is what he is beginning with the passage of this bill.

In 1981 when Ronald Reagan took office he faced an economy that had 21% inflation, interest rates in the high teens which made purchasing a home and affording the payments nearly impossibly but also not very desirable. The country because of Carter embargoes and windfall profit taxes faced a fuel shortage that had Americans waiting in line sometimes hours to get what little gas was available.

Reagan's response to a far worse economy than we are facing today was to encourage Americans not scare them. He reminded us of who we are as a free people. Spoke of America as, "the shining city on a hill," and the best hope for the world. He encouraged Americans to stand in our freedoms and told us that are best days were before us.

He talked of his faith in the ability of Americans to revive the economy and backed these words up with action as he dropped tax rates for individuals and business returning money to the people from the government knowing that true stimulus comes from the people and not the government.

Reagan never promoted fear but created optimism. He never talked of weakness but stood fast through strength. He encouraged Americans and believed in America. He gave real hope and not fear mongering platitudes. And Americans responded. The economy soon turned around and America experienced the greatest peace time economic growth in our Nations history.

Reagan displayed true leadership and the people responded. Obama does not lead he creates fear. He does not provide an example to follow but uses scare tactics to get his way. While the economy is suffering because of the recent down turn, much of the problem lies in the fear that Obama and others like him are creating through their gloom and doom approach that has Americans afraid to spend and business afraid to hire.

All of this creates a climate of economic failure, job loses and a general atmosphere of gloom throughout the country and the world. I am not saying that optimistic words alone can change the current atmosphere, but continually discouraging Americans does not create an atmosphere of recovery either.

Reagan trusted the American people to promote and finally make the economic recovery of the eighties. He understood the necessity of letting the people control their money and their future. Obama trusts the government and complete social control of the people and every aspect of American life.

And he is succeeding through fear in creating the American socialism he wants. This bill is just the beginning. We are witnessing at the hand of a completely incompetent President the total change of our foundational principles and the creation of a new form of American government. A government of Obama, by Obama and for Obama.

Ken Taylor

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Welcome To A New Author

The newest addition to the CC team is CKinAtlanta, and I ask that you welcome him and make a point to take in his particular sense of style.

CK and I have been friends for a few years, although not in the blogosphere. This is his first run at bloviating on a blog. He is a conservative animal with a particular wit and sarcasm that you will find interesting. He also has a brain that is full of the most irrelevant information I have ever seen. He knows everything about that which is important to no one.

That is said in jest; CK has a masterful way at getting his point across and you can't help but laugh no matter which side of the political roadway you drive. Other than his choice of universities, he is a great guy.

I will let him write his own introduction beyond this. Welcome CK, and take the gloves off when you step in!

Saturday, February 7, 2009

All Enemies Foreign and Domestic

John Locke's Second Treatise on Government details a fundamental truth, a natural law, if you will with regard to man. He said that every man ought to own himself (not be the subject of a king or tyrant) and that he ought to own the fruit of his labor. In other words, he said that man is entitled to life, liberty and estate (property). The, I believe, divinely inspired, Thomas Jefferson, when tasked for making the case for rebellion against the crown, tapped Locke's wisdom as well as that of another Scotsman, Hutcheson, who fleshed out the concept of unalienable rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Is there any American that argues that this isn't the essence of what separates us from the rest of the world? On the steps of the Washington Mall, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called these "magnificent words."

To reinforce the significance of Locke's and Hutcheson's thoughts and Jefferson's recognition of their centrality to the American ethos, our founding charter, The Constitution contains the words, more closely resembling Locke's concept. This concept is so important that is contained within our Bill of Rights. The 5th amendment's "due process clause" contains these words, "nor shall any person...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 14th amendment was intended to secure the rights of former slaves. Again, in section 1 of the 14th amendment in the due process clause these words are written "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." I think our framers made their point, life, liberty and property are sacred to Americans and central to who we are. On another thread, I will tell you how and why those words are responsible for the greatest economic juggernaut in history if you don't understand already but we have more urgent business now.

In 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels summed up what they hoped to accomplish in the Communist Manifesto in one phrase, the elimination of private property. Private property rights in this country, that which makes us distinctly American, have been under assault since then. Private property rights secure freedom and liberty from the tyranny of government. The Lochner decision, Williamson vs. Lee Optical and others have eroded the concept of property rights to replace them with the nebulous concept of "economic rights." Economic rights erode property rights. Education, health care and social security are not unalienable rights. Unemployment compensation and food stamps are not unalienable rights.

Patriots threw tea from the struggling British East India Company, a monopoly granted by the crown to enforce its right to impose the Stamp Act, into Boston Harbor for the equivalent of today what would be less than a dime. From that time until 1913, there was no tax on income in America. In 1848, Marx and Engels urged "heavy progressive taxation of income."

Thanks for the history lesson Bardo, so friggin' what?

Along comes the 44th President of the United States, having explained in clear terms that what he wants to do is to dismantle what makes us distinctly American and he is doing it with alacrity. In the audio above, Obama describes what he thinks is America's fundamental flaw, the Constitution ought to list what government's obligations are to its citizens, including the redistribution of wealth. If the recording was a little too professorial for you, he told "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to spread the wealth around. Has he spread some wealth?

The American concept, post civil war, post Wilson and FDR, has never been under more threat than it is today. Barack Obama is an intelligent man who has just pulled off a coup on the American way of life without a shot being fired. Why should I fear islamo fascists when the person at the helm of my government wants to destroy what I hold dear faster than they and apparently with our permission?

Friday, February 6, 2009

Short And To The Point.....

I have been reading over and over on conservative blogs that they wish Obama complete failure, but I truly wonder if they understand the ramifications of what they are saying. If Obama fails in keeping us safe and protected, then that means that you are in essence asking for another 9-11. Do you really want his absolute failure that bad that you would risk human lives to see it happen.? If Obama doesn't succeed in getting this country's economy stable once again then we are looking at a Great Depression like our lifetime has never seen. Is that worth the joy of seeing him fail? To me, my country's welfare supercedes my personal feelings for who is in charge of it. I am not picking up for him nor do I support his actions so far as president, but I just don't understand why people cannot see the big picture? I can't help but wonder if he does something you agree with, would you wish it doom, just because he is the one who accomplished it? Does it have to be all or nothing? Black or White?

I don't want his "liberal" policies including his "Distribution of Wealth" to succeed. We have said over and over on this blog that we will fight him when the need arises, but this blind hatred accomplishes nothing. I love this country and I wish her the best, regardless of who happens to be president at the moment. Can you truly say the same?

"I have more love for my country than hatred for it's president" .......me

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Conservatism and the Bailout

From Foxnews.com:

President Obama's economic stimulus plan has topped $920 billion after the Senate agreed Wednesday to give a tax break of up to $15,000 to homebuyers in hopes of revitalizing the housing industry. [emphasis added]

Excuse me while I bludgeon myself against the cold brick wall outside my door.

*multiple thuds followed by wretched screaming*

What I want to know, very simply, is how anybody who could even be considered conservative (or even moderate) can:

1. Justify adding ANYTHING more to this massive pork bill, or,
2. Justify trying to keep trying to perpetuate what's left of the housing bubble which is a part of the reason we "need" this "stimulus" bill.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known and the perversion called Porkulus, continues to grow beyond any reasonable number. And while there may be debate on what the government may be able to do to fire up the economy, this ain't it!

I suspect the following ideas will be wasted, as the GOP in the House only grew a spine because they could only make the news if they were unanimous, and the Senate will eventually get the bill over a trillion before someone "reaches across the aisle" and spends another trillion (over the first). And I've heard all kinds of bipartisan crap on how to justify racking up another trillion.

So here's conservatism applied to the concept of stimulus and see if anything in the current Porkulus bill will survive:

Government Does Not Create Jobs (except for government jobs) - Part of the concept of the stimulus is that it will "create jobs" (or save jobs, in case those created jobs aren't). The problem with this is that government can only create "jobs in two ways: Either by creating work with make-work jobs that will eventually stop being funded (the FDR way), or by simply adding people to the government dole by hiring them to do something. Either way, it doesn't produce a product or service that grows the economy. So any idea of spending money to "create jobs" can be discarded.

Command and Control - In my latest post over at my blog, I did a little comparison between the self-destructive effects of the old Soviet economy and the current state of our government. The Soviet model featured the command economy. The highlight of the command economy is that it stifles productivity and innovation (as in bread lines and rationing). Anything in the stimulus bill that attempts to control the means of production for political reasons (stimulus directed to fighting climate change by subsidizing electric cars) is counterproductive.

Eff Yu Pork - Whether you call it pork, or earmarks, or targeted stimulus (bet they'll steal that line), there's no reason ever to use the concept of a stimulus to advance personal pet projects and magic cash for their home states or districts. Enough people have highlighted the inanity, so I'll leave it at that. No pork for you!

Borrowing for Tax Cuts - A conservative stimulus plan would naturally involve lessening the burden of taxes on businesses and individuals. But in the world of Porkulus, these tax cuts have two inconsistencies that render them dumb. First, some of the tax "cuts" are not a reduction in taxes. They are the growth of entitlements for those who do not pay income taxes. And targeting people who are financially on the edge just means they'll be able to invest it in the trailer park retirement plan, more commonly known as lottery tickets. Second, we're running a massive deficit. And while reducing taxes is not a bad idea, borrowing billions to do so sets a dangerous precedence. A related note is more spending to "help" the poor. A government check never motivated anyone.


So now we've eliminated everything contained in the corpulent flesh of Porkulus. And we've done so because we will never grow the economy by growing government, as every dollar that goes to government does not go and grow in the private sector. This leaves only a couple of ways we can stimulate the economy.

We must reduce taxes and regulations. I know I just eliminated the tax cuts above. But my expectation is that we pay for any tax cut by eliminating redundancy and pointless regulation, which requires oversight (which is always inadequate). But as the sheer volume of regs shrinks, the people who are responsible for enforcing the remaining ones will actually need to work more. I don't advocate cutting government jobs right now, as putting people out of work is not a good idea.

And I'm not expecting a balanced budget this year. In fact, there will be deficits. But that brings us to the other secret to recovery.

We must freeze all spending and grow out of debt. One of the things that caused the balanced budget in the late 90's was that government spending did not outgrow increased revenues. And as the engine of the free market starts kicking in, a government that doesn't increase its spending will not only begin to shrink deficits, and maybe the debt, but it will also reduce itself as a percentage of the economy. And as we start growing and creating surpluses, some of that can service the debt, and some can be used to reduce more of the tax burden.

That's it. This plan will not require another trillion in pork and BS, and will begin to address the conditions that led to the current series of crises. And only in shifting away from an expectation of government intervention can we create lasting stability in the economy, and in the country.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

From Another Perspective.....Guest Post from TAO

I have read an article on Shaw’s blog at Progressive Eruptions and it triggered some thoughts to come back to me that I had lost over the last few months. We get so wrapped up in the moment that we lose sight of the bigger picture from time to time and I realize that I lost sight of how I saw the election of Barack Obama earlier on.

I know most people still see this election as a fluke; that somehow Americans became infatuated with false hopes from a messiah or it was just a guilt trip over race; that would be fine if we just viewed the voting as only a political act. Most elections are just political events and that is what they will remain.

But every now and then you have an election that is transformational; it represents more than just a political vote, much more.

Think back to 1960 when Kennedy beat Nixon. Kennedy, much like Obama, was a political newcomer who ran in against some pretty established Democratic political warhorses in the primary (Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Adlai Stevenson, and Stuart Symington) and he came out the winner and let’s not forget that he was a Catholic.

Which back in those days was about as foreign of a concept as electing a half black man to the Presidency is today.

Then JFK runs against Richard Nixon, who at the time was Vice President to a very highly respected and popular President and wins. Nixon, in those days was just about as popular with the Republican base as John McCain was to conservatives today. There is no way to compare Eisenhower to George Bush; other than they both served two terms.

Kennedy represented change, he represented about as much to that generation as Obama represented in this election to a whole new generation. Did Kennedy live up to the expectations that his supporters had for him? No, not at all because he actually didn’t accomplish all that much during his short time as President. But we just might have to realize that he represented the ‘first wave’ of the social change that racked this country during the 1960’s and represented a societal transformation.

Transformations, which usually are defined by historians, but realistically, they should be obvious to us, much like recessions and economic experts; historians should only confirm what we already know. Was Kennedy a transformation? Obviously, having been a child during the 60’s it was a totally different society and I would argue that Reagan represented a transformation, but it was less social and more economic; his transformation involved our views of the military, international intervention, and the beginning of the concept of government deficits don’t matter.

Kennedy changed a whole generation and their concept of themselves, society, and government. Reagan did the same. I venture that Obama represents now what those two did then. Of course, back then I am sure that quite a few scoffed at the idea of JFK amounting to anything long term, even within the Democratic Party and lets not forget that George H. W. Bush called Reagan’s economic plans, “Voodoo Economics.”

So, what does that mean? Very simply, it means that besides the Republicans some of the old time Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, are going to have trouble adapting.

The Republicans picked Barry Goldwater as their 1964 candidate, a real conservative in the very true sense of the word and Lyndon Johnson basically ended any future that the conservative wing of the Republican party may have had of recapturing control of the party until Ronald Reagan in 1980. If history repeats its self then that translates into the re emergence of conservatism in….2028!

Sometimes elections are a lot more than just elections. Sometimes they represent a fundamental change in society that slowly but surely manifests its self on a much broader scale as time goes on.

It might be best to see Obama in this light and deal with that as a potential reality then it is to just consider him a one term fluke.