Skip to main content

Bump & Rain - Who's Right - Mox Nix

.
HISTORY AND POLITICS have become my favorite sports but, unfortunately, both tend to drive me up the wall once in a while. When I take the time to think about why, I end up reflecting on the following: There's no good reason I am registered as a Republican. My father was - and I suppose I just followed his example. Over the many years since I signed on,  I've been upset with people in both political parties more or less equally.  Dad's only advice on the subject was to vote for honest men. Perhaps he wasn't just a rubber stamp Rebulican.

The first politician I was aware of was F.D.R., a very liberal Democrat who took office in the midst of a depression, at a time of conflict that was soon to become a war, and he was a man who really believed a bigger government could do more for America.  My father didn't agree with F.D.R.'s steam roller politics - but his complaints stopped the day we declared war. 

Recently I was comparing those thoughts to politics today. Mr. Obama walked into several similar situations. I don't agree with Mr. Obama's idea that America can spend it's way out of the current recession, nor his efforts to socialize our government, nor his indefinite leadership of the war in the middle east.  Should I overlook my complaints because America is at war? I have thought long and hard about this, and concluded that I should follow my instincts regardless.

President Obama is no more of a liberal Democrat than F.D.R. was. The issues are no more difficult or controversial, and America is at war (again) - but the reasons for this conflict are not clear.  When the Bush Administration was provoked into a pre-emptive war with Iraq, the action was very controversial. When no 'weapons of mass destruction' were found, it became even more so, then as the war dragged on, the constant criticism turned public opinion. Our military efforts in Iraq began losng support.  

This was the situation when Mr. Obama took office.  He assumed leadership of an unpopular war, the Islamic terrorists were gaining strength, the American economy was in the midst of a serious recession, and the narrow victory of his election did not give him the mandate for change that he needed to create a dynamic Presidency.

One by one his actions were considered wrong or ineffective. Within his first year in office the voting public realized that they had unleashed an Obama revolution they didn't want and would no longer support. 

The unintended and unwanted consequence of Mr. Obama's election has been has been the trashing of America's historic traditions, the destruction of free market capitalism, and a perceived lack of military leadership.

President Obama is taking a lot of flak. Is it justified? After serious thought I have to admit that it is not.  He is a fairly typical product of an Ivy League Liberal Arts education, who learned Chicago style politics at the grass roots level. He acquired his administrative skills as a community organizer, and had only a short exposure to national politics as a Senator. His pre-election speeches described what he would do as President. The voters were fully informed on his solutions for the issues. They got exactly what they voted for.

The way I see it Mr. Obama was elected by MODERATE liberal and ULTRA liberal Democrats. After his first year in office he has lost the moderate liberals, and the support of the ultra liberal Democrats is not enough to advance his agenda. Instead, he faces increasing resistance to most of his ultra liberal proposals.

My take on the political scene is more or less the Conservative view. Several of the liberals I know, both Republican and Democrat,  have turned luke warm with their Obama support. His only real strength now is from the ultra liberal Democrats. To me, this is extremely interesting. I do not understand the ultra liberal view - and those I know as friends and acquaintences are intelligent, well  informed, and universally terrific people that I highly respect. People like Dr. Ken Bell, George Elsey,  and Betty (Rain) for example.  I thoroughly enjoy a political debate with these friends.

(1) Is it important for average citizens like myself and my friends to debate the merits of political issues? I think it is.

(2) Do such debates separate friends? I don't think they so . . . if the debaters remember to be civil and to make an  honest attempt to understand the opposition.

(3) Do such spirited but freindly political debates add to the knowledge of each side? I think that is exactly what happens.

(4) Finally, do such debates ever change the opinions of the other side? I would think only rarely, but I do believe they add to a person's understanding.

Dixon

Comments

Ingineer66 said…
Interesting. I have wondered why I lean conservative and somebody else does not. My parents were registered Democrats, but voted mostly conservative. That was the way it was in far northern California for a long time. We had like 70% registered Democrats but our Assemblymen and State Senators were Republicans. My father was a Democrat because JFK was the first President he voted for. I imagine I started out as a Republican because Reagan was running for his 2nd term when I turned 18 and voted for the first time.

I do not take politics personal. Sometimes Rain or other Liberal friends and relatives say things that irritate me, but I know they are true Americans and good people. And sometimes I say things just to irritate Liberals, I don't want to hurt anybody, maybe just raise their blood pressure a little. :-)
Kay Dennison said…
In answer to your statements above:

1. For me, it's very important.

2. If debates on politics ruin a friendship, it wasb't very strong. I dated a Conservative Republican for two years and it didn't affect our relationship until he started calling me stupio if I disagreed with him.

3. Yes, they do if one is talking with open-minded people. I won't listen to someone who won't hear my arguments.

4. I think they can if people are willing to listen and think outside the box. I've raised a lot of consciences among folks here to support Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. He is a REAL Republican -- not a Neocon.
Greybeard said…
Neocon is code for Jew who has turned conservative from liberal, Kay, and is offensive to many. Sensitive people don't use the term.
(Take a look at Wikipedia.)
Kay Dennison said…
Thanks for your note! I own all of Ron Paul's books. He's an interesting man. And Greybeard: I never heard definition that in 6 years of dating a diehard (to a fault) Republican.
Kay Dennison said…
And on this topic, I would never call Rain a liberal. She and I have talked for hours (she's one of my best blogging friends.) about various issues and have never considered her a liberal. She has too much sense to buy into anything any politician of any stripe says totally.
Greybeard said…
"Q: Is it automatically anti-Semitic to single out neocons as being the planners and instigators of the war in Iraq?

Rich Lowry: No. No. It would be false. It wouldn't necessarily be anti-Semitic. It would be accurate to say that some of the most articulate and powerful expressions of the case for war have come from people who are neoconservatives. So that's not anti-Semitic. But if you take a couple of steps beyond that, you begin to get into territory that is a little shady, I would think."

Kay, if you're interested you can read the rest here.

And I am absolutely boggled by your "I would never call Rain a liberal" comment!
Wow.
Kay . . Thanks for your comments. I have learned a lot from Rain over the past few months and you are right when you say she brings intelligence and common sense to the table. Sadly, she also has something of a mindset that the Bush-Cheney administration is to blame for just about every problem you can think of. It's just not true - and the clarity of her thoughts will continue to be bent until she finally realizes it.

Yes, some of the past mistakes must be corrected and there are plenty that were contributed by the Bush-Cheney crowd - yesterday. All of us including Mr. Obama have to work on those and also move on to todays developments. Mr. Obama is first and foremost a politician. He can be expected to compromise and bargain his decisions just like the rest of them. Whether Rain appreciates it or not, he is an ULTRA LIBERAL DEMOCRAT PARTY POLITICIAN. His agenda is to spend money, grow government size, steer away from free market solutions, reduce individual freedoms enjoyed by Americans, and increase government intervention in our lives.

Rain is disappointed that single payer health care that Obama originally proposed - has apparently been traded away in order to get some sort of legislation passed. His promise to have a transparent process was never even attempted. The legislation, all 3,000 pages of it, are just now, FINALLY, being read by at least a few of the people that have to vote on it. Despite finally getting a picture of the details, there seems to be no one who can explain it very well - including Mr. Obama.

Rain manages to blame all of this complicated legislation and the turmoil surrounding it on Bush-Cheney. Or the righties who always say no.

I don't think that's a fair complaint.

It's President Obama's show now.

Anyway, Happy New Year!

Dixon
Rita said…
Dixon: I cannot tell you how sometimes some of your commenters make me laugh out loud at their claims. And GB knows I'm not talking about him.

On a side note, I was completely surprised by tonight's press conference. I waited for the "it's Bush's fault there was a Yemen terrorist". I'm sure the liberal bloggers are still blaming him, but at least this ONE time, O and his crew didn't manage to slip in a slam on Bush or Cheney.

Popular posts from this blog

Intellectual / Incompetent / Liberal

We all know that there are serious problems with ou American political system. The federal government and national media have been telling us that we continue to lead the world in just about everything. Unfortunately, we do not. Measuring our status against other nations is difficult as it entails comparison of different attributes and characteristics. Comparisons are, at best, crude.  Surely, if we look, it's clear that America is no longer dominant among the world's communities. 


For decades following the 1929 economic depression, America has enriched foreign industries at the expense of our own. We have subsidized foreign military powers while allowing the depletion of our own. We've defended other nations borders while, at the same time, not defended our own. We've spent trillions of dollars to subsidize unworthy governments, and let our own infrastructure to fall into disrepair. 

The use of our economic power as a diplomatic tool may have been the correct thing to d…

Cruel and Thoughtless . . .

A disheartening situation has hit our family. A cousin, one that we don't know very well, has reached 93 years of age. Most of the Chapman family made it to the mid 80's, but Mary Lou Chapman has managed a few years more. And, she's not gone yet. Mary was unmarried her entire life. She grew up in a good home, was well educated, has always hd a good job, and has enjoyed pretty good health - until just a few years ago. While she is still very much alive, I sometimes speak in the past tense as if she had already died. Mary is either confused or in her own little world now. She began losing some of her sparkle a few years ago. At first it was mild memory loss, and then mild hearing loss, and then drifting in her speech as she lost track of what she wanted to say. Her Doctor said it was a mild dementia coming on with old age, and nothing to worry about yet. A few month's passed by before she began to have problems driving herself to the market and appointments and so forth,…

Mark Turner - Another Look

MARK TURNER.  I'm an interested ex-corporate exec., now retired, and have little to contribute to this. Perhaps you can help? At first I thought Mark's story was so complicated it couldn't be true. I discovered later that  Mark's business may indeed have  generated as much money as he said it did. His story is long and complicated, but regardless of his guilt or innocence, there is definitely  something wrong with the legal process he encountered. Maggie Thornton says his business dealings were honest. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but she may be right.  There is no question that he was improperly sentenced in one court, and deserves an appeal process in another. 


I have received several comments from a blogger named "Anonymous". He (or she) has chosen to remain unknown but clearly has an inside track to information about Mark's problems. I have removed my original speculations from this blog and regret there were so many errors. Sorry folks, my fault…