"Mr. Obama -"
"Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but 4 businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54 year old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school.
25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly. From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10 year old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2 ton truck). A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D.. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all. I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.
2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another 2 full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.
A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.
Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards. During all this time I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.
Now, after manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well. This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country's' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages. You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.
You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.
What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self reliance, self motivation, self determination, self discipline, personal betterment, hard work, risk taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.
You see, I know because I've had them work for me before. Hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time. People who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out. People who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.
Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy, just as long as it is someone else's money you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden. combined (don't you just hate Google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.
In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of western Europe. All countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.
God help us...
Cory Miller just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.
P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American..."
www.cmillerdrilling.com
One can go to Mr. Miller's website and find out that Mr. Miller is indeed quite real. He drills; he works; he pays his bills; he provides for his family. He is what made America great, and very, very sadly we are losing that.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Calling a Spade a Spade
Since some people seem to insist on arguing that Republicans are hypocrites because John McCain's tax plan is supposedly just as "socialistic" as Barrack Obama's, I'm going to break it down in the clearest terms possible and explain why Republicans are not guilty of the ultimate sin liberals carp about constantly (a.k.a. hypocrisy), and why BHO is just another typical liberal stooge.
- When conservatives, or even pseudo-liberals like McCain enact a tax cut, they are reducing the amount of taxes that are withheld from income or capitol gains. That, in effect, means that the government takes less money from the people earning it, and they in turn keep more of what they earn to (gasp) do with as they please.
- When Obama says that 95% of the people are going to get a tax cut, he is being intellectually dishonest because more than 40% of people in the country do not pay income taxes since they either don't earn enough money or qualify for tax breaks. What Obama is talking about is taxing the people who have money - you know, the evil rich people who run all the businesses and investments that create the jobs people need to survive - and take their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it.
That is called Income Redistribution. It is one party, in this case Obama - arbitrarily deciding to take money he didn't earn to give it to other people who didn't earn it either, and in return prances around on TV telling the people who didn't earn the money that they should follow him.
Income Redistribution was the center of Karl Marx's attempt to create a classless society, and despite it's historically documented abject failure as a political philosophy, Barrack Hussein Obama, along with Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Nanzi Pelozi, Harry Reid and the rest of the liberal socialist spam-monkeys in the House and Senate embrace the outright theft of personal wealth in exchange for buying votes from the poor people they have made dependent on government support to survive.
You want to talk hypocrisy? Republicans are lambasted all the time for their dependence on rich voters for their support and gain power through the wealthy attaining more wealth. O.K., fine. Then what does it mean then when democrats in return depend on poor people for their votes and gain more power by poor people getting poorer?
When Republicans favor the rich getting richer and oppose stealing from them because they're rich, the worst anyone can accuse them of is not standing in the way of someone else attaining their piece of the American dream, which has no limitation. That is not hypocritical.
Democrats, on the other hand, prance around all over the place wanting to beat their chests and tell the world how compassionate they are, but the moment a poor person doesn't want to be poor anymore, or Republicans advance an agenda that will help prevent more poor people (such as them forcing a limit on welfare that made people get off their lazy asses and get jobs), democrats take a dump their collective skirts howling in protest, calling it cruel.
Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites because they derive their power at the expense of people who work for a living in exchange for fostering a larger number of people incapable of self-sufficiency to keep them dependent on democrats for survival. What democrats have done to the black community is nothing short of treating them like cattle, but democrats consider that compassion.
- When conservatives, or even pseudo-liberals like McCain enact a tax cut, they are reducing the amount of taxes that are withheld from income or capitol gains. That, in effect, means that the government takes less money from the people earning it, and they in turn keep more of what they earn to (gasp) do with as they please.
- When Obama says that 95% of the people are going to get a tax cut, he is being intellectually dishonest because more than 40% of people in the country do not pay income taxes since they either don't earn enough money or qualify for tax breaks. What Obama is talking about is taxing the people who have money - you know, the evil rich people who run all the businesses and investments that create the jobs people need to survive - and take their money and giving it to people who didn't earn it.
That is called Income Redistribution. It is one party, in this case Obama - arbitrarily deciding to take money he didn't earn to give it to other people who didn't earn it either, and in return prances around on TV telling the people who didn't earn the money that they should follow him.
Income Redistribution was the center of Karl Marx's attempt to create a classless society, and despite it's historically documented abject failure as a political philosophy, Barrack Hussein Obama, along with Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Nanzi Pelozi, Harry Reid and the rest of the liberal socialist spam-monkeys in the House and Senate embrace the outright theft of personal wealth in exchange for buying votes from the poor people they have made dependent on government support to survive.
You want to talk hypocrisy? Republicans are lambasted all the time for their dependence on rich voters for their support and gain power through the wealthy attaining more wealth. O.K., fine. Then what does it mean then when democrats in return depend on poor people for their votes and gain more power by poor people getting poorer?
When Republicans favor the rich getting richer and oppose stealing from them because they're rich, the worst anyone can accuse them of is not standing in the way of someone else attaining their piece of the American dream, which has no limitation. That is not hypocritical.
Democrats, on the other hand, prance around all over the place wanting to beat their chests and tell the world how compassionate they are, but the moment a poor person doesn't want to be poor anymore, or Republicans advance an agenda that will help prevent more poor people (such as them forcing a limit on welfare that made people get off their lazy asses and get jobs), democrats take a dump their collective skirts howling in protest, calling it cruel.
Democrats are the ultimate hypocrites because they derive their power at the expense of people who work for a living in exchange for fostering a larger number of people incapable of self-sufficiency to keep them dependent on democrats for survival. What democrats have done to the black community is nothing short of treating them like cattle, but democrats consider that compassion.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Danger of Political Paralysis
Politics is, by nature, a very rough business. It doesn't matter how well spoken, genuine or patriotic a person is...if you run for and attain political office, you will make or continue to have enemies. Victory, and even a mandate - does not ever mean you do not have enemies.
When being criticized, you have several options. You can directly cite it and fight back, and refute the criticism till you have won the argument. Another is to have surrogates fight on your behalf and attempt to have the criticism refuted without personally engaging in a one-on-one battle. You can also deflect the criticism by attacking the credibility of the attacker. Another strategy is to let the person continue to speak because they're making an ass out of themselves, and wait till they are done to point out their mistakes. Lastly, you can choose to ignore it.
Former President Clinton never ignored criticism. To his credit, he ran all 8 years of his presidency as if he were in a perpetual, never-ending campaign. For all the criticism he received, both just and unjust, Bill Clinton never backed down from a fight, gave up or allowed his enemies to define who he was. Despite low personal approval ratings, he was able to maintain high job approval ratings. He was successful in being able to promote the morally relativistic idea that just because someone was a liar, a cheat and had no character, that didn't mean he couldn't be a good President. For his success alone in promoting this new standard, I will always regard him as the ultimate grandmaster of politics.
When you ignore criticism, you are taking a risk. You are weighing people's ability to see the truth about you despite the criticism verses the potential damage that can be caused by refuting it, as doing so can only bring it to more attention than it's worth.
President Bush has made not personally defending himself a hallmark of his Presidency. For reasons that he alone keeps to himself, President Bush has allowed even the most unhinged, radical and ultra-kook moonbat fringe of the media and blogosphere to falsely accuse him, his closest advisers and senior members of his administration of orchestrating 9/11, doctoring evidence for the Iraq war, Nazism, Fascism, Treason, Murder, War Profiteering and Election Fraud, just to name a few.
Most people are able to see through these and other accusations, consider the source, look at the person being accused and subsequently dismiss them as being ludicrous. Eventually, however, if accusations continue to be made and not answered, people are going to question the accused. The longer the accused stays silent while the accusations become more unhinged, the more the accused supporters are going to look for a reason for their defense and a refutation to the attacks they are defending on someone else's behalf.
President Bush has been wrong on certain issues. He was wrong in his attempts to appease liberals with huge increases of entitlement spending on education and drug benefits. He should have overwhelmed Iraq with a larger number of troops instead of a smaller, fixed number and never have given the terrorists a moments rest by declaring any type of victory. He should have showed video clips of all the democrats who cited the same intel he used back during the Clinton administration when Clinton launched missile attacks on Iraq on the day of Monica Lewinsky's deposition. He should have decreased spending on entitlement programs, campaigned against earmarks on the House and Senate and focused on securing the border with Mexico. He should have come out swinging against Nagin and Blanco and compared the 4 day response time of FEMA to Hurricane Katrina to Bill Clinton's FEMA response time of more than three weeks to Hurricane Floyd. Had he made better decisions regarding just these issues mentioned, the Republicans would still have the House and Senate, have a greater majority and democrats would still be like the Jews wandering through the desert for 40 years after worshiping the Golden Calf.
Erring on these issues, and not defending himself against the lunatic fringe…left President Bush in a state of political paralysis. He became unable to lead or govern because he was no longer capable of even mustering support among his disaffected base or utilizing the power of the bully pulpit. As a result, liberals had the power to define President Bush in a negative fashion, regardless of whatever his position was.
Consider the following breakdown of actual arguments made against the Bush Administration during the past few years:
- If the President cuts taxes then it's no good because the people who pay the most taxes reap the benefit the most, but if he doesn't he is ignoring the economic plight of poor people by not concerning himself with their tax burden.
- If the President has a diverse cabinet then he is guilty of pandering to minorities, if he doesn't then it is an example of his bigotry.
- If the President sides with Israel in a conflict then it is an example of Zionist-Pro-Israel/Anti-Arab bigotry, but if he doesn't then it is an example of the President's Christian Anti-Semitism.
- If the President wins an election without the majority and plurality of the vote (2000), then he has no mandate, but if he wins with both the plurality and majority of the vote (2004) then he has no mandate because 52% of the vote is not a mandate.
- If the President pushes for more refineries and domestic oil drilling to increase supply then he is pandering to Big Oil, but if he does neither and pushes for more efficiency and conservation then he is guilty of trying to keep the status quo by not increasing energy supplies, and is therefore pandering to Big Oil.
- If the President takes an aggressive stance towards North Korea then he is guilty of inciting more war and violence, if he seeks international support then he is guilty of assuming a weak posture in international affairs.
- If the President does not appear at the NAACP, then he is guilty of writing off the black community, but if he appears at the NAACP he is guilty of insincere pandering to the black community.
- If the President has hired a team made up of intelligent people, then it is because he himself is not intelligent, but if the President succeeds on his own merits then it is because he has surrounded himself with intelligent people.
- If the President stays the course and remains in Iraq till the job is finished then he is guilty of being stubborn, but if the President talks of eventual troop reduction then he is guilty of giving in.
- If the President takes a tough stance on illegal immigration then he is guilty of anti-Hispanic bigotry, if he does not then he is guilty of failing to look out for the American citizenry.
- If the President does not send in the National Guard to Katrina ravaged New Orleans right away he does not care about black people, if he does then he is sending in an occupational force against US citizens.
- If the President uses executive powers during a time of war then he is guilty of violating the constitution, but if he does not use his powers and authority then he is guilty of not leading or maintaining control.
- If the President uses military action against terrorists he is guilty of inciting more terrorism and putting lives on the line for the sake of oil, but if he doesn't then he is guilty of dropping the ball and neglecting his duty in protecting the country.
- If the President's policies in preventing terror attacks catch terrorists and yield vital information, then he is guilty of infringing on freedom and human rights, but if his policies fail then he is guilty of not doing enough to protect American citizens.
- If the President stays silent in the face of critics then it is because his critics are right, but if the President speaks out and defends his positions then it is a sign of stubbornness and his attempt to "silence" critics with fascist threats.
- If the President appeals to foreign nations to assist in Iraq but goes in with less than everyone who is approached, he is accused of being a unilateralist, but if he appeals to foreign nations who have a stake in North Korea, then he is criticized for not being a unilateralist.
Look at where we are now:
- We have an inexperienced, junior Senator running for President from the corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine who's state has one of the largest unemployment percentages in the country, has direct ties to a racist pastor, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, a corrupt community organization being investigated for wholesale voter fraud, an ultra-leftist voting record and openly expressing socialist wealth redistribution.
- We have a democrat Vice Presidential candidate who is the Binford Gaffo-Matic 7000, a man who cannot keep his mouth shut to save his life. A man who not only has been caught lying through his teeth and plagiarizing in national debates, but is documented on the written, spoken and video record of dismissing the ability, truthfulness and experience of his own running mate during the democrat primary, a primary where he admitted that he would endorse John McCain himself over his own running mate...and...most recently admitted on national television that enemies of the US would seek to test his running mate and that their response would not appear to be initially correct.
- We have an ultra-left democrat controlled House and Senate who have an approval rating less than half than that of President Bush, led by the two most inept leaders either party has ever had, additionally burdened with documented proof of their own direct culpability and guilt in promoting the policies and practices that led to the Subprime mortgage meltdown.
Yet, despite the democrat party being rank with absolute ineptitude, lack of leadership, scandal and lockstep ties with the most radical kook fringe of society, they are WINNING because the political paralysis caused by President Bush's liberalism and unwillingness to engage in the politics of a one-on-one fight...has demoralized the base, radicalized and emboldened the democrats and has left the Independents who are liberal leaning, indecisive and generally spineless to their mercurial natures of going with whichever side that appears to be on the current winning end of the political spectrum (i.e. Colin Powell). In any other political scenario that would have come about by the President governing like a conservative and not as a liberal douche-bag, democrats would be melting down and running in circles with abject panic.
The lesson from all of this is a simple one: When it comes to politics, conservatives can never, ever, EVER let our enemies get away with defining who we are or wax eloquent on the lofty idea of leaving judgment to history, because history is written and defined by the people who win, not the people who are right.
When being criticized, you have several options. You can directly cite it and fight back, and refute the criticism till you have won the argument. Another is to have surrogates fight on your behalf and attempt to have the criticism refuted without personally engaging in a one-on-one battle. You can also deflect the criticism by attacking the credibility of the attacker. Another strategy is to let the person continue to speak because they're making an ass out of themselves, and wait till they are done to point out their mistakes. Lastly, you can choose to ignore it.
Former President Clinton never ignored criticism. To his credit, he ran all 8 years of his presidency as if he were in a perpetual, never-ending campaign. For all the criticism he received, both just and unjust, Bill Clinton never backed down from a fight, gave up or allowed his enemies to define who he was. Despite low personal approval ratings, he was able to maintain high job approval ratings. He was successful in being able to promote the morally relativistic idea that just because someone was a liar, a cheat and had no character, that didn't mean he couldn't be a good President. For his success alone in promoting this new standard, I will always regard him as the ultimate grandmaster of politics.
When you ignore criticism, you are taking a risk. You are weighing people's ability to see the truth about you despite the criticism verses the potential damage that can be caused by refuting it, as doing so can only bring it to more attention than it's worth.
President Bush has made not personally defending himself a hallmark of his Presidency. For reasons that he alone keeps to himself, President Bush has allowed even the most unhinged, radical and ultra-kook moonbat fringe of the media and blogosphere to falsely accuse him, his closest advisers and senior members of his administration of orchestrating 9/11, doctoring evidence for the Iraq war, Nazism, Fascism, Treason, Murder, War Profiteering and Election Fraud, just to name a few.
Most people are able to see through these and other accusations, consider the source, look at the person being accused and subsequently dismiss them as being ludicrous. Eventually, however, if accusations continue to be made and not answered, people are going to question the accused. The longer the accused stays silent while the accusations become more unhinged, the more the accused supporters are going to look for a reason for their defense and a refutation to the attacks they are defending on someone else's behalf.
President Bush has been wrong on certain issues. He was wrong in his attempts to appease liberals with huge increases of entitlement spending on education and drug benefits. He should have overwhelmed Iraq with a larger number of troops instead of a smaller, fixed number and never have given the terrorists a moments rest by declaring any type of victory. He should have showed video clips of all the democrats who cited the same intel he used back during the Clinton administration when Clinton launched missile attacks on Iraq on the day of Monica Lewinsky's deposition. He should have decreased spending on entitlement programs, campaigned against earmarks on the House and Senate and focused on securing the border with Mexico. He should have come out swinging against Nagin and Blanco and compared the 4 day response time of FEMA to Hurricane Katrina to Bill Clinton's FEMA response time of more than three weeks to Hurricane Floyd. Had he made better decisions regarding just these issues mentioned, the Republicans would still have the House and Senate, have a greater majority and democrats would still be like the Jews wandering through the desert for 40 years after worshiping the Golden Calf.
Erring on these issues, and not defending himself against the lunatic fringe…left President Bush in a state of political paralysis. He became unable to lead or govern because he was no longer capable of even mustering support among his disaffected base
Consider the following breakdown of actual arguments made against the Bush Administration during the past few years:
- If the President cuts taxes then it's no good because the people who pay the most taxes reap the benefit the most, but if he doesn't he is ignoring the economic plight of poor people by not concerning himself with their tax burden.
- If the President has a diverse cabinet then he is guilty of pandering to minorities, if he doesn't then it is an example of his bigotry.
- If the President sides with Israel in a conflict then it is an example of Zionist-Pro-Israel/Anti-Arab bigotry, but if he doesn't then it is an example of the President's Christian Anti-Semitism.
- If the President wins an election without the majority and plurality of the vote (2000), then he has no mandate, but if he wins with both the plurality and majority of the vote (2004) then he has no mandate because 52% of the vote is not a mandate.
- If the President pushes for more refineries and domestic oil drilling to increase supply then he is pandering to Big Oil, but if he does neither and pushes for more efficiency and conservation then he is guilty of trying to keep the status quo by not increasing energy supplies, and is therefore pandering to Big Oil.
- If the President takes an aggressive stance towards North Korea then he is guilty of inciting more war and violence, if he seeks international support then he is guilty of assuming a weak posture in international affairs.
- If the President does not appear at the NAACP, then he is guilty of writing off the black community, but if he appears at the NAACP he is guilty of insincere pandering to the black community.
- If the President has hired a team made up of intelligent people, then it is because he himself is not intelligent, but if the President succeeds on his own merits then it is because he has surrounded himself with intelligent people.
- If the President stays the course and remains in Iraq till the job is finished then he is guilty of being stubborn, but if the President talks of eventual troop reduction then he is guilty of giving in.
- If the President takes a tough stance on illegal immigration then he is guilty of anti-Hispanic bigotry, if he does not then he is guilty of failing to look out for the American citizenry.
- If the President does not send in the National Guard to Katrina ravaged New Orleans right away he does not care about black people, if he does then he is sending in an occupational force against US citizens.
- If the President uses executive powers during a time of war then he is guilty of violating the constitution, but if he does not use his powers and authority then he is guilty of not leading or maintaining control.
- If the President uses military action against terrorists he is guilty of inciting more terrorism and putting lives on the line for the sake of oil, but if he doesn't then he is guilty of dropping the ball and neglecting his duty in protecting the country.
- If the President's policies in preventing terror attacks catch terrorists and yield vital information, then he is guilty of infringing on freedom and human rights, but if his policies fail then he is guilty of not doing enough to protect American citizens.
- If the President stays silent in the face of critics then it is because his critics are right, but if the President speaks out and defends his positions then it is a sign of stubbornness and his attempt to "silence" critics with fascist threats.
- If the President appeals to foreign nations to assist in Iraq but goes in with less than everyone who is approached, he is accused of being a unilateralist, but if he appeals to foreign nations who have a stake in North Korea, then he is criticized for not being a unilateralist.
Look at where we are now:
- We have an inexperienced, junior Senator running for President from the corrupt Illinois/Chicago political machine who's state has one of the largest unemployment percentages in the country, has direct ties to a racist pastor, an unrepentant domestic terrorist, a corrupt community organization being investigated for wholesale voter fraud, an ultra-leftist voting record and openly expressing socialist wealth redistribution.
- We have a democrat Vice Presidential candidate who is the Binford Gaffo-Matic 7000, a man who cannot keep his mouth shut to save his life. A man who not only has been caught lying through his teeth and plagiarizing in national debates, but is documented on the written, spoken and video record of dismissing the ability, truthfulness and experience of his own running mate during the democrat primary, a primary where he admitted that he would endorse John McCain himself over his own running mate...and...most recently admitted on national television that enemies of the US would seek to test his running mate and that their response would not appear to be initially correct.
- We have an ultra-left democrat controlled House and Senate who have an approval rating less than half than that of President Bush, led by the two most inept leaders either party has ever had, additionally burdened with documented proof of their own direct culpability and guilt in promoting the policies and practices that led to the Subprime mortgage meltdown.
Yet, despite the democrat party being rank with absolute ineptitude, lack of leadership, scandal and lockstep ties with the most radical kook fringe of society, they are WINNING because the political paralysis caused by President Bush's liberalism and unwillingness to engage in the politics of a one-on-one fight...has demoralized the base, radicalized and emboldened the democrats and has left the Independents who are liberal leaning, indecisive and generally spineless to their mercurial natures of going with whichever side that appears to be on the current winning end of the political spectrum (i.e. Colin Powell). In any other political scenario that would have come about by the President governing like a conservative and not as a liberal douche-bag, democrats would be melting down and running in circles with abject panic.
The lesson from all of this is a simple one: When it comes to politics, conservatives can never, ever, EVER let our enemies get away with defining who we are or wax eloquent on the lofty idea of leaving judgment to history, because history is written and defined by the people who win, not the people who are right.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Powell Endorsement
I remember the day Colin Powell first held a press conference to announce his party affiliation. When he came out and said he was registering as a Republican, I not only found it odd that such an announcement was even newsworthy, I also was struck at how uncomfortable he looked in his addressing the press. Being on camera was nothing new to the man, and I always remembered that moment.
Recently, Colin Powell endorsed Barrack 0bama for President. Naturally, the forum I discuss politics on was abuzz over this, and on queue the liberals were tripping over themselves to rub the news in the faces of conservatives. That was no surprise.
What liberals don't seem to understand is that most conservatives like myself fully expected Powell's endorsement, because over the years it became painfully obvious that Powell was as much a conservative Republican as the New York Times pet moonbat, Mr. Paul Krugman.
The link here is to a Youtube video of Colin Powell's address to the United Nations where he made his case for invading Iraq
In this video and the other linked at the site, Powell presented a passionate and strong rationale to the world to support the US decision the go to war. Powell reviewed and studied copious amounts of covert intelligence gathered since the end of the first Gulf War, and eagerly used it to present his findings and make his case clear. When WMD's were not found, Powell did not hesitate to tell Barbra Walters on how his doing so was a blot on his record. Instead of criticizing the intelligence amassed during the Clinton administration, Powell instead chose to direct his attacks on the Bush Administration, saying afterward that he really didn't review the intelligence, he just went along with what was given to him by VP Dick Cheney. Does that sound like the action a General would take?
The idea that Powell was ever considered a strong Republican by anyone baffles me. Powell worked with Clinton to hedge his bets on gays in the military by defining what has become known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Colin Powell continues to actively support and promote affirmative action and is pro-abortion. Despite his military training, he's called for additional gun control laws beyond what are already actively in place. After giving his rationale for war as he was seen doing in the link, he claimed that he tried to persuade President Bush to not go to war with Iraq in the same manner he undermined his father's efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Powell opposed the nomination of conservative John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations because of personal disagreements he had with him during his tenure as Secretary of State. He also joined the obnoxious chorus of liberal moonbats who blamed the President for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina, yet offered no such criticisms for either the indecision of Governor Blanco of Louisiana or the failed local leadership of Mayor Ray Nagin.
Even back in the early 90's, when the first Iraq War was ready to start, Powell ran around warning everyone that American casualties would be severe because we could not fight in the desert, take the heat or handle veterans in the Iraqi Army who studied the hard lessons of Russia's war in Afghanistan. General Norman Schwarzkopf would have nothing to do with Powell's negative assessment and backed the quality and formability of US troops on any field of battle. When Powell turned out to be completely wrong in his strategies, predictions and beratement of US troop capabilities, he pulled a complete 180 and rode the wave of fame and victory that he used to start he foray into politics.
The Powell endorsement is another step in a series of planned and calculated moves on the part of a man who has a record of hedging his bets and making decisions on the basis of the direction the prevailing political winds are blowing. Looking back at the day he televised his announcement regarding his party affiliation, the uneasiness and hesitation I saw and heard in the man came from him knowing full well that he was joining a party that stood for things he didn't agree with out of political ambition and expediency, not out of principle.
Even in 2007, when it looked like Hillary was going to steamroller over 0bama and get the democrat nomination in a walk, Powell gave the maximum donation possible to John McCain's campaign, since it was widely regarded that another Clinton running would unite conservatives of all colors and stripes. When it was predicted months ago that Powell would choose 0bama, Powell vigorously denied it and resented it having even been being suggested. Yet, once again, when the political winds shifted in favor of 0bama, Powell went with the perceived winner. Look at how he waited until two weeks prior to the election to make an announcement, he couldn't even definitively support one candidate over another until he had a good idea who would win.
Every single doubt and suspicion I held about Colin Powell has turned out to be 100% correct. When it comes down to brass tax, Powell is just another liberal/independent that is incapable of taking a long term concrete stance on any issue without first considering the political hay that can be made with it or made against it. I'll make this next prediction: If 0bama wins the election, I see two possibilities: Powell will change his party affiliation to democrat, and if health issues and questions of Biden's mental state continue to persist, he will be asked to replace him as Vice President.
Recently, Colin Powell endorsed Barrack 0bama for President. Naturally, the forum I discuss politics on was abuzz over this, and on queue the liberals were tripping over themselves to rub the news in the faces of conservatives. That was no surprise.
What liberals don't seem to understand is that most conservatives like myself fully expected Powell's endorsement, because over the years it became painfully obvious that Powell was as much a conservative Republican as the New York Times pet moonbat, Mr. Paul Krugman.
The link here is to a Youtube video of Colin Powell's address to the United Nations where he made his case for invading Iraq
In this video and the other linked at the site, Powell presented a passionate and strong rationale to the world to support the US decision the go to war. Powell reviewed and studied copious amounts of covert intelligence gathered since the end of the first Gulf War, and eagerly used it to present his findings and make his case clear. When WMD's were not found, Powell did not hesitate to tell Barbra Walters on how his doing so was a blot on his record. Instead of criticizing the intelligence amassed during the Clinton administration, Powell instead chose to direct his attacks on the Bush Administration, saying afterward that he really didn't review the intelligence, he just went along with what was given to him by VP Dick Cheney. Does that sound like the action a General would take?
The idea that Powell was ever considered a strong Republican by anyone baffles me. Powell worked with Clinton to hedge his bets on gays in the military by defining what has become known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Colin Powell continues to actively support and promote affirmative action and is pro-abortion. Despite his military training, he's called for additional gun control laws beyond what are already actively in place. After giving his rationale for war as he was seen doing in the link, he claimed that he tried to persuade President Bush to not go to war with Iraq in the same manner he undermined his father's efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Powell opposed the nomination of conservative John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations because of personal disagreements he had with him during his tenure as Secretary of State. He also joined the obnoxious chorus of liberal moonbats who blamed the President for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina, yet offered no such criticisms for either the indecision of Governor Blanco of Louisiana or the failed local leadership of Mayor Ray Nagin.
Even back in the early 90's, when the first Iraq War was ready to start, Powell ran around warning everyone that American casualties would be severe because we could not fight in the desert, take the heat or handle veterans in the Iraqi Army who studied the hard lessons of Russia's war in Afghanistan. General Norman Schwarzkopf would have nothing to do with Powell's negative assessment and backed the quality and formability of US troops on any field of battle. When Powell turned out to be completely wrong in his strategies, predictions and beratement of US troop capabilities, he pulled a complete 180 and rode the wave of fame and victory that he used to start he foray into politics.
The Powell endorsement is another step in a series of planned and calculated moves on the part of a man who has a record of hedging his bets and making decisions on the basis of the direction the prevailing political winds are blowing. Looking back at the day he televised his announcement regarding his party affiliation, the uneasiness and hesitation I saw and heard in the man came from him knowing full well that he was joining a party that stood for things he didn't agree with out of political ambition and expediency, not out of principle.
Even in 2007, when it looked like Hillary was going to steamroller over 0bama and get the democrat nomination in a walk, Powell gave the maximum donation possible to John McCain's campaign, since it was widely regarded that another Clinton running would unite conservatives of all colors and stripes. When it was predicted months ago that Powell would choose 0bama, Powell vigorously denied it and resented it having even been being suggested. Yet, once again, when the political winds shifted in favor of 0bama, Powell went with the perceived winner. Look at how he waited until two weeks prior to the election to make an announcement, he couldn't even definitively support one candidate over another until he had a good idea who would win.
Every single doubt and suspicion I held about Colin Powell has turned out to be 100% correct. When it comes down to brass tax, Powell is just another liberal/independent that is incapable of taking a long term concrete stance on any issue without first considering the political hay that can be made with it or made against it. I'll make this next prediction: If 0bama wins the election, I see two possibilities: Powell will change his party affiliation to democrat, and if health issues and questions of Biden's mental state continue to persist, he will be asked to replace him as Vice President.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Question: Why don't more blacks vote for Republicans?
It's because historically, no matter how much Republicans reach out to blacks, their message has not, and will not resonate. Look at what passes for black leadership these days; race baiting hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who make their living off the emotional and economical upheavals of their own people.
Blacks are constantly told that America is out to get them in every way, shape and form. Their culture has been poisoned by the notion that they themselves are incapable of taking care of their own needs and goals because they are taught from birth that the odds are stacked against them.
The moment a black person becomes an educated and successful member of society, they are called sell-outs and Uncle Toms. Instead of looking at successful blacks and holding THEM up as role models, they are excoriated, for all things...of acting white.
Every attempt Republicans have made to reach out has been met with criticism and negative press. It's not that it's too difficult (speaking is easy), and they certainly don't avoid it out of laziness(they have tried for years). It's because, in my opinion, it has gotten to the point where the negative press and media presented on such events now supersedes any measurable benefit when looking at how many people actually listened and changed their mind. I hate it, and wish it were different, but it has unfortunately been what has come to pass.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I were running for office and I decided I was going to address a black audience who came to hear my ideas. I give it my best shot and explain how dependence on government programs has taken away their sense of independent identity, and that through hard work, education and self-reliance, they can achieve anything. I stand up for successful blacks and tell them why they should be their role models. I explain how I was raised and how the lessons I learned from the time I was a young man helped shape my views of the world and have aided me greatly in life.
The reaction and the way this event would be covered would unleash the most scathing criticism I would ever receive in my political career. The reaction to my speech would be one of apoplectic shock for the audacity of a white man to address a black audience and even begin to suggest to them how to live their lives, let alone having a conservative point out to them the very reasons behind their never-ending problems. "Easy for you to say!" or "Who the @#$! are you to tell us what to think!?" or "You don't know what it's like to be black in America!!"
The only thing that would be televised and brought up on the news would be this hatchet job of coverage that wouldn't concentrate on what I said or the sincerity of my ideas, but of the reaction I would receive.
Democrats have so successfully sunk their claws into the hearts and minds of blacks that they have created a solid, concrete base of supporters and voters for themselves. Can anyone honestly tell me that if conservatives efforts to reach out to blacks started taking them away from the democrat base that democrats would be star-struck at the love and support coming from conservatives? Hell No, democrats would whip it into high gear and start the process all over of telling blacks what lousy racists we are and how we want to take away their civil rights, and if that kind of bullshit rhetoric is what we have to deal with just so blacks won't think we're trying to re-introduce slavery, forget it. And if appealing to blacks means that we have to moderate our stances on welfare spending or the negative consequences of affirmative action, then to moderate those stances means abandoning the majority of our own concrete base that believes in the opposite. So again, it's not worth it in that case, either.
Consider the following: Republicans are the party that led the vote to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans were the majority of the people that voted for the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ronald Reagan appointed Samuel Pierce as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. George HW Bush made Colin Powell the first black 4-Star General and nominated Clarence Thomas as the first black Supreme Court justice. George W. Bush chose Condoleeza Rice as his Secretary of State, Roderick R. Paige as his Education Secretary, and John McCain pushed Clinton for Colin Powell's son to run the FCC.
Despite a clear historical record of nominating qualified and intelligent blacks into positions of genuine power and policy making, Republicans never get credit for doing so. Rather, woman and minority candidates that serve in Republican administrations are ridiculed and subjected to scathing criticism and endless objections to their loyalties and qualifications for the positions they hold, regardless of their abilities and talents.
The bottom line? Ideas like independence from government, self-reliance and overcoming adversity though hard work are not resonating because blacks by a large margin have been conditioned into a group-think mentality that tells them that none of those things matter. Every election, over 90% of blacks vote democrat, and in light of the entrenchment of their cultural leanings, no amount of outreach can overcome that until the likes of Sharpton and Jackson are dead, buried and forgotten.
That's why. There's your reason. It's ugly, it sucks and I wish to God it was different, but it's the truth.
Blacks are constantly told that America is out to get them in every way, shape and form. Their culture has been poisoned by the notion that they themselves are incapable of taking care of their own needs and goals because they are taught from birth that the odds are stacked against them.
The moment a black person becomes an educated and successful member of society, they are called sell-outs and Uncle Toms. Instead of looking at successful blacks and holding THEM up as role models, they are excoriated, for all things...of acting white.
Every attempt Republicans have made to reach out has been met with criticism and negative press. It's not that it's too difficult (speaking is easy), and they certainly don't avoid it out of laziness(they have tried for years). It's because, in my opinion, it has gotten to the point where the negative press and media presented on such events now supersedes any measurable benefit when looking at how many people actually listened and changed their mind. I hate it, and wish it were different, but it has unfortunately been what has come to pass.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I were running for office and I decided I was going to address a black audience who came to hear my ideas. I give it my best shot and explain how dependence on government programs has taken away their sense of independent identity, and that through hard work, education and self-reliance, they can achieve anything. I stand up for successful blacks and tell them why they should be their role models. I explain how I was raised and how the lessons I learned from the time I was a young man helped shape my views of the world and have aided me greatly in life.
The reaction and the way this event would be covered would unleash the most scathing criticism I would ever receive in my political career. The reaction to my speech would be one of apoplectic shock for the audacity of a white man to address a black audience and even begin to suggest to them how to live their lives, let alone having a conservative point out to them the very reasons behind their never-ending problems. "Easy for you to say!" or "Who the @#$! are you to tell us what to think!?" or "You don't know what it's like to be black in America!!"
The only thing that would be televised and brought up on the news would be this hatchet job of coverage that wouldn't concentrate on what I said or the sincerity of my ideas, but of the reaction I would receive.
Democrats have so successfully sunk their claws into the hearts and minds of blacks that they have created a solid, concrete base of supporters and voters for themselves. Can anyone honestly tell me that if conservatives efforts to reach out to blacks started taking them away from the democrat base that democrats would be star-struck at the love and support coming from conservatives? Hell No, democrats would whip it into high gear and start the process all over of telling blacks what lousy racists we are and how we want to take away their civil rights, and if that kind of bullshit rhetoric is what we have to deal with just so blacks won't think we're trying to re-introduce slavery, forget it. And if appealing to blacks means that we have to moderate our stances on welfare spending or the negative consequences of affirmative action, then to moderate those stances means abandoning the majority of our own concrete base that believes in the opposite. So again, it's not worth it in that case, either.
Consider the following: Republicans are the party that led the vote to abolish slavery. Lincoln was a Republican. Republicans were the majority of the people that voted for the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ronald Reagan appointed Samuel Pierce as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. George HW Bush made Colin Powell the first black 4-Star General and nominated Clarence Thomas as the first black Supreme Court justice. George W. Bush chose Condoleeza Rice as his Secretary of State, Roderick R. Paige as his Education Secretary, and John McCain pushed Clinton for Colin Powell's son to run the FCC.
Despite a clear historical record of nominating qualified and intelligent blacks into positions of genuine power and policy making, Republicans never get credit for doing so. Rather, woman and minority candidates that serve in Republican administrations are ridiculed and subjected to scathing criticism and endless objections to their loyalties and qualifications for the positions they hold, regardless of their abilities and talents.
The bottom line? Ideas like independence from government, self-reliance and overcoming adversity though hard work are not resonating because blacks by a large margin have been conditioned into a group-think mentality that tells them that none of those things matter. Every election, over 90% of blacks vote democrat, and in light of the entrenchment of their cultural leanings, no amount of outreach can overcome that until the likes of Sharpton and Jackson are dead, buried and forgotten.
That's why. There's your reason. It's ugly, it sucks and I wish to God it was different, but it's the truth.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
We're still waiting for another Reagan...
One of the reasons why former President Clinton had disappointed me so much as an executive was not so much his inability to tell the truth, but rather the inability on his part to define a definitive set of core beliefs that made up who he really was. There was nothing genuine about the man past his ability to try and win people over through his likable nature. When his Presidency started, he went hard left and governed as a hard leftist, projecting $200+ billion deficits for each year into the future. When the Republicans took over in 1994, he back tracked and immediately started going center-right in his policy decisions. It royally pissed off liberals to no end, but it frustrated conservatives who were dragging Clinton kicking and screaming into making such policy decisions, yet getting none of the credit for their success. Clinton, in the end, was pliable because there was nothing to his core beliefs. In the end, he licked his finger, determined which way the political winds were blowing, and followed them where they took him.
Ultimately, Clinton's lack of character caught up with him, despite his overall job popularity. His character issues were so flawed that they ended up hurting Al Gore. While Gore was criticized for running a very bad campaign, the character issue used against him by his proximity to Clinton subsequently helped hand a very narrow victory over to President Bush.
I had very high hopes for President Bush. My biggest concern was that the close margin of his victory would overshadow any pretense he had about a mandate to govern the direction his administration would take.
The WTC attack initially revealed a man who's ability to lead was very sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. The President drew a line in the sand and spoke for all Americans when he, for all intent and purpose, said "enough is enough".
This act of drawing a line in the sand was reminiscent of another President who also stood up against what was perceived as an unconquerable foe. Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man who rightfully called the former Soviet Union an evil empire, took on all enemies, both foreign and domestic, all at once.
He eliminated an unjust and woefully burdensome series of tax penalties levied against the American people for years. His ideas and beliefs were so powerful and resonated with so many Americans that he took on both a House and Senate littered with democrats and bent them in his direction. He inherited a faltering military and transformed it into the most advanced and lethal fighting force on the planet. He got in the face of the Russians and refused to compromise this country's security to appease their aggression. He refused to let liberal detractors get in his way or define who he was, and as a result, he was and still is admired by a vast majority of those of use who were fortunate enough to live during his stewardship of this nation.
I have lived through and remembered what life was like during the Presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George W. Bush. Not one of the President's I have watched has ever come close to matching Ronald Reagan's class, style, patriotism, optimism and unwaivering love on this country.
George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. He never was, not even close. Outside of his stances on taxes and the war against Islamic terrorism, President Bush has been a profound disappointment and an albatross around the neck of every conservative in the country. I won't be sorry to see him go, but I shudder to think that after the liberal moonbats manage to exclusively sink their talons into this country, people will look back at the Presidency of George W Bush and say "ah...those were the days".
Ultimately, Clinton's lack of character caught up with him, despite his overall job popularity. His character issues were so flawed that they ended up hurting Al Gore. While Gore was criticized for running a very bad campaign, the character issue used against him by his proximity to Clinton subsequently helped hand a very narrow victory over to President Bush.
I had very high hopes for President Bush. My biggest concern was that the close margin of his victory would overshadow any pretense he had about a mandate to govern the direction his administration would take.
The WTC attack initially revealed a man who's ability to lead was very sharp contrast to that of his predecessor. The President drew a line in the sand and spoke for all Americans when he, for all intent and purpose, said "enough is enough".
This act of drawing a line in the sand was reminiscent of another President who also stood up against what was perceived as an unconquerable foe. Ronald Wilson Reagan, the man who rightfully called the former Soviet Union an evil empire, took on all enemies, both foreign and domestic, all at once.
He eliminated an unjust and woefully burdensome series of tax penalties levied against the American people for years. His ideas and beliefs were so powerful and resonated with so many Americans that he took on both a House and Senate littered with democrats and bent them in his direction. He inherited a faltering military and transformed it into the most advanced and lethal fighting force on the planet. He got in the face of the Russians and refused to compromise this country's security to appease their aggression. He refused to let liberal detractors get in his way or define who he was, and as a result, he was and still is admired by a vast majority of those of use who were fortunate enough to live during his stewardship of this nation.
I have lived through and remembered what life was like during the Presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and George W. Bush. Not one of the President's I have watched has ever come close to matching Ronald Reagan's class, style, patriotism, optimism and unwaivering love on this country.
George W Bush is no Ronald Reagan. He never was, not even close. Outside of his stances on taxes and the war against Islamic terrorism, President Bush has been a profound disappointment and an albatross around the neck of every conservative in the country. I won't be sorry to see him go, but I shudder to think that after the liberal moonbats manage to exclusively sink their talons into this country, people will look back at the Presidency of George W Bush and say "ah...those were the days".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)