Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Many on my side of the aisle like to use the phrase “smaller government” when upholding one of the foundational tenets of conservatism. I prefer to use the term “limited government” (i.e., restricting the federal government to only those functions clearly expressed in the Constitution). The distinction is very important.

“Smaller” government does not necessarily mean that the feds are limited to involving themselves to only specific areas of public life. Rather, it could still mean a far-reaching, overly intrusive, finger-in-everyone’s-pie brand of governance – but at a seemingly curtailed, more reasonably palatable level. It could mean prescribing cutbacks in specific areas, or being less involved in areas they shouldn’t have been meddling in in the first place – potentially good things, of course, depending on where those cuts happen – but it is not the same as keeping government confined to its Constitutional charges.

And while it may be a matter of semantics when it comes to collecting poll data, a new Rasmussen survey shows that the American people – by a margin of 2-1 – prefer “smaller” government.

And yes, that’s a good thing.

From Rasmussen:

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes. That’s the second highest finding of the year: In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversies over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% prefer a government with more services and higher taxes. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure which is best.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 51% favor a smaller government, but 37% opt for a larger, more activist government.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of liberals chose a government with more services and higher taxes. Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives think a smaller government is better.

Six in ten also say that tax cuts, instead of increased government spending, are a better way to create jobs.

One would think this latest polling data is worthy of a rousing “hip hip hooray!” or even a “Yeah, baby!” from those of us on the steadily-recharging right. However, when I see these kinds of poll results, I am wont to proceed with caution.

Indeed, people can say anything they want all day long. They can make philosophical assertions for all the tally-takers, poll masters and statistical inquisitors they wish. But unless they put their votes where their poll questionnaires are, it’s hard to go sis-boom-bah over this.

The fact is, people like their “stuff.”

They want their “services.”

And they’ll go down scratching and clawing to keep them.

Many, for instance, are quick to condemn the installation of railroad crossing lights in some rural county far, far away, but will burn down the courthouse if their own neighborhood playground funding is slashed.

Platitudes and theories are dandy in water cooler debates, but how much Americans are really willing to do without in the name of conservatism, no one can really know.

Rob at the great Say Anything blog writes:

Maybe we’re seeing a new shift in the American electorate. Maybe this is that awakened “sleeping giant.” I could be persuaded to believe that, but in the past most Americans are only nominally against big government spending. When you talk about spending (and the debts and deficits that spending creates) in general terms it’s hard to find a single American who isn’t in favor of less. But when you start talking about specific spending, well suddenly that’s a different matter.


Please don’t misunderstand. As I said earlier, this is a good thing. This is generally a “thumbs up” kind of story.

Just keep talkin’, Obamacrats.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Polls | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 22, 2009

FNC's Glenn Beck

FNC's Glenn Beck

In an interview with CBS’s Katie Couric, Glenn Beck said, “I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama.” (I’ll set aside the snide commentary on why Beck chose Katie Couric, of all people, to sit down with).

Despite admiring much of what Glenn Beck says and does, this little nugget is a bona fide question-mark maker.

McCain would be worse than Obama?

In what dimension?

Beck also said he very well might have voted for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, had she been the Democrat nominee for President.

(Insert pregnant pause here).

I’m scratching my head so much that I’ve struck skull.

And the amzing thing is … there are mulitudes who agree with him.

I assure you, this is no slam on Glenn Beck in general – just on his ridiculous assertion that having John McCain in the White House would be worse for the United States of America than Barack Obama.

I must ask:

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have killed missile defense in Europe?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would apologize for his country on foreign soil?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would close Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would pursue single-payer health care?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have stood by and said nothing while innocents were being slaughtered by the Iranian government?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have backed a dictator-in-waiting in Honduras?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have attempted to impose “cap-and-trade” in the midst of the “worst recession since the Great Depression?”

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would have expanded federal government spending to the record-breaking levels Obama has?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain would want to slash our nuclear arsenal to the point of eventually eliminating them altogether?

Is there anyone who believes that John McCain views the rights of the unborn as Barack Obama does?

Fair questions, I believe.

I promise, I am no fan of John McCain, nor did I play one during the last Presidential campaign cycle, but Beck’s contention is downright dumb.

Talk show host Mark Levin took issue with Beck on his radio program:

“How can you, day after day, night after night, correctly rail against Obama and his radicalism – how he’s undermining the Constitution; how he’s nationalizing our basic industries; how he has Marxists all around him – and then say in an interview with Katie Kouric, “I think John McCain would have been worse than Obama?”

That’s not good.

McCain is no conservative. In fact, in many respects, he’s a progressive – which is why I fought him, day in and day out. Day in and day out behind this microphone. Not only fought him behind this microphone, but wrote article after article – Go ahead and google it – rejecting his candidacy.

But to say that he would be worse than a President who’s a Marxist? Who’s running around the world apologizing for our nation? Who’s slashing our defense budget? Who’s nationalizing our health care system? To say he would be worse is mindless.



I’m sorry ladies and gentleman. I speak from the heart, and I speak from the mind. I don’t know who people are playing to. I don’t know why they’re playing to certain people.

Ron Paul is another one – this fascination with Ron Paul. Ron Paul who blames America – “American Imperialism” – for the attacks on 9-11. How could any conservative embrace that? While his domestic arguments – 80% of them are sound, in my humble opinion – he goes way off the cliff when it comes to foreign policy and blaming America, and American armed forces, and American good will, in my humble opinion, for instigating the Islamo-Nazi attacks on us. How could anybody embrace that?

And yet, the 5PMer (Glenn Beck) does.

No, I don’t think so.

No, I think there’s enormous confusion, and positioning, and pandering.

It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic.”

Now with that said, if Beck is operating from the perspective that the Obama presidency is serving to galvanize conservatives and the Republican Party in the same sort of way Ronald Reagan did following the debacle that was the Jimmy Carter presidency, I can certainly appreciate that. If Beck is trying to point out that the explosion of Tea Parties across the map, along with widespread opposition to ObamaCare, would not have been possible without the current messianic leadership – and thus would not have thrown the spotlight onto big-time Obama-style leftism – I understand where he is coming from.

Still, Beck is fundamentally wrong.

Under Barack Obama, the United States is on a course of no return. It was not – and is not – worth the damage Obama’s Marxist-type policies will do to this country to enable a “true conservative” to rise from the ashes and save the day.

I, for one, was not willing to “sacrifice” four years of my nation’s well-being to prove a point. After all, we did have Reagan for eight years … and look where we are now.

It is far easier – by definition – to reverse conservative policies than liberal ones.

Posted in Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama-Mania, politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 9, 2009

LevinLike Sinatra and smooth, liberty and private property are indivisible.

Definitionally, those things, both appreciable and indefinite, belonging to entities (individuals or companies) who have legal and unshared rights over those things are considered private property.

At the very heart of liberty is the concept that owners are free to do as they wish with their private property, including transferring ownership – assuming all is being done legally.

It cannot be overstated how profoundly important and incontestible the point is when defending the notion of limited government; liberty and private property are inseparable.

One of the most concise – and very best – explanations comes from talk show host Mark Levin in his book Liberty And Tyranny – A Conservative Manifesto.

He writes:

Liberty and private property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state.

In one beautifully composed sentence, Levin explains why liberty and private property are synonymous.

Memorize it.

Let your big-government, nanny-state friends nibble on it for a while.

Well done, Mark (as always).

Interesting to note is that as I was rat-a-tat-tatting away on this blog entry, my spell-checker left the dreaded red line of incomprehension under the word “Statist.” It’s a word that Levin uses in his book and on his radio show. It is most appropriate. It ought to become part of the American lexicon.

Add it to your dictionaries.

Oh yeah, and buy the book already, if you haven’t. And if you have, buy another one.

Posted in Conservatism, History | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 28, 2009

Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery

Nebraska State Senator Bill Avery

Go Nebraska!

There are too many who conveniently forget (or are simply ignorant to the fact) that thirteen sovereign states gave birth to the federal government, not the other way around. The original thirteen states were not arbitrary divisions created by a national governing body to accommodate the fledgling plans of the Founding Fathers. Rather, what were in essence thirteen little nations came together over two centuries ago to create a system of government built on the nation’s founding document – the Declaration of Independence – that would secure the blessings of liberty as well as recognize and respect the sovereignty of each of those unique states. Thus, each of the thirteen states would be able to maintain its character and independence without the fear of a far reaching too-powerful central government meddling in its affairs.

There can be no doubt that the states would not have ratified the Constitution otherwise.

That system – federalism – as spelled out in the Constitution, would create a government with specifically enumerated powers, limited in its influence over the sovereign states, yet with just enough power to be effective as a governing body over a single nation.

Ingenious, really.

The first ten amendments to that Constitution detail the limitations of that federal government in respect to the liberty of the people.

There is no ambiguity in the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It’s a fairly simple premise.

So what on God’s green earth does this have to do with Nebraska?

Martha Stoddard of the Omaha WORLD-HERALD BUREAU writes:

At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:

Butt out of state business.

Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.

The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Nebraska wouldn’t try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.

“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”

As Stoddard points out in her article, such an action would be predictably dismissed by critics as silly symbolism or political posturing.

Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton

Nebraska State Senator Tony Fulton

Typical of today’s liberal is to ignore the substance of any given debate – particularly when the facts are against them – and respond instinctively with ad-hominem attacks and knee-jerk aggression, complete with character-assasinating “ist” labels and game-breaking “isms” as a means of keeping up. Because leftists largely formulate public policy as an extension of their emotions, it is archetypical to mask their inability to be substantive by summoning the indignation of the constituency. Thus, if words like “racism” and “sexism” can somehow worm their way into the discussion, the playing field is not only level again, but the game has actually tipped decidedly in favor of the leftist. After all, once one of the no-no “isms” are thrown out there and attached to one of those short-sided “strict constructionist” types, the contest is all but over.

Sprinkle in a few choice words and phrases like “civil rights,” “equality” and “segregation” and victory is assured.

Take State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln who, according to Stoddard, said the Nebraska proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states’ rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.

“The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states’ rights,” he said. “I’m not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don’t think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”

See how efficiently it is done? Without saying it, he said it. It is tactic that has become second-nature to leftocrats across the board.

Today’s liberal could find a way to spark a heated race debate over a bowl of oatmeal.

Avery made it perfectly clear that he was not – repeat not – calling anyone a racist.

No, of course not.

It was the furthest thing from his mind. Yet, somehow – with the ease of a beggar holding out his hand, or President Obama apologizing for the evil deeds of America – Avery managed to squeeze it in, just to remind everyone that he didn’t think that way, but that others might.

And please note Avery’s use of the word “movement.”

To Avery, the concept of “state’s rights” is not a Constitutional one. Rather, it is a “movement” – perhaps like the anti-nuclear movement, or a “Save the White-Nosed Monkey Squirrel” movement – outside of the mainstream, fostered by wackos, synonymous with racism. To him (and many like him), if one happens to believe in what the Founding Fathers created here – in the original intent of the Constitution – then one is caught up in a “movement.”

What does that make the Constitutional Convention of 1787? A sit-in? 

Is the Declaration of Independence a well punctuated “gripe list?”

It’s impossible to make this stuff up and have it sound believable.

But that’s what modern liberalism is all about … to make the implausible, the unsustainable, the undoable, the unworkable, the unsuccessful and the unthinkable a reality.

Oh yes, and one other thing … State Senator Tony Fulton, who prompted Avery to make his “racial” remarks by pointing out that the federal government was overstepping its bounds in Nebraska, is a man of Asain descent.

Avery, a college professor, is white.

Isn’t the irony delicious?

Posted in American History, Conservatism, Constitution, History, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 10, 2009


Many thanks to The Great One, talk show host (and author extraordinaire) Mark Levin, for airing two clips from a speech given by actor Jon Voigt at a Republican fundraiser on his radio program on Tuesday.

As articulate and well-spoken as the vast majority of talking-point pundits and one-trick politicians out there (if not more), Voigt was spot on with his commentary. He spoke with refreshing clarity and conviction – and you can bet the deed to the house he will not be invited to the Sean Penn home anytime soon for cocktail weenies and shrimp rolls.

Levin called Voigt a “real thinker, a reader and a believer. He’s a patriot.”

Noteworthy is the fact – quite obviously – that Voigt is (at least, professionally) a member of the Hollywood community. (He did a marvelous job, most recently, on Fox’s 24).  That he leans right of center – and is unafraid to say so, given his profession – is more than praiseworthy.

I admire him greatly.

From one of the most uncourageous, uninspiring and uninteresting communities of people in the world – Hollywood actors – comes this burst of fortitude and strength.

Speaking of President Barack Obama, Voigt said:

Was I hearing things when he said Iran might have the right to nuclear power? Are we supposed to be sitting and waiting, watching for the possibility of a new holocaust? Who’s going to take the responsibility to keep Israel safe?

I’ll tell you why this really scares the hell out of me … because everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.

As Levin said, “Too bad Colin Powell can’t see this and can’t speak like Jon Voigt.”

As often as it needs to be repeated – and I will do so until the undertaker fits me for my final set of traveling clothes – today’s Democrat cannot be trusted with national security. That’s because leftists – synonymous today with the Democrat Party – see the world as they wish it to be – not as it truly is. They create policies based on emotion and fantasy-land, coloring-book scenarios.

You may recall that the President, just prior to his “I’m Sorry” tour of the Middle East, said he wants America to “lead by example” – which, as I pointed out a few days ago, has truly proven to be a wonderfully effective way of defeating evil. The muster of nations who have crossed over from the Despots List to the Good Guy Review simply by watching what we do could take at least several nano-seconds to name.

Voigt continued:

It saddens me greatly to think we were the great, powerful good in the world. We, as Americans, knew America to be strong. And we were the liberators of the entire world.

We are becoming a weak nation.

Obama really thinks he is soft-spoken Julius Caesar. He thinks he is going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet-talk. And really thinks he is going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they’ll swing each other back and forth.

We, and we alone, are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama repression.

To quote Mark Levin, “the man speaks the truth.”

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Hollywood, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

It would simply never occur to me to pose controversial, highly volatile, politically charged questions to beauty pageant contestants – the kind of inquiries that can cause the otherwise unlearned, knee-jerk, shallow-capped leftists among us to launch into personal foul-mouthed attacks as a consequence of not giving the answer they want. Of course, I am not cut from the same intolerant cloth that today’s leftocrats are, so the obviousness of my assertion cannot be overstated.

In fact, it is now abundantly clear that conservative young ladies who wish to be contenders in beauty contests, like the Miss USA pageant held this past weekend, had best stick to showing off their legs, smiles and figures and not open their mouths to share opinions on anything that may fall out of lockstep with showbiz Leftocracy – even if specifically asked. Beauties right-of-center are apparently better off seen and not heard if they have any hope of actually winning, while people like the contemptible Perez Hilton – a judge in last weekend’s pageant best known as a celebrity gossip blogger – are often obscene and regularly absurd.

More on this in a moment.

For those who came in after the opening credits, the Miss USA pageant saw Miss California, Carrie Prejean – one whom many felt was the odds-on favorite to win the crown – spark controversy by answering a question from pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage with a response that didn’t sit well with the ever-tolerant Leftocracy.

The question:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Naturally, this is precisely what beauty pageant contestants should be addressing when competing for the crown – contentious, divisive, polarizing topics, right? Short of a bra and panty pillow fight, or a game of naked quarters, what else could have the power to breathe much-needed life into such an event?

Honestly, what the hell kind of question is that to ask of a Miss USA pageant contestant? What would possess the ever-abrasive, never interesting and exceedingly infantile gossip-hound, Mr. Hilton – a man who would lose to a strand of typhoid in a popularity contest – to choose such a flaming potato of a question?

To her great credit, Miss Prejean’s answer was solid, concise, clarifying, and yes – compassionate:

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.

A good portion of the audience applauded her answer while Mr. Hilton gave her an “I’d crash a mayonnaise jar over your head right now if I could” kind of look.

Of course, this prompted the foul-mouthed pustule, Perez Hilton, to issue a response, after the pageant, via video blog.

His response is a study in leftist compassion:




Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton

Hello. Okay. So, Miss USA literally just finished and I have to make a video blog. Everyone’s going to be talking about it. I was the You Tube moment of the show, the pageant, when I asked Miss California her question, and when she gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA – ever – that a contestant has been booed.

Now, let me explain to you. She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb bitch, okay? This is how a person with half a brain answers the question I posed her … Well, if I was Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said, “Mmm, Perez. That’s a great question. That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that is a question each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government, you know? The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.” Something along those lines, but she didn’t. She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people …

If that girl would have won Miss USA, I would have gone up on stage, I shit you not, I would have gone up on stage, snatch that tiara off her head and run out the door.




I choose my words very carefully, and I wish to assert – in no uncertain terms – that Mr. Hilton is a moral degenrate of the highest order – not because of his sexual orientation, but because of his disgusting personal attacks unleashed on Carrie Prejean for not answering the question the way he would have liked it answered. That he would have the audacity to attack the intelligence of Miss Prejean (his command of the language is breathtaking) is akin to a skunk asking his buddy the turtle to slap on some deodorant.

First, I’ve played her response several times, and I hear no boos coming from the audience. There may have been, but it was not reproduced on the video tape. In fact, the cheers that followed her answer were noticeably louder than those that followed Hilton’s comment about the “legalization” of same-sex marriage in four states.

Second, The idea that the great thinker and historical scholar, Perez Hilton, has even the faintest concept of what he’s talking about when he speaks of state’s rights would immediately have me wondering if he would extend the same sentiment toward something like abortion – i.e. overturning Roe vs Wade and sending the issue back to the states. (Of course, the people of the state of California voted no to same-sex marriage, but why sully things with pesky facts?) Seeing as Mr. Hilton is keen to reference the Founders and the sovereignty of the states, perhaps his views on the Founders’ intent – prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its “equal protection under the law” provision – would make for some interesting theoretical banter, especially on the issues of slavery and official state religions. Maybe he could pen a column or two, or tap into his Constitutional prowess via his blog – sandwiched in between blurbs about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, of course. It could prove instructive.

Of course, if someone can distinguish between Miss California’s position on same-sex marriage and that of the President of the United States, I’d be more than willing to listen. I’ve been combing through You Tube looking for Perez’s “dumb bitch” commentary on our 44th President, but have come up empty. I’m probably looking in the wrong places. If someone can point me in that direction, I’d be most appreciative.

The truth is, to Perez and his angry ilk, Miss Prejean is (at the very least) intolerant and void of compassion, yet Hilton’s You Tube rant is not only the height of intolerance and the lack of compassion, it is mean and insulting.

By contrast, Miss Prejean was anything but mean and insulting. She simply answered a question posed to her in the most respectful and compassionate manor possible. She hurled no expletives or attacks. She went out of her way to offend no one. That one can defend the millenia-old definition of marriage and then be attacked for it shows the sad state of existence this country finds itself in.

Again, to be a conservative is synonymous with being bad.

Compassion is now defined as agreement.

This brings me to Shanna Moakler, Miss USA pageant co-director, who appeared as a guest on CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday:

You know, I have to applaud her, that she was willing to miss out on the opportunity of being Miss USA, you know, to stay true to her convictions.


And frightening.

In other words, to posses a traditional view of society is an automatic disqualifier if one aspires to win the Miss USA pageant. Moakler unambiguously acknowledges that one must either think like a leftist or be a liar in order to wear the tiara. Miss California’s view that the definition of marriage should remain in tact, while somewhat applaud-worthy, is what caused her to “miss out,” according to Moakler. To believe that marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman is to give up any hope of ever winning Miss USA.

She continues:

But on the same token, you know I think she’s muddied the waters a little bit by making – uh – her question was insensitive and it’s now become more about compassion in the way she answered her question.

It always fascinates me when people use phrases that are inappropriate and mean nothing. How it is that Miss Prejean “muddied the waters” when her answer to a ridiculous and unsuitable question was as clear as a Barney Frank lisp during a House sub-committee meeting is uncertain.

What exactly does Moakler mean by “muddying the water?”

What Moakler did clarify, however, is that it isn’t possible to disagree with one’s given position and still have compassion. This is precisely the same school of thought that says those who wish to see the definition of marriage unchanged must hate homosexuals.

Incoherence, thy name is liberalism.

I must ask … What would have been a genuinely compassionate response from someone who believes in traditional marriage?

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009


Is there a word more overused – or rather, misused than “hypocrite?” Somehow, worse than almost anything else that a human being can do or be, there is practically nothing that can compare morally, or is as downright ugly or unforgivable as being a hypocrite. Once that label has been given to someone, it clings insistently, like being labeled a racist, a homophobe or an environmental crusader (which, by the way, carries more weight than being a hypocrite, as I will explain momentarily).

Without equivocation, I despise genuine hypocrisy as much as anyone. With equal fervor, however, I hate seeing the excessive maltreatment of the word by people who don’t know how to make a cohesive and substantive argument otherwise. Governor Sarah Palin is a strong and steadfast conservative, and the very fact that her teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock and has since “broken up” with the baby’s father has propelled the laptop hammering left into action. Liberal blogs everywhere have unleashed on the Palins, attacking them incessantly as hypocrites.

So much for the party of compassion.

The distinction needs to be made between being inconsistent and being a downright hypocrite. Indeed, I have done things – as has each and every human being in existence – that are inconsistent with my values. It is intrinsic to being the flawed creatures we are. To veer away from paths we know are wrong for us, or are contrary to personal convictions, is not always possible.

That’s the way it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to the human being. I’d like to introduce you to inconsistency.

To be inconsistent does not mean the value system being compromised is invalid. It means that human beings are not perfect. Unfortunately, the ever-adamant smear merchants who exist in the blogosphere and elsewhere are quick to pounce on a human failing and run with it. If a flaw exists in someone, they reason, then all of the positions and advocacies associated with that person must also be contradictory. By that logic, if someone robs a convenience store knowing that theft is against the law, the law is invalid and should then be repealed.

Sometimes, the strength of a good message cannot adequately dissuade the bad behavior of those that wish to adhere to it. An evangelist, for instance, who weakens and seeks out sexual pleasure outside of marriage could be called inconsistent (and certainly an adulterer), despite all the good he does preaching to the contrary.

If, for the sake of argument, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, during the time of his addiction to pain killers, continued to speak passionately about the evils of doing drugs, as he always had, but instead of trying to deal with the addiction and admit his weakness, tried to rationalize his narcotic use on the air and get himself off the hook with his listeners, wouldn’t that be indicative of more than sheer inconsistency? In other words, if Rush played the “It’s okay for me, but not for you” card, wouldn’t that be a true hypocrite?

I think a good case can be made for it.

As I alluded to earlier, as much as the word “hypocrite” will stick with someone once the label is given, to be called an environmentalist crusader will trump even that.

Climate Lord Al Gore, forever saturated in his tempest of carbon credits and looming global disaster, is the text-book definition of a hypocrite – complete with his fossil-fuel burning jets that whisk him around the world, his home that consumes more energy in a month than some entire neighborhoods, and his quickness to tell everyone else to curb their own energy consumption while spreading the word to the four corners that saving the planet is the greatest battle of our time. That goes way beyond inconsistent. In his case, it is truly a case of, “It’s okay for me, but not for you.”

In the case of the pregnancy of young Bristol Palin there was not so much as a hint of, “This is okay for me, but not for you.”

How ironic it is, in this case, that if the pregnancy would have been terminated, the left would not have given a second thought for the child that was killed, but would have spent all its time going on and on about hypocrisy of the act – and would have actually been correct this time.

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Ethics, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2009

I was going to post this little tasty morsel myself, but proper credit goes to the outstanding Vocal Minority blog, via the equally exceptional Notoriously Conservative blog …

I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed.

“Wow…what a worthy goal.” I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to help people. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Bookmark to two aforementioned blogs if you have not already.


Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2009


If tugging on Superman’s cape and spitting into the wind are no-nos, then messing around with Rush Limbaugh – while donning the apocryphal moniker of conservative – is sheer blockheadedness. Time and time again, counterfeit conservatism is reconstituted in the columns and commentaries of convoluted right-leaning hyper-intellectuals – David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Chris Buckley come to mind – while attempting to reinvent the movement in order to set themselves apart from the pack.

All the while, conservatives such as me are derided and repudiated as being too narrow-minded, out-of-touch and parochial.

Reconstructing conservatism into a more media-friendly animal, i.e. making it palatable to the Left, while infusing it with an Upper West Side sensibility, complete with nuance and compromised core values, is the goal of these new rightists – and be damned those still clinging to the dinosaur that is musty old one-dimensional Reagan conservatism.

And if the transformation (or rebirth) can be accomplished by going after the most well-known conservative of them all, Rush Limbaugh, it’s bound to garner some extra invites to the best social functions on the East Coast.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh needs no one – least of all me, an unknown, small-potatoes blogger fortunate to scratch out a few hundred hits a day – to defend him or come to his rescue. If there is anyone in the Land of Conservatism who has weathered more storms and has withstood more personal attacks from the outraged cackling masses on the left (and now, some on the right), it is he. Indeed, if anyone can stand up for himself, it is El Rushbo.

Rather, I’d like to take a moment and comment on a much talked about column published on Monday by faux conservative, David Frum.

In taking the position that left versus right has ostensibly boils down to Barack Obama versus Rush Limbaugh, Frum sounds as if he has gotten dibs on rubbing talcum powder on the feet of President Obama after a bath. He gushes like a grandmother lavishing praise on a horrible kindergarten drawing, showering The One with effusive acclaim for his grace and elegance, calling him “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims.” (Kind of like Senator John Kerry always invoking his service in Vietnam every thirteen seconds).

Summoning my own intellectual Dramamine to keep me from losing my dinner, Frum salivates, “This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.”

Yes, Mr. Frum, it was incredibly “disciplined” of the leader of the free world to publicly call for Americans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh – a man who has quite literally built his success through dedication and hard work, living the American dream – wasn’t it? How astutely presidential of Obama to attack a successful private citizen.

And you’re right, David (if I may call you that) … it was equally “responsible” of the Chief Executive of the United States to say that “catastrophic” results were in store for the country should his stimulus pig-meat spending bill not pass in Congress as soon as humanly possible. It’s a good thing he waited four days to sign it into law.

Such leadership.

Incidentally, Mr. Frum, Obama’s devotion as a father and a husband has absolutely nothing to do with the job he is doing as President.

Still, your adoration of him is admirable.

Mr. Frum, if you need a moment, there are paper towels in the back by the radiator.

In commenting on Rush Limbaugh, whose speech at CPAC on Saturday was as energizing and substantive as any given by any conservative in a long time, Frum decides that personal attacks are the way to dissuade Republicans from hoisting the leadership banner atop Fort Limbaugh.

As if taking dictation from Rahm Emmanuel, Frum writes:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

When will the little pups realize that no matter how much they yap at the back door or pee on the porch, they’ll never be able to belly up to the bowl and eat with the big dogs?

Frum’s obnoxious elitism – drawn from the liberal’s operational manual – is surpassed only by his contemptibility. While he cavalierly dismisses Obama’s cigarette sneaking as a mere occasional vice, he dispenses a whole lot of fat-catism on Limbaugh for his love of cigars. While Obama’s drug use in his youth is roundly discarded, Limbaugh’s long since conquered bout with pill dependency is exploited. To Frum, Obama is an Adonis who is physically “honed,” while Rush’s “personal bulk” somehow puts a blight on conservatism.

Yes, that’s what the new conservatism is apparently all about – fostering classism, mocking personal triumphs, and scorning appearance.

How petty, Frum. How pompus. How liberal.

And what exactly did Mr. Frum find “rancorous” about Limbaugh’s speech? Was it the idea that Limbuagh wants every American to succeed? That he doesn’t see Americans as victims but as individuals? That it is the individual, and not government, that has made America the greatest nation that has ever existed? These are core conservative principles that have been starving for eloquent and energized articulation for quite some time.

Rush did just that on Saturday.

There was not an electron of hatred or acrimony in his presentation. There wasn’t a scintilla of anger or bitterness therein. Instead, Limbaugh conveyed his awe and love of this country and its citizenry. What he did for those enthusiastic CPACers was inspire and encourage them. He reaffirmed the foundation of the movement. He did not attampt to redefine conservatism as the Frums of the world do. Limbaugh’s was a call to reclaim conservatism and bring it back to its roots.

The funny thing is … while talking heads on both sides of the aisle stumble about trying to develop their “Rush is now the ‘De Facto’ Leader of the Republicans” angle, Limbuagh trudges forward as he has, unchanged, since the day he first entered talk radio – when AM radio was about carrot cake recipies and the golden EIB microphone was still aluminum. He advances and advocates the same brand of conservatism he has since Day One. Two decades in the national spotlight has not changed where he is coming from nor where he would like to see this country go. David Frum, et al, portray Limbaugh as some sort of emerging leader, but Rush is simply doing what he has always done – namely defending the institutions, traditions and values of the United States.

Frum finished up this way:

Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise.

The “enterprise?”

Like “Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic Party in the 1980s?”

Jackson is a race-baiting, corporation strong-arming extortionist whose Sesame Street-like rhyming schemes and cartoonish cadences are as coherent as Barney Frank on peanut butter. This sounds like David Frum attempting to be the “smartest guy in the room,” as Rush often says, with an analogy that could use some cerebral Cialis.

Going after Rush Limbaugh is not a particularly shrewd strategy. It hasn’t proven successful for those who have attempted it. Safe to say, it probably won’t be a winner in the future.

Limbuagh has, for years, been at the forefront of the conservative movement in this country. That the most prominent conservative in America is not a politician, but a radio entertainer, speaks volumes about where the Republican Party is right now (and has been for some time).

The irony here is that if the Republican Party actually listened to Rush Limbaugh, they might win something.

Posted in Conservatism, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009


The hundred-dollar phrase of the week is “de facto” – as in “Is Rush Limbaugh now the ‘de facto’ leader of the Republican Party?

True, the word had been caroming around main-stream media news sets for a few weeks – particularly since Rush’s now notorious “I hope Obama fails” sound morsel hit the news cycle – but it had quite a revival over the weekend, following his landark speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday. In fact, for most of the weekend, the news channels were devoting almost all of their non-Messianic time allotment to Rush. Anchors, analysts and others of the blathering class have since been falling over themselves trying to figure out who will lead the Republican Party from the ruins of their Obamacratic trouncing. (After all, it was a mandate, wasn’t it?)

De facto this, de facto that…  (It is the “nuance” or “hubris” of 2009).

To liberals, Limbaugh is already the de facto embodiment of Hitler and the de facto personification of racism. Being the de facto leader of the Republicans is almost pedestrian in comparison.

Still, it has been incredibly fun to watch.

Following Limbaugh’s talk on Saturday afternoon, the first words from CNN’s equitable political analyst Bill Schneider’s mouth were:

“Well, it was an angry tone. He was the hero of 1994. Fifteen years ago when Republicans won a big victory in Congress. And that was the year of the angry white men.”

Angry tone?

I have no doubt that Mr. Schneider, along with almost everyone else who comprises what Limbaugh famously calls the “drive-by media,” genuinely heard it that way.

For liberals, any impassioned oratories delivered by conservatives must be filtered and processed as “angry right-wing rhetoric” because to try and substantively deal with the contents of a speech such as Limbaugh’s would reveal the weakness and indefensibility of leftist ideology. Thus, when Leftocrats hear conservatives speak of individualism, liberty and achievement, they hear indignation and acrimony. When conservatives talk about American exceptionalism, liberals hear animosity and exasperation.

By contrast, when liberals hear themselves go on about government as the people’s problem-solver, and the need to level the American playing field by punishing the most successful among us, they see the greatness of America.

CNN’s Schneider went on to foam:

“Well, this was a very angry speech. By the way, they’re not all white and they’re not all men but they are angry conservative voters. They didn’t do so well last year but they’re still angry. The tone of this speech was mocking, bullying, it was full of contempt, and I thought it was a very harsh speech.”

Translated from my brand-new 2009 edition of the ‘Drive-By Media/English” dictionary, Schneider is affirming and validating the Bos-Wash news media mindset – that anything critical of liberalism, i.e. Barack Obama, uttered by any conservative can only be rooted in antagonism – maybe even racism. After all, what the mainstream media does so well – aside from nothing – is portray conservatives as angry and bigoted. The playbook says so.

And conservatives aren’t just wrong, mind you, they’re bad – replete with ulterior motives and underhanded intentions, looking to crush the working man, the struggling mother and the “trying-to-make-ends-meat” family in favor of their white corporate overlords.

Ask anyone who doesn’t think … or calls themselves an independent voter. They’ll tell you so.

All of this right-wing antipathy, of course, came through manifestly through Limbaugh’s speech.

Sample some of the mockery and contempt from Rush’s lips:

“When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.”


Bitter, scathing, offensive, wasn’t it?  Watching someone drop kick a baby duck would have been less ghastly.

“We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.”

The scoundrel. Does he also favor open-hand slapping the elderly?

“… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.”

Hang him from the highest tree, take him down, and string him up again.

And not even a mention of food stamps.

While the likes of the always-vainglorious Keith Olbermann and the never-interesting Janeane Garofalo carry on about Limbaugh with all the charm of two old men in a nursing home comparing their bowel obstructions, what the American Leftocracy simply doesn’t comprehend is that Limbuagh in not the de facto leader of the Republican Party – nor does he wish to be. He is, however, one of America’s most eloquent and compelling spokesmen for conservatism … and it is conservatism, through world class communicators such as Rush, that must  – and will -reclaim its place as the core of the Republican Party.

– – – – –

And since Rush’s “I hope Obama fails” remark is getting so much play and is so remarkably misunderstood, I am going to once again stand by him and his courageous – and completely correct – position on the matter.

I am REPOSTING RIGHT HERE, something I posted back on January 27, 2009 – an article that prompted more hate-mail and personal attacks than I have gotten since starting this blog – but something I firmly stand by. It is the Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure:

1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2009


As disappointing as Governor Bobby Jindal was last evening in his response to President Obama’s non-State of the Union address, I harbor as much disappointment in myself for expecting too much.

From the moment Jindal began speaking, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was sitting on a thumbtack or if someone was applying a nutcracker to his pinky toe – particularly at the beginning of his talk. The lighting and the background were, at best, unflattering, and his delivery was as smooth as large curd cottage cheese. It pains me to say this because I am a huge fan of Governor Jindal. (This past summer, for example, while working at a well-known broadcasting outlet, I was impressed to see how Jindal handled the hurricane emergencies that wreaked havoc in his state (Louisiana). He was strong, decisive, unwavering. He was a leader. Unfortunately, that Bobby was MIA last evening).

Since last night’s talk, the adjective truck has been heavy with words like “cardboard,” “awful,” “akward” and “wooden” to describe the Governor’s performance. Throw in “lackluster,” “boring,” “unimpressive” and “flat” and we’ve almost got enough for a baseball team.

In a perfect world, “substance over style” would have rendered Barack Obama a poll worker instead of an election winner – but that’s not how it works in the real world, sadly. Indeed, much of what Jindal said last evening was spot on. He is, indeed, a good conservative who normally comes across much better than a slab of gefilte fish on a paper plate. Unfortunately, if opportunities such as this – with the world watching – are squandered, especially following an Obama-teleprompter spectacular as we saw last night, Jindal will quickly see his star begin to lose some of its luster.

First off, it was painfully ineffective – and frankly weak – to have an Obama congratulatory love fest as part of the Republican response more than five weeks into Obama’s term. Obama-mania already leaks from every orifice in this country. The last thing that I, as a conservative, need to hear again are blithering accolades for a President who just signed into law the largest slab of pig-meat in human history. The honeymoon is over. The real world has arrived.

Second, anyone who is going to go up against The Messiah will need to be at least as effective at speaking to the people, not at them. Governor Jindal was less than personable when it was his time to shine on the national stage.

Some comments on Jindal’s performance from the great Free website include:

– I’ve read about Jindal for months now, but this is the first speech I’ve seen him make. An unmitigated disaster. People who say “What about the substance, he had that” can pat themselves on the back for being about substance if they want, that’s not the issue. If no one listens to you, it doesn’t matter what you say. -Darkwolf377

– I have no idea what Jindal was rambling on about. That was bad. -Rodney Dangerfield

– There was no problem with the message. Jindal is a true Republican, not a RINO. The problem was the presentation which looked totally amateur. Also, Jindal seemed “handled” the same problem that Palin ran into last fall, despite the fact that she’s the most genuine conservative libertarian republican we’ve seen in years. -libertarian9

– Jindal’s speech was a stinker. To begin with, I’m sick of hearing republicans going on and on about how the election of 0bama was so so historic. Jindal’s delivery was poor, and his attempts at personalizing stories kind of fell flat. I’ve heard him speak before, he’s a smart guy, but he’s very dull. If he were to get the nomination in 2012 he’d draw McCain size crowds, maybe a bit bigger. Bored, unenthusiastic crowds don’t volunteer, don’t donate, and sometimes don’t even vote. –Euram

For my money, this certainly doesn’t disqualify Governor Jindal from any future considerations for national office. I believe with every fiber of my being that he is a good conservative and, most important, a very good man. If the Governor Jindal who led Louisiana during the summertime hurricane emergencies ever shows his head at the national level – and with a bit more seasoning – he will be a force to be reckoned with.

I mean that.

This morning, however, I have a bit of a pasty taste in my mouth looking back at Jindal’s appearance – or as one Freeper put it: “The man had all the interest of a cold mashed potato sandwich. With out salt.”

This forgettable performance by Jindal happened early enough in the Obamacratic regime to be rendered ultimately meaningless down the road – that is, if the Governor learns to how bring his “A-game” to the national stage.

In other news, the President spoke about stuff, hope, whatever, blah, blah …

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2009

Topeka, Kansas - state capital

Topeka, Kansas - state capital

Politically speaking, I find that Republicans are far more likable when they behave like Republicans.

And when they actually take principled stands on issues that will almost certainly prove unpopular with large segments of the population, they’re downright adorable.

There aren’t a whole hell of a lot of Republicans here in New York – and I am including those who actually have “R”s after their names – which is why it behooves many of us Empire Staters who wish to find principled Republicans to look southward or westward into the vast expanse of “flyover” country – where the soul of America really resides.

Today, I invite those of you taking notes to take a look at Kansas. (For those on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, it’s one of America’s 57 states, located west of twelfth Avenue, where the corn and stuff is).

Kansas is out of money. In fact, they’ve put a halt on issuing income tax refund checks. They’re even facing the possibility of not being able to pay state employees, this according to the State’s Budget Director.

(Here’s where Republicans act like Republicans).

Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, has suggested that nearly a quarter-billion dollars be transferred from other state accounts to cover the money shortages.

Kansas Republicans have said … no way, baby.

John Hanna from the Associated Press writes:

Budget Director Duane Goossen said that without the money, he’s not sure the state can meet its payroll. State employees are due to be paid again Friday.

GOP leaders are hoping to pressure Sebelius into signing a bill making $326 million in adjustments to the budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30.
Legislators approved that bill last week, but it has not reached her desk.

The council was scheduled to meet at 1 p.m. Monday, but Goossen said Sebelius canceled the meeting because Republican leaders told her that they would not authorize the internal borrowing.

In other words, Sebelius had better agree to start getting Kansas’ financial house in order by signing the legislation designed to tend to Kansas’ budget issues before Republicans agree to the immediate measure of borrowing from Peter’s account to keep Paul afloat.

Hanna explains:

Some Republicans question whether that borrowing would be legal. When the state issues a certificate, it must promise that the money can be paid back by the end of the fiscal year. But the state already is projected to have a deficit in the current budget.

The legislation approved last week is designed to fix that.

Goossen said Republicans told Sebelius they want her to sign that bill first. Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat, called the tactic “blackmail.”

Damn right it is.

And more evidence that it really does matter who We The People put into the legislature, whether it be at the state level or the national level.

I’ve got 787 billion reasons that prove I am right.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Good Republicans | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

Today’s Washington Post headline may say that Democrats don’t have the votes to pass the Obama “stimulus” package as it is currently written, but what does that really mean? That instead of a $900 billion monstrosity, it’ll be worked and re-worked so that it is transformed into a lean mean $800 billion nightmare?

rino_bigThe bottom line is – Republicans tick me off. And it’s catching.

If this were a petition to that effect, there’d also be a ton of enraged environmentalists, because a whole lot of trees would lose their lives to create the paper needed to accommodate the signatures.

Republicans have been remarkably consistent at incompetence and vacillation in recent times – impressively steady in how they have continued to disappoint the conservative base, almost effortlessly. Dating back at least to the less-than-inspiring presidential campaign season, complete with a less-than-motivating squishy-in-the-middle candidate, the GOP has stirred more stomach acid than emotion.

Admittedly, for a brief shining stitch in time last week, Republicans didn’t aggravate me so much, voting in unanimity against the Obama craptacular spending bonanza in the House of Representatives.

Conservatism had a pulse.

And then, as quick as it arrived, it became faint and irregular again.

I wrote the original article “Conservatism – Great While It Lasted” last week after reading about Republican governors who were actually soliciting GOP Senators to get Bam’s enormous spending bill passed so they could get much needed money to balance their state budgets. Even the great Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, said that while he would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress, he’d accept the money for his state.

Riding high off the “all-for-one” Republican stand against the Obamacratic spending disaster in the House, my idealism got the better of me. Foolishly – even if only for the briefest of moments – I was hoping to see a tiny tidal wave of principled conservative resistance break out like shingles across the neck of America. I wanted more Republican governors to either speak out against it (as both South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour did, blasting the “stimulus” package as certifiable pig meat, going as far as saying that they weren’t sure they’d even accept the money) … or keep quiet about the whole thing and let Democrats grab the limelight, knowing the bill, in some bloated incarnation, would pass the Senate anyway.

After all, in political terms, what the hell was there to lose? This dreaded spending atrocity was clearly going to pass both houses. All credit needed to go to the Democrats on this one.

Unfortunately, some on our side were quite public and very active in pursuing their chunks of the stimulus pie.

Politics trumps all, I know. I get that. That governors of states, regardless of whether those states are red or blue, accept money from the Feds doesn’t quite carry the same political ramifications as a congressman casting a vote for a disgustingly wasteful spending bill.

I understand that.

My “great while it lasted” exasperation was based more on how GOP Senators would cast their vote – because that’s really where the “bipartisanship” Obama has been clamoring for will come from when this bill fails.

But knowing that so-called Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins dangle big “R”s after their names didn’t exactly give me a whole hell of a lot of faith that another unanimous statement was in the works.

In fact, after Senator Mitch McConnell said that the Senate bill might not even pass – and conservatives were tickled and teased with the possibility of conservatism’s continued revival – details started coming out as to just what kind of “reworking” he had in mind.

At the great Indy Mind blog, Arkady calls McConnell’s proposed amendment to the “Porkulus Package” horrible. He breaks it down wonderfully:

His latest proposal to amend the stimulass package is astonishing. He proposes that the government offers millions of fixed rate mortgages at 4 to 4.5 percent!

As a free market loving, small government wanting fiscally conservative soul I am stunned that this could come out of the GOP. To think that this is what would make McConnell approve this porkulus package is equally saddening.

Some of the possible consequences that could arise:

Free market violations: By infusing the market with fabricated rates that do not correspond to the actual bond market is will disrupt an already weakened mortgage market. This is similar to price fixing and something that was done during the Great Depression.

House values: Values will drop even further, despite what Mitch thinks. This might temporarily slow down foreclosures, but it will have the awful long term effect of entrenching owners in their homes.

Rent control: People will refuse to sell their homes if they are enjoying these kind of rates. In situations where people are ready to move out (ie retirees) to a smaller condo, they will simply rent the home out. With such a small rate in a matter of years renting the home will become extremely lucrative. Nice homes in affluent areas will get run down as houses turn into rental properties.

New construction: New homes sales are already slumping in record ways, because people will be tempted to stay in their existing homes to maintain their attractive rates, sales of new homes will not pick up.

This is just an awful plan, through and through. Minority leader should be ashamed of proposing something as short sighted as this.

As the Senate version of the bill exists right now, the price tag is near $900 billion – more expensive than the House version passed last week.

And if that wasn’t enough, President Obama said something that was actually spot-on correct.

On Monday, he said, “There are still some differences between Democrats and Republicans, but what we can’t do is let very modest differences get in the way of the overall package moving forward swiftly.”

Sad, but true.

These days, the differences between Democrats and Republicans are, at best, modest.


Update: February 4, 2009 9:18 AM

When this piece was first posted, I originally wrote :

If this were a petition to that effect, there’d also be a ton of enraged environmentalists, because a whole lot of trees would lose their lives to create the parchment needed to accommodate the signatures.

Within a few minutes, I changed the word “parchment” to “paper” when it was pointed out by a blogger at Free called Durus that paper comes from trees. Parchment is obviously created from animal skin.

I’m admittedly obtuse at times, but not that obtuse.

Here’s what happened.

Before actually publishing this article, I had written

” … there’d be a ton of enraged PETA members, because a whole lot of goats would lose their lives to create the parchment needed to accommodate the signatures.”

I decided to replace “goats” with “trees” and “PETA” with “environmentalists.” I neglected, however, to replace the word “parchment” with “paper.”

So be it.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2009

crist and palin - depending on stimulus cash for their states

crist and palin - depending on stimulus cash for their states

For one inspired moment this past week, conservatism’s vital signs looked strong. Stunned Democrats, who almost certainly expected some sort of Republican rollover in the wake of Earthquake Obama and his leftist aftershocks, saw not a single GOPer vote for the Obama spending bill in the House. The long-awaited, oft-promoted, so-called post-partisan age of government, i.e., the age where everyone thinks liberal, ushered in by Obama didn’t quite happen the way it read in all the Dem brochures. Conservative pensmiths from all over praised House Republicans for unanimously finding their lost tomatoes – including myself.

It was great while it lasted.

The principled dissent of House Republicans that so inspired the conservative base last week may be taking a back burner due to the abundance of states who have ledgers running deep in the red. Governors from across the country are urging that the Obama stimulus package pass the Senate so that their states can get their slice of the enormous pie – including a whole host of Republican Governors, like Florida’s Charlie Crist and Alaska’s Sarah Palin. In fact, Palin is set to meet with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell this weekend to talk about Alaska’s share.

From Fox News:

States are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.

Clyde Frazier, a professor of political science at Meredith College in North Carolina, said it wasn’t politically inconsistent for Republican governors and members of Congress to part ways on the stimulus plan.

“For governors, it’s free money — they get the benefits and they don’t have to pay the costs of raising the revenues,” Frazier said. “Senators and representatives get only some credit for the expenditures, and they have to pay the bill.”

Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is one of the very few who has said that he isn’t sure whether or not he would accept the money that his state would receive from the Obama spending bill – around $3 billion. Even Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a rising star in the Republican Party and a favorite of many conservatives, says that while he would have voted against the bill were he back in Congress, he would still accept the stimulus money for his state.

Meanwhile, South Carolina’s Governor Mark Sanford is not happy.

“It’s incumbent on me as one of the nation’s governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar,” Sanford said in an interview. “This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession.”

Sanford outlined his concerns in December when the then-president-elect met with governors in Philadelphia to discuss the stimulus proposal. Sanford said he had heard nothing from the White House since then.

Associates say Sanford, who recently was elected chairman of the Republican Governors Association, has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama’s plan.

Like Barbour, Sanford has yet to decide whether or not to accept the money.

Ultimately, however – even with a huge chunk of GOP governors eagerly sticking their hands out for a piece of trillion-dollar cake – for the recently rediscovered pulse of the elephants to remain steady and strong, Senate Republicans must follow the lead of their House counterparts and vote against the Obama spendulous package, lest a bi-partisan tag be placed on the toe of what all conservatives had better believe will be Obama’s economic cadaver.

The problem is … the following United States Senators are Republicans: Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich and Richard Lugar. (Feel free to insert your own RINO here).

Let’s face it, Democrats can sniff spaghetti-spined Republicrats from miles away. (Think starving sharks when blood hits the water).

If not a unanimous vote in the Senate, how about a nice little filibuster for good measure?

Just a thought.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

money_treeI wish conservatism would have been shaken from its sleep when  it counted. I wish we would have seen more of it throughout 2008.

Because we didn’t, we now have a brand new reality to contend with.

Yes, Obama’s stimulus package passed the House of Representatives, but Republicans proved – finally – that they are capable of locating and listening to the little conservative voices that have been (for quite a while) bound and gagged within them. They showed the world – at least for now – that they have the capacity to take inventory of their spines and stand up for something other than the collective o-gasm that has blanketed the country since The One won.

Each and every House Republican who voted yesterday – along with eleven Democrats – voted against President Obama’s $819 Billion stimulus package – The Pork Salad Bammy Government Expansion and Spending Bonanza.

Good for them.

The final vote was 244 to 188.

Why is this so important?

Because Democrats, who easily have the numbers needed to float this bill through both houses of Congress, know that they’ll need Republican votes to help absorb some of the blame if (when) this massive spending bill hits the fan as a bona-fide failure – which it will. Obmacrats know that with bi-partisan cover, the political sting of a disastrous “stimulus” washout will be easier to take.

Why else cuddle up to and tickle toes with Republicans?

After all, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded the world, they won and they wrote the bill. There wasn’t a damned thing “bi-partisan” about it.

Perfect. I invite them to take full responsibility for it.

Michelle Malkin writes at her blog that it was great day for conservatism.

Thank you, GOP.

It’s a sad state of affairs when I can tally the number of notably good days for the Republican Party on one hand over the past two years: the defeat of shamnesty, the (temporary) prevention of massive S-CHIP expansion, last summer’s Drill, Baby, Drill revolt on the House floor. Fortunately, the GOP held the line this evening in a remarkable, powerful way. They may have lost the vote, but they sent a lasting message. They took a stand for principle and posterity. They reclaimed their brand as the party of small government, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility. They restored their damaged credibility.

There’s no mystery in how best to rebuild the party and energize the base: Talk like conservatives. Walk like conservatives. Vote like conservatives.

Senate Republicans, take note. Don’t squander this opportunity for redemption. Make no apologies for principled obstructionism. Counter the inevitable liberal overreaching with plain facts and free-market alternatives.

That the bill passed the House is a defeat for this country. Let’s not forget that. The staggering amount of irresponsible, unnecessary, pork-barrel crap shoved into this thing is beyond disgusting. This is expressly one of those moments – and there so many of them lately – that I wanted – nay, prayed for – the President to fail.

He didn’t.

When this financial monstrosity passes the Senate – and it will – the only thing to salvage will be conservatism itself.  Anything less than a repeat of what Republicans did in the House will be unacceptable.

Can there be any doubt that given the situation, with Democrats in full control of everything, that the best thing Republicans can do is allow the entire weight of this spending frenzy to rest on the shoulders of the Savior and his minions?

Players must play the hand they’re dealt, and even with a guaranteed losing hand in this particular game, this is still the Republicans’ power play.

Make it count.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

rush limbaughIf you think for one moment that Democrats did not want George W. Bush to fail, then I have an East River bridge I’m dying to get off my hands that I’m willing to sell for cheap. When President Bush tried to reform the nation’s largest Ponzi scheme – Social Security – I defy anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that Democrats did not want that initiative to fail.

When President Bush proposed his across-the-board tax cuts, is there anyone who believes that Democrats did not want that policy to go belly up as well?

Name me the Democrats who came forth and said, “Well, we didn’t want these tax cut passed, but now that they’re law, let’s all hope it turns out to be a good move for all the American people.”

It did not happen.

Democrats wanted the Bush tax cuts to fail.

In fact, as shocking as this revelation apparently is to Democrats, it is the nature of politics.

When disagreements on political positions exist, one side wishes the other side’s policies to fail.

It’s the way it is.

(Do I also need to explain that water is wet?)

Why is this concept only now twisting the panties of the whiny ones? Is it because the precious Messiah has ascended to the Mount and all of us be damned who oppose him?

The fact is … when proposed Democrat policies run contrary to those beliefs held by the opposing party, how can Republican not want them to fail?

How hilarious is it that Democrats – the party of tolerance – are now outraged that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has called for Barack Obama’s initiatives to fail.

So what?

(They ought to read my column from yesterday, “The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure.”)

Let’s put this in perspective …

Did Candidate Barack Obama want Candidate John McCain to fail in his bid for the White House?


Would President Barack Obama want any initiative that would lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade to fail?

Of course we would. He’s said so.

If Republicans call for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between only one man and one woman, are there not a whole host of Democrats (and some Republicans) who would want that proposal to fall through?


So what are we talking about here?

Why on earth would I – or any other conservative – want to see Obama’s plans succeed?

I guess it doesn’t matter, because Democrats have launched a petition. (Of course, they have).

And guess who they’re attacking … again?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to “fail.”

“Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed,” the petition reads. “Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama.”

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

A petition?

Hold me.

Where were the petitions when non-talk show hosts like Senator Ted Kennedy declared the rape-rooms and torture cells of Abu Ghraib opened under new management? Or when Senator Harry Reid called President Bush a “loser?” Or when Senator Dick Durbin compared US troops to Nazis?

There are times when I am convinced I have slipped through the space and time continuum into an alternate reality, and others when I simply realize that Democrats are in power .

Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

quill1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.


Not because he is black. Not because he is a liberal. Not because I seek some sort of vengance on the deranged, lunatic Bush-bashers of the past eight years.

I want him to fail because each and every one of these policies hurts my country.



There are more to be added, I’m certain.

This particular list is a breathing document.

Posted in Big Government, Conservatism, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009

presidential sealLet’s pretend.

If the murderous bloodshed of September 11, 2001 had taken place while Barack Obama were President of the United States, and his reaction and subsequent retaliation had followed precisely the path that George W. Bush had taken, undoubtedly he would not only have been branded the greatest wartime commander in the history of all humankind by the mainstream media, but he would have garnered my support without a scintilla of equivocation.

If, however, under the same scenario, with the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoldering, President Obama would have called for an immediate summit of Muslim leaders (and a task force or two to boot) to figure out not only why such a “tragedy” occurred, but exactly what the United States would need to change in its foreign policy to keep the peace, I would have said – adamantly and ferociously – that I did not support the President.

Therefore, using this example, I submit that to claim support for the President without supporting his policies is exactly the same as saying that one supports the troops without supporting the war. It is a nonsensical statement. It is not possible.

It is very common, for instance, to hear someone say they support the war effort in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Although that is not my position, one is certainly entitled to feel that way. If that is, indeed, the case, then it is intellectually dishonest to say that someone who takes that position supports the troops in Iraq.

They don’t.

(More on that in a moment).

Certainly, there may be isolated instances where one may support a given policy of an otherwise opposed President, but the premise remains unchanged.

I have the highest regard for the office of the President of the United States. I therefore afford the person in the White House the respect he or she is due as the nation’s Chief Executive. It goes without saying – or it should – that I wish no harm ever to befall the President of my country.

With equal sentiment, I want only success, prosperity and peace for the United States and its citizens. I want the traditions and institutions that have made this nation the greatest the world has ever known to be protected, fostered and passed on from generation to generation. I want the spirit of individualism and liberty that defines American exceptionalism to continue to be revered, cherished and championed. I want the United States to continue to have the courage to define that which is evil and the fortitude to fight it when necessary.

If the President of the United States cannot meet those challenges, then I cannot – nay, I will not – support him.


I know this is a baffling concept to Leftocrats.

And as sad as it is to say, it is as confusing a notion to many pundits on the right who are now regularly saying, “I support the President even though I don’t agree with his policies.”

It makes no sense. What exactly does that mean?

If by “support,” one means hoping for the continued safety of the President, then by all means, call me a “supporter.” But if to support him, I am required to pretend that policies he enacts will be good for my country when I believe with every molecule of my existence they will not, I am no supporter.

Call it being part of the “loyal opposition,” if you like.

Assuming I am not speaking of the President’s personal life – which I am not – where else but in what the Chief Executive actually does while in office would I rightly be able to offer my support, or lack of it? What else but a policy decision or action on the part of the President warrants either my backing or disapproval? Indeed, it is a given that I only wish the best for his children and the success of his marriage (unlike Bush-bashers who regularly wished for the worst to befall Bush), but that is irrelevant to the question of supporting him. I have no vested interest in his personal life. All Americans, however, are potentially affected by what he does in his capacity as President.

In short, I do not support policies I believe will be harmful or antithetical to the success and well-being of this nation. Thus, I do not support a President that pushes for those policies.

It is perfectly all right, in my estimation, to weigh all of a President’s decisions, no matter who it is, and decide on balance if you support him or not.

“I was generally a supporter of George W. Bush, but his willingness to go along with the “bailout” bugged me. I didn’t support that.”

Which brings me to the hackneyed and hollow claim that it is possible to support the troops while not supporting the war.

How exactly?

US armed forcesThe men and women of the United States Armed Forces have volunteered to serve. Their purpose is to win. Certainly, it shouldn’t be problematic for even the most sniveling anti-war types to grasp the idea that given the choice between winning and losing – which, incidentally, in the real world are the only choices – winning is always better than losing.

Yet, ask any peacenik if he or she wants the United States to win in the battle against Islamo-fascists. You’ll be peppered with typical campus-cackle about how we shouldn’t have even been in Iraq in the first place, blah, blah, blah … which is as useful and constructive as applying scotch tape to a compound fracture.

Ultimately, the answer will be “no,” for a whole host of incomprehensible, Zinn-inspired, university-friendly rationales.

The bottom line is … to be in favor of American losses cannot be, by any measure, considered supportive.

Yet, this is precisely what the anti-war screechers advocate. They don’t support the troops because they don’t support victory over the enemy. They support surrender. How in the name of all that is holy is that supportive of those who have volunteered to defend the country?

Is it at all relevant what the troops themselves want?

Or doesn’t that part of it matter?

The troops are defined by what they do. Their courage and values compel them to selflessly serve in harm’s way. To not wish for their success on the battlefield is to not support them. Period.

Liberals need to have the “courage” to admit that.

Wishing they were not there supports the pacifist, not the soldier.

Incidentally, thus far, I do not support the President of the United States.

There, I said it.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

harmless fuzz ball

harmless fuzz ball

Dignity, wherefore art thou?

The President sure is making friends off the bat, isn’t he? His silly glove across the face of Rush Limbaugh is already filling up blog space everywhere tonight – and rightly so. It’s been a while since we’ve seen this kind of pettiness coming from the White House. This is just the latest in what has been nearly four days of yanking away the so-called olive branch Barack Obama spent the better part of his campaign promising to extend to the other side and shoving it into the nether regions of his opponents.

After all, in his own words, “I won.” (I’ll get to that in a moment).

Let’s run through a quick checklist …

He has already endeared himself to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. He’s reached out to pro-lifers by lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding. His economic advisor has decided that white professionals are not good enough for the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. The benediction at his inauguration was, arguably, the most racist prayer I have heard this side of Jeremiah Wright. And he’s already proven what a ray of sunshine he is in dealing with questions he doesn’t wish to answer.

Why can’t he just eat his waffle?

And now this.

To review … according to the New York Post:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Recall, it was Obama-drooler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell – a Republicrat – who made similar remarks against Limbaugh not too long ago, warning the Republican Party to stop “all the shouting.”

This time, the newest attack against the nation’s top radio talker is coming from the very top. (Not that Limbaugh cannot handle it, believe me).

But it’s not just the signing of Executive Orders in public that keeps the President looking most off kilter, it is the fact that he actually took time to comment on and condemn those who might listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program – this while Obama was attempting to sell his out-of-control “socialism here we come” stimulus package to Republicans.

Perhaps if more members of the GOP actually did expend a little time listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of worrying about how to get Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer to like them, the 2008 election might have ended with different results. Then, We the People would not have to witness the nation’s Chief Executive come across as petty and unpresidential.

What precisely is The One hoping to achieve here?

RINO #1: “You know, he’s right. We must stop listening to Limbaugh.”
RINO #2: “He is right. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.”
RINO #3: “What do we do now?”
RINO #4: “Don’t worry. The Messiah will tell us what to do.”

Remember, unity is defined as having everyone think as Obama does.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president’s proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don’t owe federal income taxes.

Good for you, Jon.

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly,” Obama said during the meeting. Republicans say that is too big a burden for a nation already crippled by debt and that it doesn’t do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

“You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package. And I’m concerned about some of the spending that’s in there, [about] … how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: “There was a lot of agreement in that room this morning about the notion that we’re facing an economic crisis unlike we’ve seen in quite some time … There was agreement that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people’s pockets.”

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

“The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas,” he said. “He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas.”

Two things here …

One, this is not – repeat not – an unprecedented economic crisis. By every measure, not only does the current recession not even qualify to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the Great Depression, but it doesn’t even compare to the economic woes Ronald Reagan inherited when he took office.

Facts are facts.

President of the United States

President of the United States

Two, anyone who believes that the President is going to listen to any ideas that does not involve growing the government by leaps and bounds, please stand on your head.

Will Obama, for instance, be as open-minded about how to handle the economy as he has been on the “case closed” verdict on Global Warming? How many of a rapidly growing list of reputable dissenters has he actually talked to on the subject?

How about his resurrection of the New Deal? Has he talked to any of a number of respected economists who believe that FDR’s big government approach to saving the floundering economy actually prolonged the Great Depression?

And how quickly did President Obama put an axe to Guantanamo Bay? Was it necessary to kill it on his second day in office without having a specific plan – or any plan, for that matter – on what to do with the terrorists who are detained there? Would it have been at all unreasonable to try and formulate a proposal slightly more worthy of the most powerful nation on Earth?

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program returns Monday at 12 Noon EST, live.

I might just give it a listen.


Update: 10:16 PM, 24 January 2009

Byron York, at National Review Online’s The Corner, spoke to Rush Limbaugh early on Saturday to get his response to the BAM attack.

In part, Rush said:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Read the entire response here.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »