Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Posts tagged ‘debate’

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.

Resenting Paul Ryan

I’ve been feeling pretty old lately.  Whiny and narcissistic maybe, but old just the same.  My body has taken a pretty bad beating over the years, but I am still young enough to remember how it felt off the showroom floor.  I’m going back to college late in life, and most of the people there are much younger than I am.

I feel old.

Paul Ryan has been confirmed as Mitt Romney’s Vice Presidential pick this morning, and everyone is talking about how young and energetic he is.

Could he be TOO young, they wonder..?

At 42, Paul Ryan is slightly older than I am.

Yeah…  I’m hating THAT guy..!

Wisconsin Representative and Vice Presidential Nominee Paul Ryan

But all jokes aside, everyone is wondering this morning how this will affect the Romney campaign, and the pundit in me is no different.

Politically, this is easy.  Ryan is a heavy-hitter in the House of Representatives.  So influential, in fact, that many pundits like me wondered aloud over the last few weeks if it would be detrimental to the party as a whole to take him away from that position.

Looking back, that was perhaps a foolish argument.  The House is in no real danger of falling to the Democrats, even if Ryan’s Wisconsin seat is lost to them, which is by no means a fait accompli.  Ryan would still be in a position to hold great influence in the House, while at the same time he would become President of the Senate, even if the position exists historically as a tie-breaker.

A policy wonk like Ryan would utilize the Vice Presidency like none before him.

This move also sets up the Romney campaign in a positive way.  It allows them to hit Obama/Biden on a policy level with a great deal of credibility; something they have otherwise failed to accomplish.  Obama won’t want to go toe-to-toe with Ryan in a policy debate, and he sure isn’t going to want Joe Biden to do it!

Expect Obama’s campaign to go even more negative, which leads me to my only real concern about Ryan’s VP nod:

Ryan has already been demonized in the media.  They REALLY don’t like him.  I suspect that they will resent the fact that they can not call him stupid, as they have with pretty much every Republican in my lifetime, including Ronald Reagan.  But they have already had some success at portraying Ryan as a heartless Republican throwing Grandma down the stairs.

I have to wonder, with Romney’s negatives at this point, if another guy with similar issues was the way to go.  I hate to bring race into it, but we all know that the Democrats will, so…  Now we have two “rich white guys who hate minorities and want to take the goodie bags away from those poor people Obama shelters with such loving care”.

That makes me a bit antsy.  It also makes me nauseous just having typed it.

The media won’t have a choice but to talk about how serious a choice this is, and that will give off a lot of credibility going in, but how long will it take before they flip the switch and go full negative..?

We have to be ready for that.

 

EDIT:  Ryan himself is already proving that he will indeed be ready!  What a great choice for VP!  The rest of us need to be ready, too!  I couldn’t be more excited…

Tax Cut War Goes Beyond Obama’s Rhetoric

Friends, I am very tired.

Tired in the sense that I am sick of liberal crap enough to want to strangle every single last one of them.

President Bush signed tax cuts in 2001 and 2003

What set me over the edge (this time)?  Believe it or not, it is the subject of the “Bush Tax Cuts”.  I weary of this battle, which is perhaps exactly the way liberals want us all to feel.  But I am not weary in the sense that they had probably hoped.

Every year or two, we are drawn back into the same old debate that should have been settled nearly a decade ago.  It isn’t the debate itself that irritates me so much as the reason for having it.  I also grate at the so-called mainstream media, who portray the issue as “tax cuts for the rich” every year, instead of what it truly is; liberal Democrats pushing for tax hikes on a full-time basis.  What further annoys me is the new liberal strategy of declaring that we should all join together to pass the parts upon which we agree, and fight over our differences later.  Like every liberal position and talking point, it sounds great on a superficial level, but in translation it amounts to “give us everything we want and we’ll just sit back and ignore you later”.

The problem is this:  Every since the original legislation was passed, Democrats who vote for–or refrain from blocking a vote on–the bill will do so only on the condition that it never becomes permanent.  Their reason for doing this is far more maddening.  It isn’t because they truly believe that the legislation is bad, or they would never have voted for it in the first place.  The real reason is that liberals and their media lap-dogs believe that they have discovered a shiny, brand new way to deceive the American public.

Throughout their entire history, the Democrats have had the desire to raise taxes and expand government.  Thus, the term “tax and spend” has haunted them, especially during election years.  Unfortunately, early in George W. Bush’s first term, the Democrats found a way to remove that stigma from themselves, and the Republicans unwittingly abetted them.

Conservatives can make the argument every time that we are not actually debating tax cuts, and the failure to extend the Bush legislation would actually amount to a massive tax increase.  However, I fear that this argument is largely lost on the American public, who are more likely to see the battle every year as one being fought over tax cuts, like the media constantly tells them.

Now every year, instead of Democrats being correctly pilloried for their constant desire to increase taxes, they are free to portray themselves as champions of the poor and the middle class, while demonizing conservatives as being beholden to those evil rich.  It a cynical ploy on the instinctive human nature, to which all of us are susceptible, for people to envy those more successful than themselves;  Class warfare.

So, what do we do about it?

There are only three paths:

1.  Make the original legislation permanent

2.  Allow the tax cuts to expire completely

3.  Give the Democrats what they claim to want

The second one is off the table entirely.  It would be a public relations disaster for Republicans, but it would also be a disaster for the American public, which is far more important.  Still, the political implications are sad, because if it had been left to Democrats, none of these cuts would ever have existed, and it is only because of the Democrats that the legislation is at risk of expiring.  But the Republicans would be the ones blamed if such a thing were actually to come to pass.

The third option is off the table largely for the same reasons as the second.  While the Republicans are far less likely to face negative political consequences in this scenario, the damage to the American economy would still be devastating.  Even the most squishy Republicans would not allow this to happen, and, oddly enough, they would likely be joined by at least a few Democrats to prevent it, despite the rhetoric coming from the DNC and President Obama.

That leaves only the first option, but how do we make it happen?

I could do with seeing less of this guy.

Well, that’s the real trick, isn’t it?  Obviously, it could never happen with Obama in the White House, and so he must go.  It also could never happen with Harry Reid leading the Senate, and so conservatives must turn out in record numbers this year to take the Senate back from the Democrats.  Large as they may seem, these are not the biggest obstacles to the goal of making permanent the Bush legislation.

Even if we take back the Senate, we will almost certainly not be able to obtain a 60-vote majority.  Unfortunately, the Democrats that would be likely to join us in avoiding a massive tax hike on those evil rich people who run small businesses across the country would be just as likely to balk at the notion of making things permanent.  They’re not likely to easily let go of their pretty new political toy.  They would try to block any effort to take their toy away from them, even to the point of filibuster.

In order to get this done, we must make the notion of temporary extensions politically toxic in such a way as to prevent liberals from blocking a vote to make this legislation permanent.  That isn’t going to be easy, but I believe that it can be done.

We all know President Obama is only bringing up the matter of taxes to avoid having to address his horrible performance on the economy.  It’s just his latest in a long line of distractions.  The issue isn’t really on the table until after the elections, anyway–during the lame-duck session.

But the time to start our drum beat is still NOW.  We need to use the opening he provided us to hammer the point home, over and over, that the uncertainty caused by the constant debate over this legislation is having an extremely negative effect on our economy.  This has the virtue of being true.  I believe it will resonate, and should be repeated as often as possible.

Assuming we do take back the White House and the Senate, we must aggressively take this battle to the Democrats during the lame-duck session of Congress.  We must demand that these cuts finally be made permanent, and refuse to budge.  If the Democrats still won’t give in, then we should threaten to let the entire legislation expire, and inform the American public that we will reinstate it once our newly elected representatives are seated.  That would still be time enough to prevent a tax hike from effecting the American people in April.

My friends, it is time to reverse the roles here.  It is time for us to put the Democrats in the position that they should rightfully hold; that of being in favor of raising taxes on everyone.  We must put them on the defensive.

Do Republicans have the strength of will to act this aggressively?

I honestly do not know.

But they are our only chance to take this fight to the Democrat’s doorstep.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: