Why I could never vote Democrat
Let me start this post by saying that I am disappointed with the Republican Party, particularly the current president/administration. Also let me add that I won't be one bit surprised if the republicans loose this election and they probably deserve to. Sure hindsight is 20/20 and it is easier to say now that Iraq is a mistake than it was when we decided to invade...but how could our representatives be so naive? Bush, Rumsfeild and company really thought that they would waltz right into Iraq, bring Saddam to "justice", and leave a couple of short years later with tears of thanks streaming down the faces of great full democratic Iraqis. At least we did waltz right in prompting President Bush to famously claim “Mission Accomplished” on the deck of an air craft carrier five years ago. We were told that Iraqi oil would help fund the ill conceived plan, cost estimates for the war are now approaching 3 trillion dollars. Just about every other country besides England now owes us a big "I told you so" along with UN weapons inspectors who warned us against invading due to lack of WMD proof. Now the question is not "Should we have gone into Iraq?" it is "Now that we are over there how do we get out of this mess?" Since the responsibility of the debacle lies on republican shoulders shouldn’t I vote Democrat?
In short Democrats are even stupider than our current administration. Consider this article from Reuters:
"Pelosi says more stimulus needed, Bush in denial" http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080506/pl_nm/pelosi_economy_dc
Pelosi and her Democratic congress are passing a bill tomorrow that will authorize the government to finance $300 billion in distressed mortgages to help some 2 million Americans hit by the housing crisis. In a free market economy you have the freedom to succeed, and the freedom to fail. Something that the Democrats don't grasp is that if you don't have the freedom to fail, you can't have the freedom to succeed. They are supposed to be the party of downtrodden and the poor and yet in their haste to bail out the reckless home borrowers they are spurning the poor renters. Doesn't it make intuitive sense to them that if someone is responsible enough to not buy a house that they can't afford they should not be penalized? How are renters penalized by the Democrats new bill? In two ways; it is their tax money that is going to help the home owners, and by getting involved the government will artificially inflate the value of homes making it harder for renter who waited for the right time to buy to afford a house. Why is it so horrible that someone who can't afford a house be forced to live in a smaller house or rent? Are they more important than the current renters? Dick Armey a former conservative congressman started a website: angyrenter.com. On this website renters can sign a petition against this outrage. I have signed this petition and I encourage you to do so.
I know a guy who is a realtor, he was doing pretty well during the hosing bubble when loans were easy to get and house prices looked like they would never peak. He has purchased a few houses and rents them out. Because he failed to anticipate the market one of his houses has foreclosed and he is in trouble, but not for long, he is going to get government assistance to keep another rental that he cannot afford. It just seems so backward to me that the government would help him hold on to his risky business investments at my expense when I don’t even own a house.
To me the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Democrats are the party of victims. How has society wronged you they ask? If you’re a minority let’s fix it with affirmative action. If you’re poor we’ll take money from the rich and give it to you. If you are going to loose your house, well then we’ll take from whoever doesn’t have a house or can afford a house and bail you out. If competition is making you have to work harder to get a job, we support unions. Republicans are the party of individual responsibility by traditionally limit government and allowing “victims” to solve their own problems more easily when they lower taxes.
And it is not just the Bush administration that makes poor decisions. In 1992 the republican house passed a bill that would have allowed drilling for oil in Anwar Alaska. Guess who vetoed it…Bill Clinton. If he would have had the foresight to allow drilling in Anwar we would just start reaping the rewards now and have at least a little bit of leverage in global oil market. Oil is now a record $122 a barrel and rising. Domestic oil would be more of an economic stimulus then the current government bailout schemes without the negative repercussions that will follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
To be read in a high-pitched obnoxious voice ==>
How dare you?! Are you suggesting that we should disturb the delicate Alaskan balance of Brown Bears and gray whales, just to fuel the selfish, globe warming rich people?
It's interesting that Alaskan drilling has become such a dirty word in Politics now. I wonder if there is an easier way to not get elected? I understand the argument that it is really a temporary fix to a real need for alternative fuels, but still, I think it would make the transition easier.
Very well written, Sparrow. I enjoyed this post. I'm not sure exactly why the Republican party has changed so much since the Regan, and even the Clinton years. I can't think of any reasonable explanation other than the fact that we see more and more of a trend: Responsible ideas and actions don't get votes. Some argue that this is a huge problem with democracy. Even the founders constantly stressed that democracy only works for a certain kind of people. People that are morally upright and self governing.
I signed that petition. Thanks for the information on it. I think that one is worth e-mailing to friends too. Just a note, you put angyrenter.com, (you left out the r), it should be angryrenter.com, in case if anyone is trying to copy and paste to their web browser.
Also, the web address for the Pelosi article has expired. If you can find it elsewhere, let me know. I would like to read it.
I must have copied the link wrong, because i just tried it and it worked. Here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080506/pl_nm/pelosi_economy_dc
The problem is that blogspot truncates the last part of the link. Because is takes up too much of the line, and since there are no spaces, it wont wrap around.
The link is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080506/
pl_nm/pelosi_economy_dc
Awesome post Sparrow! I wholeheartedly agree. This oil situation is absolutely ridiculous. The environmentalists have got the nation so focused on the evils of "big oil" that we're unable to see through the haze of lies and recognize that it is their (the environmentalists) policies that are killing us.
Going "green" has almost reached religious zeolot proportions, as oppossed to just a silly trend of the 2000's, that we're heading towards a very real economic crisis.
If oil/gas prices continue to rise, this nation will be in for the crisis of our time! In other words, the Jimmy Carter gas lines of the late 70's will look like a walk through the park.
Remember ol' Jimmy's doom and gloom speeches about the America that we've known in the past is soon to be gone forever? Give me a break. How did we solve that issue? We got rid of the bum and elected Reagan. What did Reagan do? (by the way, this is your History 101 lesson from yours truly. No charge) :) He deregulated! Coal minors in Montana began finding ways to convert coal to gasoline for cheap and OPEC dropped their prices to keep up! We were back in business as a nation.
Where's our modern Reagan now? Unfortunately, I just don't see one on the ballet. There are plenty of places to drill for oil, still the option of converting coal to gasoline, and the possiblity to provide gasoline to our growing nation for the next 200+ years. Oh, and during those 200 years, plenty of time/money to invest in sources for alternative fuels because we won't be paying out the nose to our buddies over at OPEC.
And while I'm on a rant, let's not forget to mention Shell's newest investment: a new oil platform up near Alaska. Millions of dollars were pumped into this project only to be wasted as the local environmentalists sued and got the 9th District Court of Appeals to shut down the whole opporation. What's truly sickening about the whole expensive situation is that this particular platform was only going to operate during the winter, when the water in the region would be completely frozen! How in the name of everything holy could we hurt the environment when everything in the area is solid ice?
It's not "big oil" that's the problem here. It's America's policies that are killing us and the world is laughing. I point you to Sweden, one of the most liberal-treehugging nations in the world and they're off-shore drilling in the northern and Baring Sea like crazy! (And their environment is still fine. Just ask em!)
Okay, I guess I've rambled on enough here, but my point is, we're not doing ourselves any favors by continuing to put our economic lives in the hands of members of OPEC! And I just don't see a candidate out there who is going to stand up to all the BS and red herings out there and allow us to be the great country that we are.
As far as I can tell, with just a cursory glance at history, we've gone from one extreme to the other: from the corruption of the Guilded Age at the turn of the 20th century and the laize faire 1920's, to the nearly socialistic nation of FDR's 1930's and 40's. We've inherited quite a problem folks!
Another big reason for not voting for a democrat:
I'm sure another blog will be started on today's news about the California "Supremely Stupid" Court legalizing "gay" marriage in that state. I knew they were going to try that sooner or later. "Democratic members on Capitol Hill congratulated the court on the decision". That quote, and after hearing Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and the Governator praising the decision, it just reinforces the reasons for not voting for a democrat or a RINO like the governator. The only way to stop this nonsense is to push for a federal amendment to ban it. Unfortunately, none of the leading presidential contenders will push for that, though at least McCain is opposed to "gay marriage" in principle, but not to the point of pushing for an amendment. However I'm certain that Obama and Hillary would or will embrace the California decision, though maybe not openly till after the election, when their true colors will show more clearly. One of the reasons I supported Romney was because he supported the federal amendment to ban it, and was open about it.
I have decided that in the next gubernatorial California election I WILL vote democrat, because I'm sure that will be Schwarzenegger's top competition and I will vote for anyone that has a chance of getting him out. His praise for the supreme court decision and his vow to not support the ban on gay marriage initiative that should be on this Novembers ballot put the last nail in the coffin for him ever having my vote or support. (There have been a lot of nails leading up to that). The truth is, there really is no difference between him and whatever democrat that would be in office, except the democrat at least is honest to his constituents. The way that he legislates makes conservatives have no voice in Sacramento. He knows that they will vote for him because he is "better than the democrat", but all his legislation and decisions are aimed toward the liberal voters. His lack of responsibility is incredible to me. He tried to get a form of socialized medicine for California without raising taxes! I can't fathom how the leader of our state can have that mentality. And now he is so surprised by our states financial disaster... I wonder why? I'm not going to support the lie any longer. I'll vote a Clinton in before voting for him again. Thank goodness he can never be president at least.
Yes, Californians have been left with very poor choices for gubernatorial candidates for the past few decades. I don't think that they have had a decent governor since Ronald Reagan, over a generation ago, when I was a kid. The past 3 have been doozies (Schwarzenegger, Davis, and Wilson), and Jerry Brown was the first of the really bad ones. He is also the current Attorney General, and he also played a big part in the current court marriage ruling. see national review article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjI3NzIxNWEzYmMwZjhlZTg1Y2ZiYzhlMjg3YTg2OGM=&w=MA==
That article also states that 6 of the 7 current CA supreme court justices were appointed by Republican governors (namely, Wilson and Deukmejian, 2 RINOs). So Hyrum, I can understand your not wanting to vote for a Republican for CA governor, as they don't seem to be capable of coming up with one that isn't a classic RINO, in spades.
The only ray of light I can see from this is that it increases the chances of passing of the new CA proposition slated for this Nov, which will write the traditional marriage protection in the state constitution. I don't know if that will be enough to prevent idiot courts from getting around it somehow, but hopefully it will.
The only other ray of light I see, is that it might help the Republicans this fall (at least the ones that aren't RINOs). It may help McCain over Obama, since Obams is very wishy-washy in this subject. He won't come right out and say that he supports homosexual marriage, but he skirts around the issue by saying that the states should decide (meaning in his book, of course, the courts). But having Pelosi and other prominent democrats openly support the CA decision is not going to help him, hopefully, or may force him to show his true colors.
Well, as I've said before, and it's worth repeating now: "Stupid California Politicians are Always So Atrocious" - a pun on the "Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious" song from Disney's Mary Poppins. At least the governors always are, and many of the senators and congressmen/women, and of course the 4/7 supremely stupid justices.
Post a Comment