Tag: Republicans

Republican Anti Romneyism is Pathological not Ideological

“Yeah, I understand it. Everyone in the Republican establishment wants Romney and they’d like everyone else to go home,” Gingrich told ABC News’ Jon Karl in an interview Tuesday. “They’d like to have a coronation, but that’s not how this is done.”

There is weird thinking in the USA conservative movement that Governor Mitt Romney is not a true Conservative.  This kind of thinking betrays a pathological bias more than an ideological divide between Governor Mitt Romney and Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich.

The best way I can describe it is to make analogy with the Christian Church. Firstly, let me say clearly that this analogy is not anger toward  or indiscreet criticism of the Christian Church.  I love the Christian Church, warts and all.  However, the analogy of Christian and indeed, Jewish and Moslem denominationalism fits the current Republican scene.

Christians, including Mormon Christians, proclaim that Jesus is the Christ.  They adhere to the creedal formulations of the Church and they distinguish themselves from other faith religions.  However, within Christianity, there are various labels for various Christian Churches.  The two big ones are Roman Catholic and Orthodox.  Then there are the many so-called Protestant  groups, like Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist.

All of these groups aka. “denominations”, profess Jesus as the Christ, that God is Trinity in character, and that a person is granted eternal life through a relationship with God through Christ in faith.  That applies to 100% of the groups mentioned as being Christian.  So what’s the difference?  Why are there denominations?  An adequate answer to both questions would require a treatise.  However, a simplification would be to say that all the denominations are a result of social/economic/political and cultural differences between various people at the time of the inception of each denominational group.   Not much help in understanding the core basis of denominationalism, is it?  That’s because there is no simple answer, denominationalism is a phenomenon.

Today, the battle within the Republican party is between the so-called Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals.  They are all part of the established Republican party which party is the only Republican party there is and the only one entitled to be listed on the ballot in fifty States as Republican!  Like all the groups within Christianity are Christians, so all the groups within the Republican party are Republican.  The names they call themselves, their denominators, are self-imposed qualifiers.  Over time, these qualifiers have become nuanced so that a Conservative in 2012 is not the same as a Conservative of 1912.

It is this writer’s opinion that in other elections the nuances between the groups and even within the groups were allowed to blend.  This blending producted hybrids known as Moderate Liberals and Moderate Conservatives.  The adjective “moderate” allowed Republicans the flexibility to pull the right and the left toward the center of the Republican spectrum.  However, the advent of Talk Show radio has introduced an element of rigidity into the party which denies that such moderation is allowed.  Rather, Talk Show hosts insist upon a definition of Conservative which precludes the hybrid, Moderate-Conservative designator.  And in the present context, Governor Mitt Romney is seen to be a hybrid and not purely Conservative.

From my seat along the sidelines of politics, it seems that Liberals and Moderates are still willing to allow flexible definitions of a person’s political philosophy.  So, they allow that a person can be strictly Conservative in economic politics while being moderately Conservative in social politics and maybe, conservatively liberal regarding international politics.  It is possible, there may be many so-called “pure” Conservatives who also will allow flexibility regarding Governor Romney because they feel that he has the best chance of winning against President Obama.  Sadly, it is becoming evident that Talk Show hosts like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, (to name the best, biggest and most influential) are fundamentally opposed to any graduated designator.

In the title to this article I use the concept that this refusal to allow moderation of so-called “pure” Conservatism is pathological rather than ideological.  I believe that an ideological difference can become nuanced when influenced by reasoned conversation.  However, both Santorum and Gingrich and their promoters say that they are essentially anti Romney.  Since they denominate themselves as the true Conservative in distinction to Romney’s Moderate Conservatism, then, I believe, their opposition to him is unreasoned, ingrained, emotional and I suggest, pathological.

Governor Christie Survives Navy SEAL Attack

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/governor-chris-christie-idiot-student-damn-man-m-221915452.html

Governor Christie was attacked yesterday during a question and answer period at Rutgers University.  The attacker was a former US Navy “SEAL”.

Firstly, we note that Governor Christie is the elected Representative of the citizens of New Jersey.  Secondly, we note that he is at a public forum in order to appear in person to those citizens.  Thirdly, we note that governor Christie was ambushed by the Rutgers student.  The student did not have a gun but he did have a weapon, his mouth.  He did not have an intention to physically harm the governor, but he did have the intention to inflict harm upon the Governor.  His intention was to cause a shouting match in a public place between himself and the Governor of New Jersey.  His attempt to ambush Governor Christie was successful, although the Governor  survived.

Several items stand out.  The person shouting at the forum was a former US Navy SEAL.  Well, this writer served in the US Army for thirty years and I can state without any doubt that US Navy SEALS are trained to say yes SIR and no SIR or (Mad’m) as the case may be.  Not to amend all statements in such fashion is punishable as disrespect to an officer of the Navy.  So, we know straight away, that the student is acting intentionally and not from emotions, (he’s a SEAL!) and not from ignorance.  Sad that a former US Navy SEAL should think so little of the Navy that he would cause it to be embarrassed by his public conduct.

Next, we note that the person shouting over the Governor of NJ is a person who is probably on monetary support from the US Federal government through the Montgomery GI Bill, the Reserve Assistance Educational Program, (REAP) or the Post 9/11 education bill.  He is attending a NJ State sponsored school, so he is already getting lower tuition and fees because taxes levied on NJ property owners are used to subsidize students like him.  And if there are any other scholarship monies for the former US Navy SEAL then he is getting everything for free.  It is obvious from Governor Christie’s response that the Governor was exasperated with the student and was reminding him, politely, like a  good father to an unruly child, of the aforementioned facts.

Lastly, we note that the student is identified as a Democrat and active in Democrat political activities on campus.  This last factor plays well into my suspicion that this entire episode was a pre meditated political attack using ambush as the method.  Let me be quick to add that I realize that this analogy can be carried too far.  And this writer realizes that heckling is a recognized, although unworthy, political tool, (yes, I know that the Democrats also get this treatment.)  Governor Christie recognized the situation, addressed the immediate threat to his presentation, while expressing frustration concerning the non civil nature of the interchange.   A frustration which President Obama has repeatedly lamented from the stage, after which lamentation, he launches into withering political name calling, and accusations against the Congress blaming them for all the ills that plague the Nation.

One last point here.  It is coincidental that this student ambushes a Republican Governor.  We have witnessed similar ambushes by college student activists against both Democrats and Republicans.  So, the question begs to be asked about student political activism on USA campuses.

This writer applauds Governor Christie and for those who think that the statement, “..look I’m the Governor…” is petty or betrays hubris or its reverse, well, it doesn’t.  How can I say that? Simple, you say it does and I say it does not.

Obama goes Backwards

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-america-coming-back-012139891.html

The sad part of this article is President Obama himself.  He had the chance for greatness when he became President. Instead he did not trust the American people. He apologized for us before the international community which effectively renounced our efforts in WWI and WW II and under the Marshall Plan, and during the Cold War and even during Kennedy’s confrontation with the Soviet Union in Cuba.

Almost at the same time, he instigated the so-called “Arab Spring” by his inaugural speeches in North Africa and his support of CIA supported insurgencies in the countries of our ally Egypt and in Libya, a country to which we had made expansive national promises; which promises Obama quickly and brutally denied. The result was the disgraceful NATO invasion and decimation of the sovereign State of Libya under a bogus “protect the civilians” United Nations resolution 1973.  A nasty business deal between Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama which ended with the brutal, illegal and ugly murder of the legal Leader of the Revolution, Moamar Gaddafi.  Essentially, it is the same regicide that occurred under Kennedy against Diem in Vietnam.  And very sadly, regicide is a heinous crime that never leaves its perpetrators unaccountable.  As I have stated in previous articles, I believe that the NATO actions against Libya are criminal aggression, and crimes against humanity.  We should not yawn and go on our way but we should, like we did with Milosevic, require accountability from Sarkozy, Cameron, Obama and Rasmussen.

I stated at the beginning that the sad part of this article is Obama, himself.  Why?  Because, of instead of holding forth his positions in terms of health care, (really all he has) maybe even his withdrawal of troops from Iraq as instigated by President Bush, he instead attempts to blame everything, (except maybe the weather!) on his predecessor, President Bush.

Essentially, this seemingly benign speech is an indictment of the citizens of the USA.  Ultimately, it is they who are President Obama’s target and ultimately, he is blaming them.  Why?  Because in free and fair elections the people elected President Bush and the Democrat Congress and ultimately they are themselves to blame for the results.  It is remarkable that his hearers do not realize that whenever President Obama blames President Bush, he is actually blaming the people who are listening to him.

I am reminded, and I tremble to make this association, but it must be done.  I am reminded of Adolf Hitler, who at the end of his brutal and genocidal regime blamed the German people for everything that happened.  It was because they were not worthy of him.

Amazing but true. He and his generals held onto this absurdity until Hitler committed suicide in the underground bunker, rather than face the fact of a ravaged and destroyed Germany.

And before everybody goes crazy and accuses me of saying that President Obama is Hitler.  That is absolutely not true. And if the President were to ask me to the White House, I would dress in a suit and tie and call him Sir and feel very privileged that the elected President of the USA had allowed me to meet him.  None the less, the analogy stands.

So where is all of this going?  Essentially, I am a Bush and Romney man.  However, I think that President Obama has missed his “greatness” moments and the cited article reinforces the notion that he intends to run his 2012 campaign against President George W. Bush instead of against Governor George Romney.

Sad. Really!  Because, although not a Obama man, I feel that he had and perhaps still has, enormous potential for greatness.  Why do I care?  I love the USA.  Obama is the President of the USA and may be again.  Because he does not fully understand the greatness to which we the people have elected him, substituting instead accusations against us, and therefore against himself, he fails.  And his failure hurts us.  Why?  Because we need his greatness.  And his refusal to be great on our terms, deciding instead to lower himself to Democrat versus Republican partisan bickering, he has refused the greatness which may have been his destiny and was certainly the electorates intention.

Presidemt Obama needs to retire.  But he will not, And like all men who have missed their moment of greatness, he will bicker and recriminate and we will all suffer. Better to leave and build a library to your ideas.  That is the more noble path, Sir.

 

Conservatives will Hand the 2012 Election to Obama

The Conservative movement is looking for a Messiah.  This person must be 100 % conservative and he/she must please the following people completely: Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and the staff at Newsmax.  Plus this conservative Messiah needs to have been pure and wholly conservative from conception.  There is no room today for a person to move toward Conservative from a more liberal position.  All such persons are immediately suspect and to be opposed by every true Conservative.

Such a Conservative Messiah will be a perfect combination of Rubio, Gingrich,Santorum,Perry,Daniels, and sadly, a plethora of “other than Romney” types.  It is incredible that such intelligent people cannot see through the fog of their mythical dreams and wishful thinking.   Rather, they persist in fighting forcefully against a Romney victory, albeit, professing otherwise.  Steve Hayes on Fox News panel even went so far as to suggest that if this Conservative Messiah is not found in time that Conservatives may just stay home and not even vote.  Such a suggestion that Conservatives may stay home and pout instead of engaging in the public election is evidence of a sadly myopic concept of Conservatism.

The above comments are the way I am seeing it these days, whether it is Steve Hayes on Fox News panel, or any other self-proclaimed conservative blue blood who is speaking.  All are convinced that somewhere there is a Conservative Messiah who will magically appear and save the Republican party from Governor Mitt Romney.

The Conservative movement within the Republican party, and the populist movement called the Tea party, will sink the Republican party before it gets to the election.  Why?  Because the rhetoric of the Conservatives is divisive of Republican party unity and no last moment rally to the flag will undo the months of consistent and persistent Conservative punditry against Romney.  Indeed, it seems from my side line view that Romney’s success is itself enough to turn the Conservative radio commentators into frontrunners for Obama.

Granted, a writer must take the speck out of his own eye before he attempts to take the log out of his neighbors eye, and it is that spirit that I offer this personal viewpoint.

The National Reviewers are not Intellectual Giants Just Opinionated People

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs  I just went back to this article and read the comments of the people who cared to comment.  I didn’t comment and do not have a subscription but I suggest that my readers go there, read this prejudiced article, and read the equally petty and unreasonable comments and it testifies to my premise that this is definitely not a magazine of intellectual greatness.

The New Republic is Disappointing

http://www.tnr.com/article/101532/home-news-letter-tnr-readers-chris-hughes  Very nice letter about high ideas, and higher ideals, and the rule of civility and the need for in-depth journalism and the like.  Sadly, I then looked at the article about “Where are the Democrat Rush Limbaughs” http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/101434/what-about-the-democrats-rush-limbaughs and immediately the phony claims of TNR were uncovered as the author excused all the Democrat people he listed, all of them saying much more offensive things than Limbaugh. The claim the TNR uses in his article is phony because the author uses a flimsy excuse that all  his cited Democrats were essentially “good” people who said very nasty things to people but the cited Democrats were not haters.  Moreover, the author makes the patently invalid claim that Rush Limbaugh and his followers are an army of hate mongers who are so filled with vitriolic hatred that they attack poor innocent and defenseless private citizen Fluke.  Then I looked at the Democrat ads, and the overwhelmingly favorable pro Democrat content.  My conclusion, TNR is just an old paper publication proclaiming the pro Democrat, so-called Progressive and so-called Liberal agenda which is pilloried by the Conservatives.  Its scholarship is not better, its investigative reporting is not better, its in-depth pro and con analysis of issues facing the national society is not better, and its prejudices and stereotypical name calling are disappointing.  When I read the letter of the new owner and I read the letter of the founders, I had hope that finally there would actually be a publication able to have an intellectual discussion according to the rules of civil discourse.  Sadly, TNR is not this.  All the writers should read The Rev. Father (deceased) Richard John Neuhaus, The Naked Public Square.  Maybe, if TNR could be renewed in that image, then it might be worth reading.  Until then, I will continue to keep searching for the real thing.

Are Gay Couples the Same as Hetero

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/9131683/Gay-actor-and-City-high-flier-fight-over-separation-payout.html  This is a very interesting article out of United Kingdom (UK) about what happens when gay couples get divorced.  It neatly presents a unique perspective that is one being debated in USA. Namely, are gay couples who get married the same as heterosexual couples who get married? Read the interesting arguments of both parties to this divorce suit.  It is very informative to the continuing argument going on here in USA.

Advertisers Fail Their True Buyers Except Quicken Loans

Some companies indicate they’ll be sticking with Rush, though. “While we do not condone or agree with Limbaugh’s statements regarding Sandra Fluke, we respect his right to express his views, as well as those who disagree with him,” Quicken Loans spokeswoman Paula Silver said in an emailed statement. “As an advertiser, our goal is to reach a broad audience, which we accomplish by placing ads on a number of programs across the country representing diverse views.”

Congratulations to a true freedom loving, constitution respecting, American company and to spokes person Paula Silver for clearly stating what should be obvious to all namely “….we respect his right to express his views as well as those who disagree with him…As an Advertiser (see above)..”

Who are the callers to sleep Eze and the other advertisers who stopped advertisements or affiliation with the hugely popular Rush Limbaugh show.  I very much doubt they are regular listeners to his three-hour program.  I suggest instead that these are what are known today as “political drones” who are paid to complain or if not actually paid, they are people who sit before their computer screen eight or more hours a day in order to attack their political, social, or religious opponents.”

The existence of these kind of chronic E mail hacks, is known by just about everybody, except those advertisers who do not have the native intelligence nor the Internet savvy to understand that the so-called “firestorm” of protest about the Limbaugh comments was generated by people who never listen to his program and therefore would not buy their products anyway.  The mere fact that the news reports indicate that all Limbaugh advertisers received the same deluge of E mail complaints and telephone protests tells us that this was merely a coordinated sociopolitical motivated attempt at intimidation.  That even the Speaker of the House of Representative Mr. Boehner was subjected to this obviously organized barrage and that he responded to it tells this writer that the so-called outrage is phony.  Also the idea that President Barrack Hussein Obama called her to thank her for standing up for women’s rights is a clear indication that this supposed spontaneous public outcry is a sham.

Why do I care?  Actually, I do not know this woman.  I do not care what she does with her life.  I do not care if this makes her famous, like Joe the Plumber or not.  However, I do care that major USA corporations are so ill-informed concerning the American principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and yes, freedom to have sex or not to have sex, that they easily fall victim and become accomplices to those who would change our social/religious/political values by Internet intimidation.  That is worrisome.

Southern Baptist Leader Right About No Religion Test for President

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/romney-mormonism-christianity-santorum/2012/02/29/id/431034?s=al&promo_code=E4CC-1

I found this article distressing and I disagree with the analysis that Mormon Christianity is not Christianity at all.  And I disagree with the idea that the book of Mormon is the same as the Quran.  However, I do agree that there is not a “religion” test for the Presidency of the USA.  In fact a Hindu, Confucian, Shinto, Moslem, or “no religion at all” person could become President under the Constitution.  The key word in the above sentence is “Constitution”.  The USA is a constitutional Republic and not a Christian State.  Essentially, the USA is a secular government under the prescription that it must respect the freedom of religion opinions of its citizens.  There is also the proscription that the government cannot impose itself upon, regulate, or attempt to destroy the practice of religions by its citizens.

That being affirmed, the opinions of the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention are really the affairs of that denomination of Christianity.  His viewpoint is allowed in USA.  He is even allowed to make it public and to defend his position.  That is our right under the first amendment regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  Unlike, the grossly stated falsehood that the Constitution protects the government from the influences of religiously informed opinions, the Bill of rights, which is the first ten amendments to the Constitution, protects people of religion from the power of the government and the prejudices of people opposed to religion.  That is to say, that you are not required to agree with my religion nor my opinions as informed by my religion but the law guarantees me the liberty to hold and express such opinions.  And while IRS regulations threaten to revoke a congregations 501.3C status if the leaders use the pulpit to preach for or against any political candidate, that is merely an IRS regulation and does not forbid preachers of any type from preaching politically motivated sermons.  Admittedly, sermons such as those of Jeremiah Wright, Senator Obama’s Christian Pastor, in which he damned America and not blessed America, are repugnant to and repudiated by the 99.9 % of Christians, nonetheless, he is allowed to preach that.  (Please, note that no one needs to listen to his rants, and that a Senator of the USA should belong to Rev. Wright’s congregation for ten or more years, is disturbing but not illegal.)

Finally, to the doctrinal theology that informs the SBC speaker.  It is a judgement made because Mormonism supplements the 66 books of the historic Christian Bible with the book of Mormon.  Some Christians regard this as an addition to the Holy Scriptures and therefore as antithetical to Christian teaching that the only authoritative scripture is the 66 book Bible.  In this regard, some Christians would claim that Roman Catholic Christianity is also not true Christianity because they include the Apocryphal books to their publication of the Bible.  And even though Roman Catholic Christians are informed that the Apocryphal books are not regarded as Holy Scripture, nonetheless, their detractors say that publishing them inside of the covers of a Bible is itself condemnatory.

Friends, these are matters of internal Christian denominational belief and although we can go on, this writer will again state, as he has repeatedly, that Mormonism is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and that its doctrines regarding the essentials of the Christian faith make it another, albeit disputed, Christian denomination.