Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts

Friday, September 16, 2011

Los Angeles Times Readers Respond Viscerally to 'Evangelical Pastors Heed a Political Calling for 2012'

The original article ran last Sunday, on September 11.

And now from the letters to the editor, "Faith and politics in America..."
The evangelical pastors featured in The Times' story cannot be faulted for their political activism, which is protected under the 1st Amendment. The problem is their distortion of the Christian faith.

How can any sensitive Christian support the death penalty, the proliferation of firearms, unjust wars of choice, the dismantling of the social safety net, increased riches for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, the rejection of medical coverage for the poor, the continual domination of American life by corporations and the rest of the Bachmann-Perry agenda?

When a significant slice of the church loses its hold on everything Jesus stood for, the problem is religious heresy, not political activism.

Charles H. Bayer

Claremont
More letters at the link, including one with the worn cliche, "what would Jesus do"?

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Silicon Valley Gives Conservative Christians a Boost

At Los Angeles Times:
Silicon Valley, the politically liberal technology hub, is an unlikely incubator of conservative Christian activism.

But a group of its venture capitalists is backing an ambitious project that seeks to affect the 2012 election by registering 5 million new conservative Christians to vote.

The nonprofit organization United in Purpose is using sophisticated data-mining techniques to compile a database of every unregistered born-again and evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic in the country.

Through partnerships with Christian organizers and antiabortion groups, United in Purpose hopes to recruit 100,000 "champions" to identify unregistered Christians and get them to the polls as part of its Champion the Vote project. Profiles drawn from its database, which numbers more than 120 million people, will enable organizers to target potential voters with emails and Web videos tailored to their interests.
Well, now's the time, if there ever was one. I'm still not holding my hopes out for any political breakthroughs in California, but this sounds nice.

Israel and Marriage Key Issues in New York Special Election

Two of my most important public policy issues.

From John McCormack, at Weekly Standard:
How did Republican Bob Turner pull off an 8-point win (54%-46%) in a district that gave Turner just 39% of the vote in 2010 and went 55% for Obama in 2008? Sure, it helped that the Democratic incumbent Anthony Weiner resigned in disgrace after he accidentally posted a lewd photo of himself, intended for a young woman, to his public Twitter account. But scandal alone wasn't enough to flip New York's 9th congressional district to Republicans. In early August a Siena poll showed Democrat David Weprin leading Turner 48% to 42%, but by late last week Siena showed Turner had pulled into the lead 50% to 44%.

o win in a Democratic district, Turner needed Democratic votes. The two issues that seem to have helped drive some of the district's traditionally Democratic voters to cast their ballots for Turner were Obama's Israel policy and Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Former Democratic New York City mayor Ed Koch endorsed Turner primarily to send a message to Obama on Israel. Democratic state senator Ruben Diaz backed Turner because of Weprin's vote on marriage. Democratic state assemblyman Dov Hikind says both issues, as well as dissatisfaction with Obama's failed economic policies, were "overriding" factors that led him to support Turner.

"This is an underlying issue that is extremely powerful issue," Hikind says of Weprin's vote for same-sex marriage. Weprin didn't merely vote for the bill. He got on the floor of the assembly and compared voting against same-sex marriage to "outlawing marriages between Jews and non-Jews or interracial marriages.”

"The fundamental message was 'I'm an orthodox Jew and gay marriage is perfectly fine,'" Hikind says of his Democratic colleague's speech. "To me, when he did that, he crossed every single line." Forty orthodox rabbis declared that orthodox Jews could not support Weprin.
Keep reading.

And yeah, he crossed every single line, ASFL.

Monday, September 12, 2011

Turning Conservative After September 11, 2001

I've mentioned it a few times in the past. It was actually the left's reaction to the Bush administration and the Iraq war that made me realize I was conservative. In fact, I realized it on the morning of March 19th, 2003, when I spoke at a campus panel on the war. I didn't feel at home. I was surrounded by bloodthirsty leftists, students and professors, who looked like they had vengeance in their eyes. I went home that night and had dinner with my family, and I remember President Bush coming on the air to announce that combat operations had begun in Iraq. My political beliefs have never been the same. I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I still thought the Democratic Party was the party of Truman and Kennedy. How naive I must have been. But my vision has become clearer every year since then.

Photobucket

The annual debate over the September 11th attacks always reminds me of my political transformation. By now it's safe to say that 9/11 and the Iraq war have merged in my consciousness, although it wasn't always so. It took me a couple of years to understand the partisan divide in America, that one side stands for old-time values, love of country, individualism and sacrifice. The other side stands for ideological intolerance, anti-Americanism, and appeasement toward the forces of evil in the world. It's a stark difference that took stark historical events to congeal for me personally.

I'm reminded of this by some of the comments at my post from yesterday, "Progressives Shame the Country on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11." I wrote at the conclusion there: "For many people like myself, that's why they became conservative." And my good friend Kenneth Davenport dropped by to comment, responding in particular to my conclusion:
I haven't thought about it in this way before, but I've certainly become more conservative in response to the painful nihilism that regularly comes from the left. I live in a different world than they do, and there really are no areas of common ground. That's the truth. They see America as a flawed nation which should apologize for itself at every turn and which deserved the attacks of 9/11. And I see America as the last best hope of earth, a place of unbounded fairness and generosity, forged in the belief that the individual -- and not government -- is sovereign. There is no reconciling these two different belief systems. So I don't try. Instead, I surround myself with good people who share my values and who give thanks every day that there are those who are willing to sacrifice everything for our survival as a nation.
That's so well-said, and reaffirming. And Ken's posted a photo-essay from yesterday as well, where he demonstrates his love of country and appreciation of sacrifice: "9/11 on the USS Midway."

Now remember that it was Paul Krugman who got me going yesterday, and it turns out Glenn Reynolds received a load of comments about that. See, "EVERYBODY’S ANGRY, to judge from my email, about Paul Krugman’s typo-burdened 9/11 screed":
Don’t be angry. Understand it for what it is, an admission of impotence from a sad and irrelevant little man. Things haven’t gone the way he wanted lately, his messiah has feet of clay — hell, forget the “feet” part, the clay goes at least waist-high — and it seems likely he’ll have even less reason to like the coming decade than the last, and he’ll certainly have even less influence than he’s had. Thus, he tries to piss all over the people he’s always hated and envied. No surprise there. But no importance, either. You’ll see more and worse from Krugman and his ilk as the left nationally undergoes the kind of crackup it’s already experiencing in Wisconsin. They thought Barack Obama was going to bring back the glory days of liberal hegemony in politics, but it turned out he was their Ghost Dance, their Bear Shirt, a mystically believed-in totem that lacked the power to reverse their onrushing decline, no matter what the shamans claimed.
I'm not angry, as much as continually shocked at the brazen progressive hatred. It forces me to look inward, to my values and beliefs, and to history and national purpose. But sticking with the theme here, recall the essay from Cinnamon Stillwell in 2005, "The Making of a 9/11 Republican":
I was raised in liberal Marin County, and my first name (which garners more comments than anything else) is a direct product of the hippie generation. Growing up, I bought into the prevailing liberal wisdom of my surroundings because I didn't know anything else. I wrote off all Republicans as ignorant, intolerant yahoos. It didn't matter that I knew none personally; it was simply de rigueur to look down on such people. The fact that I was being a bigot never occurred to me, because I was certain that I inhabited the moral high ground.

Having been indoctrinated in the postcolonialist, self-loathing school of multiculturalism, I thought America was the root of all evil in the world. Its democratic form of government and capitalist economic system was nothing more than a machine in which citizens were forced to be cogs. I put aside the nagging question of why so many people all over the world risk their lives to come to the United States. Freedom of speech, religious freedom, women's rights, gay rights (yes, even without same-sex marriage), social and economic mobility, relative racial harmony and democracy itself were all taken for granted in my narrow, insulated world view.

So, what happened to change all that? In a nutshell, 9/11. The terrorist attacks on this country were not only an act of war but also a crime against humanity. It seemed glaringly obvious to me at the time, and it still does today. But the reaction of my former comrades on the left bespoke a different perspective. The day after the attacks, I dragged myself into work, still in a state of shock, and the first thing I heard was one of my co-workers bellowing triumphantly, "Bush got his war!" There was little sympathy for the victims of this horrific attack, only an irrational hatred for their own country.

As I spent months grieving the losses, others around me wrapped themselves in the comfortable shell of cynicism and acted as if nothing had changed. I soon began to recognize in them an inability to view America or its people as victims, born of years of indoctrination in which we were always presented as the bad guys.

Never mind that every country in the world acts in its own self-interest, forms alliances with unsavory countries -- some of which change later -- and are forced to act militarily at times. America was singled out as the sole guilty party on the globe. I, on the other hand, for the first time in my life, had come to truly appreciate my country and all that it encompassed, as well as the bravery and sacrifices of those who fight to protect it.

Thoroughly disgusted by the behavior of those on the left, I began to look elsewhere for support. To my astonishment, I found that the only voices that seemed to me to be intellectually and morally honest were on the right. Suddenly, I was listening to conservative talk-show hosts on the radio and reading conservative columnists, and they were making sense. When I actually met conservatives, I discovered that they did not at all embody the stereotypes with which I'd been inculcated as a liberal.
PROTO CREDIT: "Faith, Freedom, and Memory: Report From Ground Zero, September 11, 2010."

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

The Myth of Conservative Purity

From Peter Berkowitz, at Wall Street Journal (and Google):
With the opening of the fall political season and tonight's Republican candidate debate, expect influential conservative voices to clamor for fellow conservatives to set aside half-measures, eschew conciliation, and adhere to conservative principle in its pristine purity. But what does fidelity to conservatism's core convictions mean?

Superstar radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has, with characteristic bravado, championed a take-no-prisoners approach. In late July, as the debt-ceiling debate built to its climax, he understandably exhorted House Speaker John Boehner to stand strong and rightly praised the tea party for "putting country before party." But then Mr. Limbaugh went further. "Winners do not compromise," he declared on air. "Winners do not compromise with themselves. The winners who do compromise are winners who still don't believe in themselves as winners, who still think of themselves as losers."

We saw the results of such thinking in November 2010, when Christine O'Donnell was defeated by Chris Coons in Delaware in the race for Vice President Joe Biden's vacated Senate seat. In Nevada Sharron Angle was defeated by Harry Reid, who was returned to Washington to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In both cases, the Republican senatorial candidate was a tea party favorite who lost a very winnable election.

The notion of conservative purity is a myth. The great mission of American conservatism—securing the conditions under which liberty flourishes—has always depended on the weaving together of imperfectly compatible principles and applying them to an evolving and elusive political landscape.

William F. Buckley Jr.'s 1955 Mission Statement announcing the launch of National Review welcomed traditionalists, libertarians and anticommunists. His enterprise provides a model of a big-tent conservatism supported by multiple and competing principles: limited government, free markets, traditional morality and strong national defense.
That's a long time ago. I don't know if we've got big tentyness these days. Besides, I have a hunch Republicans will may well nominate Romney. Perry's giving Romney a run for his money, and I'm not discounting Bachmann. But I'd be surprised if a purity candidate got the nod. That said, maybe purity is what the voters want, or at least in California? We'll know in due time.

RELATED: At LAT, "The real Ronald Reagan may not meet today's GOP standards."

Monday, September 5, 2011

Happy Labor Day to Opus #6!

That's my friend Opus #6 of MAinfo. We met at the Michele Bachmann rally at Knotts Berry Farm in early 2009. Opus left a wonderful comment at the blog yesterday, at my essay, "Housing Downsizing!":

This housing downsizing post has to be my favorite American Power post of all time. Probably because I downsized in June. And the kids and I, though a little cramped in our 3-br rented condo, are enjoying the community pool with lots of friends to play with, way less stress worrying about bills and repairs, and extra money in the checking account. I also loved seeing your mom. You and I are in the same generation and our parents are on the same track. She looks lovely. And a sweet nurturing woman is a blessing to any family.

I pray that you and your family enjoy the new digs. That you have many happy days in your new place, lots less stress and building character as your kids observe you handing the changing nature of our society and economy not with bitterness but with courage.
I responded at the post.

It means a lot. I've met many wonderful people through blogging. We share our lives online and we meet in person as well. Have a great Labor Day, Opus!

Friday, September 2, 2011

Sarah Palin to Blast Washington's 'Compromised Political Class' in Iowa This Weekend

See Robert Costa, at National Review, "Palin Will Blast ‘Compromised Political Class’ in Iowa."

For a long time I admired Sarah Palin's savvy instincts (and I still do), but I think she's waited too long to announce her intentions for the presidency. Apparently, she'll say in Iowa tomorrow that she's still undecided, and then she'll reprise her basic stump speech about how dumb are establishment politicians and how broken is establishment politics. I can't help thinking that Palin's moment has passed for this cycle, and that she'd be better off announcing definitively that she'll not be a candidate in 2012. For more on that see Doyle McManus, at LAT, "Palin the procrastinator," and Alex Parker, at U.S. News, "For 2012, Sarah Palin's Time May Have Run Out."



And check the video at Right Scoop, "Karl Rove: Palin is hurting herself. She needs to get in or get out."



BONUS: From Tony Katz, at Pajamas Media, "The Sarah Palin “Will She/Won’t She” Tour Begins."

Thursday, August 11, 2011

Bill Whittle in Newport Beach!

I have College Day at LBCC in the morning, so a big write up will have to wait. Note for now that the Newport Beach event was intimate and informative. Bill Whittle is a captivating speaker, very scholarly and counterintuitive on a number of points. And host Mike Munzing was welcoming and the guests energized and engaged. Great food too. More later!

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket



Conservative Happy Hour with Bill Whittle

Okay, I'm heading out to the Bill Whittle event, in Newport Beach.



I'm sure he'll have a bang up presentation, given all that's been in the news just this last week. And for questions and answers, I'll be interested to see if he has an emendation to his optimistic take on American exceptionalism, seen here, in part, at his outstanding video presentation: "Bill Whittle's Firewall: 'What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism."

And tune back in here later tonight for a report and more regular blogging!

Tania Gail Interviewed on 'The Snark Factor'

With Fingers Malloy, "Snark Factor 103 with Tania Gail."



Scroll forward at the audio embed to about 7 minutes, seriously.

Photobucket

Monday, August 8, 2011

Newsweek Publishes 'Queen of Rage' Hit-Piece Cover Shot of Michele Bachmann

Go check Michelle Malkin's report, "The Conservative Crazy Eyes Cliche & Other Stupid MSM Photo Tricks."

She's got a larger image of this wild --- and wildly inappropriate --- cover photograph of Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. The key passage:

Rep. Bachmann is unabashedly conservative, willing to take both parties’ leaders to task, passionate about her work, popular with grass-roots activists on the Right, committed to reining in the size, scope, and power of government, and yes, expressive. For all this, she must be destroyed.
Also:
Disseminating unflattering photos of conservatives isn’t journalism. It’s Alinskyite narrative-shaping.
This comes of course as Michele Bachmann has rocketed to frontrunner status in Iowa. See Rasmussen Reports, "Iowa Caucus: Bachmann, Romney and Paul on Top." The poll samples likely causcus participants and has a 4-point margin of error. It's looking good for Bachmann.



RELATED: At the Other McCain, "Liberal Head-Explosion Warning VIDEO: Michele Bachmann Testifies for Jesus."

Ross Douthat, Political Scientist

Douthat draws on political science research at New York Times, "Waiting For a Landslide." And for a second I thought he'd blow it, because "realignment theory," which he discusses, hasn't accurately explained, much less predicted, partisan trends for decades. But Douthat adds this, which is just right:

In reality, the next election may be no more transformative than 2008 turned out to be. The next Republican president may find himself as hemmed in and frustrated as President Obama has become. Meanwhile, America will still have a credit rating to fix, and a deficit to close.
More at that link at top, and Douthat had a great piece a few days ago on the debt deal, "The Liberals’ Dilemma." Note especially:
... American liberalism risks becoming a victim of its own longstanding strategy’s success. Because yesterday’s liberals insisted on making universal programs the costly core of the modern welfare state, on the famous theory that “programs for the poor become poor programs,” today’s liberals find themselves defending those universal (and therefore universally-popular) programs at the expense of every other kind of government spending — including, yes, programs for the poor. It’s a classic example of putting liberal political interests ahead of liberal policy priorities. In the short term, the insistence on ring-fencing Medicare and Social Security has left Democrats defending a system that often just ends up redistributing money from the younger middle class to the older middle class while accepting caps on programs that might do more (both directly and indirectly) to help downscale Americans get ahead. In the long term, by postponing any reckoning with the cost of entitlements, it’s making it more likely that the inevitable crunch will hit the poorest recipients of Medicare and Social Security harder than it should.
Read that whole thing. Basically, progressives will never cut entitlements because gargantuan socialist welfare states form the core of socialist existentialism.



Douthat's coming of his own as a New York Times columnist, by the way. He had cold feet or something after leaving The Atlantic, but he's been more consistent in posting some excellent commentary of late.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Republicans Seeking Election Remain Unsure About Embracing Tea Party

Well, perhaps I would too if half the political establishment had branded me a terrorist.

At New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The success of Tea Party-backed lawmakers in defining the terms of the debt debate in Washington has further cemented the party’s identity as part of a conservative movement insistent on deep spending cuts, lower taxes and smaller government.

But as Republican candidates gear up for 2012, many are struggling with whether to embrace those passions. Opposing the debt ceiling increase and linking arms with the Tea Party may help candidates tap into a reservoir of energy in their party’s electorate. But it also threatens to alienate the candidates from independent voters who grimaced at the bickering in Washington this summer and preferred greater compromise on issues like tax increases.

“The process didn’t please anyone,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster, “but it was very clear that the new congressmen elected in 2010 dramatically shifted the debate from how much more shall we spend to how much shall we cut.”

In the coming 2012 elections, the strategic calculation for Republican candidates weighing Tea Party ties “depends on the state, depends on the politician and it depends on the particular race,” Mr. Ayres said.
Sounds fair enough. And in states like California, 0bviously, a Republican's more likely to run as a moderate. And even then you can narrow it down to individual constituencies. At the national level, the piece discusses the presidential contenders, and quotes Michele Bachmann, who dissed the budget deal and asserts that President Obama has failed the test of leadership. Hey, sing it baby!

Monday, August 1, 2011

A Tea Party Triumph

This is why the New York Times editors are so pissed off.

At Wall Street Journal:
If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night's bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage.

***

The big picture is that the deal is a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996. Most bipartisan budget deals trade tax increases that are immediate for spending cuts that turn out to be fictional. This one includes no immediate tax increases, despite President Obama's demand as recently as last Monday. The immediate spending cuts are real, if smaller than we'd prefer, and the longer-term cuts could be real if Republicans hold Congress and continue to enforce the deal's spending caps.
I've been really thinking about that this last few days. So much of current political dealmaking in the end depends on who wins in November 2012 and beyond. Republicans positioned themselves well for the upcoming campaign, and with 1.3 percent GDP growth and unemployment sticky at 9.2 percent, there's lots of reason for the Times to be even more pissed. It's another case of projection, of course. Progressives are mad. So they lash out, despite their own home-grown failures. Keep an eye out this week for more heated rhetoric from the left. Republicans might stock up on some choice quotes to run later in political ads. Democrats are really sore at losing this round, all the more so since their strategy of do-nothing obstructionism turned out to be a disaster. And we've got a presidential election as on the ballot as well. Boy, things are shaping up very well for the reviled teabaggers conservatives.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Friday, July 29, 2011

Tea Party Terrorists?

The partisan rhetoric is already over the top, but slamming conservative Republicans as "terrorists" is beyond the pale. William Yeomans, at Politico, is not cool: "The tea party's terrorist tactics" (via Memeorandum).
It has become commonplace to call the tea party faction in the House “hostage takers.” But they have now become full-blown terrorists.

They have joined the villains of American history who have been sufficiently craven to inflict massive harm on innocent victims to achieve their political goals. A strong America has always stood firm in the face of terrorism. That tradition is in jeopardy, as Congress and President Barack careen toward an uncertain outcome in the tea party- manufactured debt crisis.
This guy is talking about the GOP's elected representatives in Congress, and this is after Anders Behring Breivik, a real terrorist, killed dozens in Norway. And this is also while Army Private Nasser Jason Abdo, and antiwar leftist, is being arraigned in Texas and could face federal terrorism charges. But Yoemans isn't the only one. Idiot Washington Monthly columnist Steve Benen is slamming GOP members as "the suicide squad", and Little Boy Ezra at Washington Post is bemoaning the GOP's aversion to compromise, saying this reflects badly on John Boehner.

It's to be expected, I guess. So, let's hear it from the other side, from Byron York, "In debt fight, Dems reject Republican compromise":
House Speaker John Boehner has introduced two bills that would raise the nation's debt ceiling and end the current default crisis. The first, known as "Cut, Cap and Balance," was tabled by Senate Democrats without an up-or-down vote. The second, Boehner's plan to cut more than $900 billion in federal spending and raise the debt ceiling by a slightly smaller amount, could face a similar fate if it first passes the House ...

While Obama preaches the virtues of compromise, his Democratic allies and surrogates are bashing Republicans for rejecting what the White House characterizes as earnest, good-faith efforts to find common ground. "I hope that Speaker Boehner and [Minority] Leader McConnell will reconsider their intransigence," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said a few days ago. "Their unwillingness to compromise is pushing us to the brink of a default." (At the same time, Reid has been issuing absolute, inflexible statements like, "I will not support any short-term agreement.")

But the fact is, the Republicans who admitted defeat on "Cut, Cap and Balance" showed a unmistakable willingness to compromise. "The president has asked us to compromise," House Minority Leader Eric Cantor said Thursday afternoon. "We have compromised."
RELATED: At New York Times, "House Passes Boehner’s New Debt Plan."