Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Loyal Opposition
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Now that the Inauguration has ended, it’s time to govern. President Barack Obama has been chosen by the American people to lead. The Republican Party must work to find common ground with the new President, and to support him whenever possible. But Republicans cannot sacrifice principles to do so. If the President wants bipartisan support for his policies, he must find solutions that do not involve asking opposition leaders to violate their core beliefs.

The most powerful nation in the world swore in its 44th president in a peaceful transfer of awesome power. America continues to show the world how democracy works, and how far America has come in its pursuit of a more perfect Union.

But now that the parties have ended, the work begins.

President Obama was elected on a platform of change, and received clear majority support. He has a mandate to propose bold new policies to move our country forward. And he is entitled to the support of every patriotic American in the high hope that he will be a successful president, including support from the opposition party.

The GOP must be the party of loyal opposition. But to what is the “loyal opposition” loyal? Both parties have certain principles they believe best embodies America’s promise. The principles of limited government, personal responsibility and economic opportunity form the bedrock of the Party of Lincoln.

Party affiliations are not simply labels. America has two major political parties because people hold differing beliefs. Democrats and Republicans agree that our nation is founded on the premise that government exists to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But while they agree on many things, Democrats and Republicans differ on what policies best secure these blessings and what role government ideally plays in the process.

One of the reasons Republicans lost last November was because many of them weren’t true to the party’s principles. Many Republicans lost their way and lost the people’s trust and the right to govern. They must not make that mistake again.

Therefore, Republicans must be willing to do everything possible to work with the new administration. However, President Obama needs to be keenly aware that Republicans cannot betray their core beliefs for political expediency.

Three examples perfectly illustrate how these beliefs inform policy decisions:

We live in a dangerous world, and terrorists like those who attacked our homeland and murdered our countrymen on 9/11 still seek to kill the innocent. We need a foreign policy predicated on strength, and must not lower our guard. We’re in a fight for our very way of life.

Judges must faithfully apply the law as written. Americans do not want judges who force extremist views with no basis in the Constitution. Redefining marriage or striking down even modest restrictions on abortion, while denying rights such as the Second Amendment right to bear arms will not fly.

Our economy is in shambles, and increasing any taxes on any Americans will only undermine efforts to get the economy moving forward. Burdening businesses and private citizens with higher taxes to fund unrestrained spending will not create sustainable jobs.

Republicans must not support our country’s defenses being weakened, our nation’s courts being stacked with left-wing activists, or taxes being raised during an economic downturn.

With the daunting problems facing our country, political leaders must work together to find solutions. But those solutions must be principled solutions for all involved. Democrats and Republicans should work together to find not Democratic solutions or Republican solutions, but American solutions.

Republicans will honor President Obama’s office and the American people’s choice of him by doing everything possible to work with him. The nation has one president at a time, and it’s his time to lead.

So Godspeed, President Obama. Republicans stand ready to work with you, if you give them real opportunities to do so.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Count me out...
unless the solutions are God's solutions. What are "American solutions" anyway, Mr. Blackwell?

Mr. Blackwell
I usually disagree with articles written by you but this article appears to be written directly from your heart with the needs of the country being first and partisan politics second. The TH crowd may not view this article in the same manner because it is not filled with venom regarding Obama.

Government and politics work best when the two major parties have the ability to interject their core principals to achieve specific results to meet the needs of the country.

Consequently, I hope many of your republican brethren in congress will adhere to your commentary and not take the advice of the Limbaughs of the world (who hopes Obama's presidency is a failure)and TH posters who publicly state that Obama will never be recognized as their President and probably agree with Limbaugh.

PresidentialBalls.com
We are about to measure the gonads of our new POTUS. The Dem spending proposal is an embarassment to anyone with a head not dunked in same ol same ol juice.

We will be hearing of the Rep meeting with Obama today or tomorrow. What Polosi and her ilk have proposed is downright sickening.
PresidentalBalls.com

Fictitious opposition
“President Barack Obama has been chosen by the American people to lead.”

Plus Bush, McCain, and the rest of the Republicans.

“The Republican Party will work to find common ground with the new President, and to support him whenever possible.”

This is a joke. Republicans are willing to be in bed with Hussein. They voted for him.

“But Republicans cannot sacrifice principles to do so.”

Too late, they did already. Just look at Bush and McCain.

“...he must find solutions that do not involve asking opposition leaders to violate their core beliefs.”

Republicans have not principles. You must be kidding.

“President Obama was elected on a platform of change, and received clear majority support.”

As Hitler did and 6 millions Jews died.

“he is entitled to the support of every patriotic American in the high hope that he will be a successful president, including support from the opposition party.”

The only opposition is the American people who loves this country, the military, the family, and God.

“The GOP must be the party of loyal opposition.”

The GOP is dead. The GOP betrayed its base. The GOP fell in love with Hussein and abandoned the principles that made this country great.

“One of the reasons Republicans lost last November was because many of them weren’t true to the party’s principles.”

Thank you, finally you hit the mark.

“Many Republicans lost their way and lost the people’s trust and the right to govern. They must not make that mistake again.”

That will be hard to earn the trust of the people.

“Republicans will honor President Obama’s office and the American people’s choice of him by doing everything possible to work with him.”

Actually, it is the other way. Republicans MUST honor the American people, not Hussein.

“ Republicans stand ready to work with you, if you give them real opportunities to do so.”

In the meantime the American people is marching toward socialism.


My "hope"
What I really "hope" is that Mr. Obama leads this nation based on sound policy and advice and not based on the latest polling data.

Support the Fair Tax (HR 25)

The political game
is my concern.
The Communist Party(Dems) play to the uneducated of society by giving(in return for votes) a little spending money that comes from the workers.
They play this game(as destructive as it is)very well.

What is going to happen when the "takers" out number the "givers"?

And there is NOT one honest person who can deny the truth of what i said.


Amen scrap iron
couldn't agree with you more

Only Time Will Tell
Mr. Blackwell, this was a great article. Now let's hope that some of our republican politicans also read it!

LD 35, I think you are right on. My only concern is that the "takers" already out number the "givers!" It would be interesting to determine how many voters who voted for BHO are receiving some type of state or federal assistance. I'll bet you the numbers would astound us! Only time will tell whether the republicans have the guts to be true to their constituents!!

Quit misquoting Rush!
When Rush said he hoped that Obama failed, what he wants to fail is any further drift toward socialism. I also hope that fails. The only way Obama's presidency can be a success is if he gets government out of the way of small business owners, lowers taxes, and drastically cuts government spending, while being tough on terrorism. If he does that, Rush and I both hope he's a success. Unfortunately, his beliefs to do not bode well for that kind of success. If he wants to further wrap business in government oversight and regulation, nationalize the health care program, and lay down our defenses in the face of terrorism, then yes, we should all hope he fails.

Well said
I totally agree with you Mr. Blackwell. The campaigning is done, the inauguration has come and gone adn we know have a 44th president. Our country is in dire straits and both Republicans and Democrats need to, as President Obama said when quoting Scripture, "set aside childish things". Republicans need to get back to where they came from and be the salt to this administration - a little enhances the taste but too much makes it bitter.

UK teetering on Bankruptcy
The left's policies are the same as the UK's and guess what they have universal health care.
Guess the left will never learn. Our country may be in deep stuff. Get ready

Excellent!!!
Mr. Blackwell, you are dead on! You have made me so proud to be an American and to be a Republican. There is no one correct answer and we must work together. What happened the last eight years showed the absolute worst of Americans and I pray that Republicans don't follow in those footsteps. I also pray that Mr. Obama can find the courage and the strength within himself to make decisions. You cannot please everyone and when put in a leadership role you have the responsibility to actually make tough choices.

Love of Country
I love my country, but that does not mean I have a blind love of government. We must show respect to the office of President, Senator, Congressman, etc., but I can disagree with stated policies of the people holding those offices. I know there are many conservatives who post on this site who have expressed a desire for Barrack Obama to fail and that he is not their President. Those of you on the left need to remember the Bible verse, (this is a paraphrase) "those who are guiltless cast the first stone". I can't tell you how many leftist posted on here that G. W. Bush was not their President and even wished death upon him. SHAME ON YOU. Shame on both conservatives and liberals if you condemned the other side for actions you yourself have done.
I don't wish failure on Barrack Obama. What I pray for is for God's spirit to fill him and guide him to strive for policies that please God and bring about a return to prosperity for our great nation. I pray for the Lord to move in such a way that the Democratic leaders in Congress have their eyes opened and they see what the founding fathers created and work to restore that philosophy. I pray for greed and lust for power to be erased from those in elected and appointed positions, that they work for the common good of the people, not to line their own pockets or obtain more power. I also pray that the citizens wake up and realize that you cannot get blood from a turnip and you can't crush the industrious and ambitious among us to support the lazy and worthless. Those who are successful will help the less fortunate who they feel deserve help if they are not having their hard earned gains confiscated and handed out without their control.

Love of Country continued
I don't want BO to fail, but I also don't want his, Nancy Peloci's and Harry Reid's socialist agenda to be incorporated. That will bring about the total destruction of the Republic that our founders so carefully constructed. Read "Atlas Shrugged" and then tell me what the leftist are doing today are not straight out of that novel. I will not wish ill upon those I disagree with, but I will support my views and will not support actions that are against my principles.
I don't want to end on a negative note, but it is appauling to me that the Democrats spewed hate, anger, vitriol and worked endlessly against President Bush for his entire Presidency, yet now ask Republicans to "come together" and work with the new Democrat President. "What ye sow, that shall ye also reap". "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I guess it has been a while since you had time to read your Bible to remember these verses.

Not the blessings, but the right
Well written article, however you misunderstand why government exists. That misunderstanding allows you to take the unprincipled road of incrementalism that the American people have rejected from the GOP. Government does not exist to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but rather to secure UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are simply among those rights. Even when we simply examine those three unalienable rights, it is not just the blessings that come from those rights that need security, but the shortcomings that come from those rights as well. With the blessings that come from Life we must also accept the disasters that come with hardship; with the blessings that come from Liberty, we must accept the burdens that come from responsibility; with the blessings to pursue our own happiness we must accept the possibility that we will fall short. Government needs to secure all of this, not just the rainbows and lollipops.

Skywalker81
Well said. You sound grounded and level headed. I agree.

What Loyal Opposition?
Mr. Blackwell,
I, too, believe we need to work with Democrats and the President when we can do so without abandoning our core beliefs and principles but, I don't see where that is possible at this point giving where the President stands on the issues. As a true Conservative, looking for true Conservative leadership, I am not well represented. There seems few if any Conservative leadership speaking out. Where is the backbone in our representatives to stand up to Liberal policies that is harming our nation? Where is the Loyal Opposition?

Failure odds are great
Failure happens in all aspect of life, but that is the only true protection the constitution gives us. Most people choose to fail in life, most people want their liberties while preventing the liberties of others and most people have not the slightest idea of what the pursuit of happiness mean. The majority of the people have never read the United States Constitution that claim its protection. I am not saying the only people who should get protection is those who have read the Constitution, no, I am saying it as a fact. Success is the ultimate goal but failure is more than a viable option. This goes for the Obama Administration or anything else in life.

Old Lady
The reason Universal Health Care won't work here is because of 1,000,000 lawyers.

There's a damn lawyer in every single transaction in this country and the Insurance companies also charge great rates to cover the "expected".

Some Doctors pay as much as 106,000 dollars a year to protect themselves against "YOUR"
neighbours lawsuit.

The additional taxes that would have to be paid
by middle & lower income workers would be hell.

I'm one who wants Obama to fail!
If Obama's policies succeed than the US now becomes Cuba. You know what never makes the news? How many US Citizens risk their lives and the lives of their children as they set out from the shores of Florida in order to live in Cuba. I wonder why that is. No, wait, I DON'T wonder why that is. The number of citizens that did that last year is ZERO! Just because 52% of the American population is too stupid to recognize that the Obama's policies were thinly veiled socialism and that he cares more about his ideologies than he does about the people who elected him and even less about the people who did not is not going to make me fall lock step behind them if they call me unpatriotic. I do not pretend to have respect for the ignorant majority who relies more on feelings than fact and I will not support this jerks attempt to kill captialism and democracy in favor of dependence and socialism. As far as those that want to refer back to Bush, give me a freaking break already! He did not subscribe to the conservative values of free market captialism and smaller government and THAT is why we are in the mess that we're in. If Bush had the cajones to tell Pelosi, Frank and Reid that they were responsible for the Fanny Freddie Fiasco and Republicans were CONSERVATIVE enough to stand up and put the blame where it is due, squarely on the shoulders of the party of Obama, we may not be facing the GREATER DEPRESSION and the new RAW DEAL at the hands of the Dems. Perhaps not IF but ONCE he fails we can get back to the values that made this country great. Where is the next Reagan?

Putting away childish things....
Say what you will about Obama (and there's no shortage of "saying" on Townhall) but he has a chance to be a very influential President...Take a look at Blackwell's columns BEFORE the inauguration and compare them to this one...I've read a dozen "conservative" columnists proclaim that the inaugural address was mediocre...For the most part, I'd agree..There IS one "take away line" that suggests a tone change in DC politics..We've used ideology as a "one size fits all" solution to our problems. When "Wall street got drunk", the immediate knee-jerk reaction was to politicize it to protect the ideology on both sides. The truth is that Lehman Brothers did not fall because of shenanigans between Congress and 2 DC based mortgage investors (Fannie/Freddie). Investment Banks didn't "follow", they LED...Obama's asked us to think beyond the pettiness and submit solutions for the real important issues of today..There's always areas to play "politics" but when we're facing a Credit crisis that's accelerated a Recession; it is indeed time to "put away childish things"..Kudos to Blackwell for a responsive and responsible column!

Manuel
You're right on. The Republicans have abandoned their principles, Conservatives are angry and looking for real leadership and we will not get it if we allow the closest thing to "our party" to acquiece (sp?) to Hussein.

Of course I want him to be a failure!
Obama wants to kill millions of children by means of abortion.I hope he fails.

Obama wants to raise taxes.I hope he fails.

Obama wants universal health care.I hope he fails.

Obama wants to treat the enemies of this country as friends.I hope he fails.

What moron wants Obama to be successful?

Dave
The pre-war Nazi Germany like infatuation of the last few days
is more real now than the ridiculous comparisons during the last presidency.
Will the voices of 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama be scorned as unpatriotic for not embracing the new agenda. Obama will play good cop bad cop pretending to oppose the liberal congress while his advisors plan to convert a once great country into a Nanny state. The majority of Americans along with Obama’s own black constituencey spoke clearly in opposition to illegal immigration and gay marriage but will still not be allowed to vote on these matters. They will have to watch helplessly while amnesty is granted, gay marriage is normalized and abortion runs amuck. Forsaking one's sole to elect a man because of his skin color is racism at it's worst. However, it shrinks in comparison with how the media, failing to turn Iraq into Vietnam, helped turn an economic downturn into a recession to get Obama elected. They think we don’t care that men who were willing participants in creating this recession now lead the country. We don’t need to know why Obama took campaign money from Fannie and Freddie. We don’t need to know his chief of staff did nothing to stop the fraud as a board member and friend of Blago. They must be right.

Loyal to what indeed
Mr. Blackwell, when one gets down to it, there really isn't supposed to be so much opposition, IF...IF..IF members of Congress were actually staying within their Constitutionally defined boundaries according to Article 1, Section 8.Yes there might be disagreements on how best to enact for the enumerated powers, however what we have now is laws passed that have no foundation in the Constitution. Take Social Security as a minor example( by minor, I mean there are far more egregious violations ), under what particularly distorted application of reasoning can one come up with any power saying the government has the right to take my money, and invest it or hold onto it until such time as they see fit? Unless and until R's start holding the line at pure Constitutionality all I'm hearing (reading?) is a lot of empty noise in an attempt to swing support toward the GOP. I'm still waiting for an article giving more specific instances where Republicans are going to take their stand, vague recitations of "limited government", "fiscal responsibility", and the like leave far too much for continued Constitutional violations, just not to the degree of the Democrats. What say you? let's really start examining particular enumerated powers and just what form the laws passed for carrying them out are supposed to take, AND.. AND..how R's will toe the line.

Good Article
It made some very valid points...the best on is that the Republican Party lost in Nov. due to the republican party not being true to their principles. Not a truer statement has been made regarding today's Republican Party. It was the key reason i did not vote for McCain. I did not vote for Obama either.

Republicans and Democrats are almost identical now. Expanding Government, Bailouts, and a blatant disregard for the Constitution are just a few areas where is see similarities. Both Parties are sending the Nation down the path of Socialism. IMHO

This is why i am now registered as a Libertarian. I believe in smaller government, less taxes, and Liberty.

KEN BLACKWELL FOR PRESIDENT 2012!
I'm sorry, I can't wait! A truly strong man!

PS. I feel like the president has a flawed character with an unattractive narcissistic bent and with few real core principles I believe in, but I agree, our principled stand to do the right thing is the only way to go.

LOYAL OPPOSITION?

.....Loyal to what? ...The GOP under GW certainly was not loyal to its principles ...

.....If Obama does good for the Country, I will support him, if he does things that I believe are harmful, then I will oppose him ...I would suggest that the GOP do the same ...

.....One thing the GOP should do is stop referring to itself as the "Party of Lincoln" ...that ship sailed a long time ago ...

.....Contrary to the glorified myths found in our schoolbooks ...Lincoln was a tyrant who trashed the Constitution and led the country into a brutal, bloody and unnecessary war ...

.....Slavery would have ended, as it had throughout the rest of the Western world, without the sacrifice and blood of so many ...

.....Lincoln wrote ...A House divided cannot stand but a house joined through subjugation is a house in chains ....Lincoln's war caused much pain and suffering ...we bound up our wounds but they never really healed ....

.....It is time to put Lincoln in his proper place in History ...let the Democrats claim him .....COLOSSUS

LD35, Maggie, et al
The bottom line is that Obama's presidency in the end will be judged by how well he dealt with a sagging economy, outrageous healthcare costs, a porous public education system, dwindling post-high school enrollments, homeland security, Iraq/Afghanistan and the Middle East in general, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, new turmoils occurring on foreign soil, immigration issues, and other important issues that I may have failed to mention. If his policies do not positively affect the majority of these issues, he will be a failure at worst or mediocre at best. If you do not want him to succeed on these issues, you and Limbaugh have some serious problems.

You believe his supporters will gauge his success by how many freebies he hands out. How asinine. Obama will govern more to the center than you care to admit and this constant mention of all this free money going to people who do not work is pure bull****. But continue on with your rant if it makes you feel good.

By the way, some of you continually mention that Bush was trashed by the left and that is why you trash Obama. The difference is that Bush was trashed because of his ACTIONS (or inaction) whereas Obama was just sworn in and you guys are already trashing him as if he has ruined the country in three days.
What a bunch...

Lionheart
i am giving Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt...I agree give him a chance and when he messes up...which he will all politicians do...then he can be crucified just like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and ect...


RIGHT ON, Mr. Blackwell!
I had decided on Inauguration Day that this stance was the only one possible under the circumstances. However--I find it unlikely that any conservative solutions are going to present themselves to these various situations!
The main reason I feel this way is that his agenda is clearly to push forth his totally FAR leftist ideals--and conservatives can NOT support any of them! In the words of a popular song of some time ago: "Gimme somethin' I can USE!"
His token capitulation for the cameras of wearing a Flag pin, putting his hand over his heart, saying "so help me God", placing his hand on a Bible for swearing-in, and inviting prayer (even closing his eyes and bowing his head for part of it!) is too little, too late, and patently false. I noted that Michelle (or his children) didn't even do that!
As a conservative, White, female of over 60--who worked all my life to get what I have; I am frankly very fearful that "they" will certainly try to take it all away from me.
I am loyal to the OFFICE, not the man. I will certainly expect him to live up to his campaign promises, sincerely try to "reach across the aisle", and when he doesn't, I have NO loyalty to the man. Trust and respect are to be EARNED--he has not.

baseballdoc
Lincoln did not lead us into war, the groundwork for the war was started about 6 yrs before Lincoln became Presisdent.

And certainly was no Tyrant.

Lincoln did what he could to avoid war, saying, "slavery would die on the vine".

Loyal opposition
There are more than security, judges and the economy that are important to Republicans. Right to life, small government, low taxes, and personal liberties to name a few. I think at this time it is very important for Republicans and the next RNC chair to stand firm on the things that the republican voter stands for not trying to get along with a new president who is a liberal democrat first and foremost.

LD35 IN

.....You wrote:

....."Lincoln did what he could to avoid war, saying, "slavery would die on the vine". ...

.....If you believe that Lincoln did what he could to avoid the war I would like to know what those things were ...

.....Lincoln didn't care a fig about slavery ...the Southern States wanted to secede and Lincoln, for whatever personal reasons, was determined not to allow that to happen ...he knew that SC would try to use force to remove Ft. Sumter from its territory and Lincoln used that as an excuse to declare "war" ...

.....You do not declare war to put down a rebellion ...war is declared on a soverign State which the Confederacy was .....COLOSSUS

How Relevant Are Republican Values Now?
Controversy and conflict among conservative thinkers reveals just how much trouble the Republican Party could be in over the near term. The validity of its’ core ideals may point to even greater troubles over the long term. From Fred Barnes to William Kristol to Michelle Bernard there have been calls for a new direction and an adjustment of conservative principles while ultraconservative Grover Norquist has said that calls for reform: “Will be cheerfully ignored.” Ms. Bernard has gone so far as to say that the Republican Party has shrunk to a regional party centered in the South and that it lost the 2008 election: “Because its message was disconnected from the majority of Americans.” But is it the message or the principals upon which the message is based that has given rise to this electoral disconnect? Fred Barnes, of the conservative “Weekly Standard”, has said that conservative principles must be adjusted so as to ensure election victories in the future but how far can you travel from your core beliefs before those beliefs become meaningless? The unprecedented government intrusion into the financial system last fall, with Republicans insisting on a partial government equity stake in banking, shows just how far the party’s’ policies have strayed from the twin ideological tenants of free market economics and limited government. This policy departure has in effect eroded the validity of these two very basic conservative concepts. With the exception of arguing what the role of tax policy should be in the stimulus package, the likely Republican acquiescence to Barack Obama’s recovery program will mark a significant shift from the ideas of Ronal Reagan. You certainly don’t hear too much talk lately about “government as being the problem”, especially among Republicans. Quoting conservative Rich Lowry: “The twenty-five year run of free markets, free trade and deregulation are over. We are already into a paradigm shift.”




emf
http://www.lp.org

smaller govt.
lower taxes
more freedom

the Libertarian Party is the only current political party that supports what the Republicans used to...see above...check out the site...you might be a Libertarian in Republican clothing.


Obama
I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh when he said that he wants Obama to fail. I want him to fail, too, because I believe his goal is making America a socialist country. This is shameful. I am also appalled at Obama laughing at Rev. Lowry's "joke" about white people. Didn't someone approve his remarks prior to the inauguration? That wasn't a bit funny and it shows where Obama's true colors lie. Many, many of the people who put him in office were white. The LIBS think he's the "chosen one" but, outside of Hollywood, he's not. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Sorry Ken, but I will not support the
fraud, if he is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of $s to refuse to disclose his birth certificate and college records, it is only because those records would demonstrate clearly that he is a fraud and not an American citizen. I will give him exactly the same respect he and his worshipers gave to President Bush, whom I did not support in most of his descisions, but is at least an honorable man.

baseballdoc
I cannot remember everything written by Lincoln, but his stand against slavery was well known.
The info was at the Lincoln Museum in Fort Wayne,In. as well as Springfield,Il...several hand written letters.

I agree with you that the Confederacy was soverign and the war should not have happened.
He said he wanted to save the Union with or without freeing the slaves, because "slavery will die on the vine".

Response to LD 35 IN
You are absolutely right. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was about SC's secession from the union.

Response to Lionheart
You stated "Government and politics work best when the two major parties have the ability to interject their core principals to achieve specific results to meet the needs of the country." Ufortunately, Obama's core principal is re-directing our wonderful Country toward a socialist form of government. This also seems to be a goal of the LIBS who want government to control everything. Give me a break. These are not the principles upon which our Country was founded.

As an aside, I wish Mr. Blackwell would be more involved in national politics. He would make a fine leader, as he was a fine leader of the Ohio Secretary of State's office.

My thoughts
I think what people in both sides need to remember is that neither one is going to get everything they want. So, they may need to come together and actually compromise and realize that some things are going to be passed that they don't agree with. It's the hard truth that politicians must accept in any system with more than one party. I realize everyone has their principles but obstructionism only obstructs, it does not accomplish anything for anyone and actually self-perpetuates to the benefit of nobody.

Big Tent...
Nice post, Lenard. As usual, I pretty much agree with you BBDoc.

Reagan successfully built a "great tent" republican party, or so we are told. That is a double-edged sword. Anybody can call themselves a republican and a lot of those who do are in vast conflict with Mr Blackwell's principles. Whether they are country club republicans or converted moderates who used to be independents or democrats, they don't really want to have a constitutionally limited government. Heck, a lot of rabid conservatives don't either. And the republican party is beholden to these big government members, because they control so much of the money and leadership. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I really can't see much difference between the republican party and the democratic party when it comes to actually doing something. No doubt there is a huge gap between somebody like Harry Reid and Jim Inhofe or between Nancy Pelosi and Ron Paul, but as a country and as a government, the US has drifted away from liberty and a free market economy for a long time, with only occasional and brief pauses. I cannot envision the Republican party embracing liberty and constitutional restraint whether they remain politically viable or not. Politics has evolved from a necessary public service which temporarily called those of the highest character and concern for the country to an easy way to enrich oneself with power and material wealth that attracts deeply flawed and self-centered people toward a career in government.

Big Tent cont'd....
I really don't know if the Republican party can be re-established or not, given the power of political lobbyists and the bias and insular incompetence of the 24/7 main stream media. But I do know that we cannot reach our potential with the Fed running our economy, the courts creating the law, the income tax, and suffrage for people who vote based on superficial appearances rather than on character and principle. We will never lose those things as long as our educational system is such a mess, the media continues to entertain rather than inform, and self-serving politicians pander to the electorate to continue receiving the perks of office.

Nate...
There are many on all sides of the political spectrum who favor political gridlock. It has something to do with the realization that we may actually be better off when government does NOT do something than when it does. Too bad politicians on both sides seem to agree that government needs to do something about the economy, even though they don't know what to do or what will happen as a result of anything they do. This bailout program is certainly working out well, don't you agree?

To Nate
Nate, I agree with you about compromise. I think that many, myself included, feel there is no compromise and we are being steamrolled. Our money is being given away to make Bank of America a government bank. Also, money to the automobile industry. With all due respect, Detroit hasn't given us much we can use or afford for years, but the DEMS are "in bed" with labor unions. The DEMS will do whatever is necessary to make sure they stay in power. I hope it winds up biting them. They do not represent the interests of the majority -- they only represent the interests of whomever is lining their pockets, i.e., labor unions. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are total jokes.

Respect is earned
not merely granted to someone because they occupy an office.
Mr. Obama must earn our respect.
As for the liberal members of congress I have no respect for their selfish pandering to get votes with wild spending sprees of the people's money. They have dammaged the economy by pandering to lower income voters allowing them to occupy homes they cannot afford. They ignore the will of the people while partying and flying private jets and riding in limos.
Why should we respect the GOP leaders who have been too wimpy to stand up for the conservative principles that made America great? They are more concerned with their image in the media and holding onto their elected office.
Have they earned your respect?
Not mine!

FeedFwd
You are right. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan's quote about government's involvement "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Lion Heart
Seek first to understand...Limbaugh did not say "I want Obama to fail." He said only, he does not want his liberal/progressive policies to succeed.

Maggie and FeedFwd
FeedFwd,

I would agree, the bailout does not seem like it's going to do anything to really help the economy overall. I think it has some upsides though. Regardless of political persuasion, the infrastructure in this country needs repairs and upgrades. The money in the new bailout that addresses these concerns may not directly help us with the economy but it will help the country in other ways. It will create temporary jobs and the need for goods and services that was not there, or not as large, as it was.

All the government can really do is administer the economic equivalent of shock paddles you'd find in an ER.

Maggie,

My career is in manufacturing. We do not do work for auto companies directly, but we have done work for companies that do, or companies that do work for companies that do. If the auto companies fail, there will be a lot of people who lose their jobs or at the very least, have their hours cut back. That will only worsen the economy even further.

I won't argue against special interests having too much of a hold on our government. Corporations on the right and unions on the left have far too much power. I believe we need compromise here. I don't want the government taking over businesses, but I don't want the government to be completely free market. I like to think of it in terms of a farm analogy.

Farmers have cows that they let roam free on their land. They don't need to be out there telling each cow where to go and controlling it's day to day life. What they do need to do is make sure the cows don't wander out of the pasture, make sure no wolves come in, and make sure that the bulls don't gore the other cows to death. Distanced and firm supervision with occasional intervention is what the government's role should be in the economy.


More class then Clinton
I for one will give Obama a chance. So far he's shown great respect for the office, the people, and the opposing party. And that coat thing wasn't some time old tradition. It's actually good PR. I doubt we'll see missing keyboard parts or stolen furniture when he leaves office.

Also, Republicans need to clean house. The Rhino's have really weakened the party in my opinion. Bush, Mc Cain. Until we come to terms with the votes we've cast. Democrats will do as they please. And thats failure. Socialism will mean freedom failed. I'm not ready for that. If Obama what's to leave a good legacy, he'll have to fly center. We shall see.

And as for those talking about Lincoln. He killed two birds with one stone. The reason he led with secession rather that slavery was political.

Wait and See
Anyone who believes that the Democrats will work with the Republicans after the manner in which another American President (GW Bush) was treated by those self-same Democrats for the past 8 years is in for a rude awakening. I cannot believe that the Democrats will be more open to compromise and non-partisanship and less belligerent now that they have near total power. It’s kind of like a school kid who has been getting beaten up by the school bully everyday for years expecting the bully to suddenly stop mistreating him when the bully becomes a cop. Tigers do not change their stripes.

Remember the words of Lord Acton:
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”

This country hasn’t seen anything yet. Just wait and watch; Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their enablers in the so-called main stream media will continue to savage conservatives in general and Republicans in particular. They smell blood and are going to go for the jugular in order to silence any and all dissenting opinions. If you do not believe me, then just read some of the stuff written by liberals on TH columns. They almost all uniformly express the desire for conservatives to shut up and go away. Freedom of speech to a liberals means freedom to express liberal views only.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” George Orwell in his book Animal Farm.

As for those of you who say that we should give Obama a chance; what choice do we have? Even though your allies (and possibly you, yourself) never gave Bush any credit much less a chance to succeed, you demand that we act better than you did. Not a day passed without liberals ripping him apart. I will wait and watch, and I will not let Obama do anything I disagree with without protest. That is the American way.

13Bravo
You're leaving out the fact that some conservatives in turn call liberals a whole host of names that include evil, socialist, communist, lazy, dimwitted, and many many others. Some accuse lefties on this site of hating America.

Going overboard and not knowing how to express yourself in a civil manner is not limited to Democrats and liberals.

Nate...
Some time ago a Frenchman named Frederic Bastiat wrote a fable/parable about the benefits of a broken window. It gives a job to the glass cutter, after all, so it must be good for the economy. The key to economic enlightenment is not to understand what is seen, but to account for what is unseen. Some call that opportunity cost. Infrastructure may or may not be good for the country. But in any case, the jobs and investment put into repairing the infrastructure represents an opportunity cost. Those same jobs and investments could have been put to other uses. You have much more confidence in government politicians and bureaucrats than I do, if you believe they know and pursue the best way to invest labor and capital.

I agree with your analogy about cattle. In fact, the Founders' philosophy is best summed up as limiting government to preventing/adjudicating cases of force (violence) fraud, and theft. Americans should be more or less free to do anything that's peaceful (to borrow a line from Leonard Read that was used by John Stossel yesterday). That promotes the invisible hand Adam Smith was famous for observing. But unfortunately, in the case of free markets, government tends to forget that private voluntary transactions should be just that and instead will often impose protectionist measures on behalf of their friends and campaign contributors who are unwilling or unable to compete. These would be the same competitors who mismanage their businesses while offering bonuses and setting up golden parachutes for executives and buying naming rights to major sporting events and venues. Of course, as one might expect, government regulation often leads to unexpected consequences that actually do put domestic businesses at a competitive advantage with businesses and factories located elsewhere. The answer, however, should be to sunset the bad regulations rather than adding more protective regulations.

Jaymay
What else is there to understand? Obama ran his campaign on promises to administer policies that will assist in re-establishing a sound economic base, policies to assist in making healthcare affordable for all, policies to end the war in Iraq and kill the terrorists in Afghanistan, ensure homeland security, and lessen taxes for 95% of all American citizens.

Before you condemn Obama for establishing a socialistic policy, why not wait until such a policy is instigated. At that point, we can debate whether or not the country is headed toward socialism. Using Limbaugh's and TH thinking, If all the above is accomplished it will only happen because of socialistic policies (that no one yet has clearly defined)and can only constitute a resounding failure in the eyes of cons.

Totally absurd.

Lionheart
C'Mon now sir, you listed particular areas where you would like Obama to succeed. Sir it would do you well to do give that old bit of advice, uhm...oops?..sorry, the law of our land the Constitution a very close examination and see just what really comes under the authority of Congress and/or the President.
Public education, not there,
Post high-school enrollment, not there,
Outrageous health car costs, contrary to the broad distorted application of the Commerce Clause,which has to with the STATES not gouging each other as opposed to private businesses, NOT THERE!!
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, not there.. other than treaties for trade, but meddling please! The Constitution does give room for determining the destiny of other nations, and the Founding Fathers almost to a man were against meddling in other nations affair.
I would go on, but you really need to stop imposing your value system upon the Constitution and read it for what it is as stated in the preamble. Those are the values, and what follows is the form for ensuring them.

loyal opposition
the title says it all. the opposition is loyal. loyal of course, to the country, not to the liberals. the previous opposition was disloyal. disloyal to the country, of course, not to the liberals. we have actually seen traitors intentionally campaigning to lose a war to further their political goals. thats disloyal. you will not see that in the next 4 years.

rhetoric...
LionHeart,

I know of 2 ways government can make health care affordable for all. One is to lower the cost of health care and the other is to make somebody pay for the health care somebody else cannot afford.

The first won't work, because government cannot arbitrarily increase supply and lessen demand for obvious reasons. The laws of economics are immutable. Arbitrarily lowering prices will increase demand and reduce supply. The second way is morally reprehensible and fraught with moral hazard. If somebody else is going to pay for my health care, I have little or no incentive to maintain my health or be selective in the health services and providers I use. Ultimately it has the same effect as lowering prices, except that those who are doing the paying will be motivated to find ways to protect their wallets from being picked by the government.

Government (read taxpayer) bailout of private industry doesn't sound like a sound economic policy to me. And I have doubts about what Obama will actually do about A'stan and Iraq, but time will tell. Before long, nobody will pay taxes. The government will just print the money it needs and be done with it. If you don't understand how this is inflation, the hidden tax, then you should do a little research. If you do, then you are probably taking action to borrow dollars today so you can pay them back with devalued dollars in the future. This is a sure prescription for improving the economy, don't you think?

curmudgeon
Just so you know I have been thought and closer examination to what I said concerning The Civil War previously, and Akagi with his encyclopedic knowledge, and another individual were very helpful. I understand your frustration with what I posted, but in the future, please consider that if you are not able from a more historically and Constitutionally to give reasons for your position you are really not doing anyone any good. As a Johnny-come-lately I am intent on obtaining a better grasp of the Constitution and all the thought and context involved, but what of those who are not? How will your badgering sway them?

Turn Around
The first thing that the Republican party needs to do is complete the purge of radical conservatives who most closely resemble the radical Muslims that they hate. These people, like Bush, and Obama refer to the Constitution as a living document instead of the law of the land. This belief allows them to do things like wage illegal wars, trample states rights, take our liberties, and take our money and give it to someone else. It also allows them to refer to redefining the religious institution of marriage and the Constitution in the same sentence. Lincoln also believed that the Constitution was a living document. This allowed him to send soldiers to arrest Northern Congressmen, Governors, and Mayors who disagreed with him and talk about freeing the slaves while promoting apartheid.

Once we get through with this elimination, we can begin the work of getting rid of the radical liberals who most closely resemble Mao and Stalin.

http://ewebsmith.com/gov/republicanism.html

This is now my ninth try to
post on TH. How do I get through the filters? Do I have to verbally attack another posters comments; Do I have to use all caps to punctuate my condemnation for a liberal ideology; accuse liberals of being racists, socialists, evil, stupid, elitist, communists, anti-american; Do I have to use profanity disguised by asterisks and ampersands?

So far I have done none of this in my previous postings and so far none have seen the light of day on a single comment page. Don't tell me I have to lower my standards of civil discourse to gutter level to post a thought or comment here?

I thought I was being sarcastic.
This is sad, my use of the word liberal and evil and socialist in the same sentence earned me the right to grace this site with a comment.

websmith...
gotta love your post, but think about it... after those purges, who would be left? The very few libertarians and constitutionalists who haven't wandered off to another 3rd party is all. You won't have a viable political party, you'll have a few isolationists and hermits who don't want to talk to anybody.

;)

radical conservative?
Bush a radical Conservative? Bush any kind of Conservative is funny. Please tell me that was an attempt at humor, and not someone off their meds.

I will be Loyal
to my country only, I will never bow down to support or show loyalty to that clown that just took over 1600 Pennsyvania Ave. To that clown, I will be in the opposition every time all the time.

RIP USA

happyrationalist
Now that you've discovered how to post here, maybe you would be so kind to tell me how to do so at Huffington Post. You don't think my moniker Jeffersonwasright had anything to do with it, do you?

Lenard and FeedFW
I understand what you are saying and truly respect both your positions. However, I believe I stand with the majority of citizens who think that our situation has become drastic and it may take drastic measures to get us back up to speed.

Trust me, most of us don't trust government any more than you and I am still uneasy about the bailouts. But the country has been dealing with several issues for years that have quite recently become very troublesome and our quality of life is severely being affected.

Previous administrations have set back and watched continuous slide into our current state while remaining outside the fray as you have suggested. The current administration has decided that its time to act.

Perhaps such actions are outside the purview of the Office of President but the majority of citizens voiced their opinion that if it takes a radical measure to upright the ship, then so be it.

Thank you both for your civility. It is appreciated.

Hi ho, hi ho, into the gutter I go...
To ensure this post makes it through the filters I am including the following words in capitalization with the appropriate venacular disguised by punctuation....

LIBERAL, BLEE*PING@ SOCIALISTS, MARXISTS, EVIL EMPIRILISTIC ELITISTS....

O.K. now for my original thoughts that I tried to post nine times previously....

I wanted to know how loyal oppositionists feel about leftist policies that were passed by the right that we as Americans have adopted as basic rights by modern standards...such as Women's Suffrage (Ann Coulter thinks women shouldn't vote because we ultimatly vote for the left and everyone knows she never errors in thought or judgement), the 40 hour work week (who wants to put in more hours just because they love their boss, their job, their co-workers and hate their personal time and their families), over-time pay (who wouldn't want to be under paid for their time), child labor laws (my nine year old should have to contribute), OSHA (I'm sure miners, oil rig operators, and assembly line employees don't care about safe work environments), the EPA (it's not like we've ever had an oil spill or a coal sludge issue), and unemployment benefits (the economy is doing just fine, isn't it, plenty of jobs out there).

I just wanted to know if this site is frequented by only True Conservatives what they think of removing these intrusive Federal Government policies?

HappyRationalist
I don't think it's the site moderators that are preventing your posts. I think they have bugs in their scripting which prevent you from posting. I occasionally have trouble posting as well and it's never seemed to be related to the content of my post.

It's more of a technical issue than anything else.

Nate, you said
"Farmers have cows that they let roam free on their land. They don't need to be out there telling each cow where to go and controlling it's day to day life. What they do need to do is make sure the cows don't wander out of the pasture, make sure no wolves come in, and make sure that the bulls don't gore the other cows to death. Distanced and firm supervision with occasional intervention is what the government's role should be in the economy."


Excellent analogy. You should get this statement copyrighted.

LionHeart...
I promise to keep an open mind if you will. Let's revisit this in about 2 years and see if anything has really changed and whether it changed for the better or worse. I hope it will be changed for the better, but I fear it will be little changed and we will be worse off.

You appear to look back 8 years or so and figure we just need a change. I look back 80 years and see the increasing abuse of political power and the continuous loss of freedom and the related problems in spite of tremendous advances in technology that have simultaneously improved life in America. The problems we face today have been smoldering and fed by republicans and democrats in Congress and in the White House since the creation of the Fed, the imposition of the income tax, and the Hoover administration. The housing bubble simply acted like gasoline.

Constitutional Limits
Feedforward writes:
"I know of 2 ways government can make health care affordable for all. One is to lower the cost of health care and the other is to make somebody pay for the health care somebody else cannot afford."

And goes on to describe how neither of the above will work. I do agree but the real question is were is there anything in the constitution authorizing the Federal government the power to make hearth care affordable for all?

Not even the most abused "support of commerce" seems appropriate.

Lionheart
Please understand this point, The Constitution is the law of the land, there are many of us who prefer it to stay that way and are adamantly opposed to continued infringements(many egregiously so)which amount to soft(?) tyranny, and we also believe that many of the problems we are facing today stem from those infringements which have been going on in an accelerated way since FDR who is not the first president to ride roughshod over the Constitution, but the one who in the main initiated the Federal expansion to taking over all areas of life here. This is why we are outraged at the continuance of these practices, and those who vote in personalities who make promises in contradiction of what the Constitution actually empowers them to do. So rather than acquiesce I, and many others will continue to oppose absurd renderings of Constitutional power, and I think that those who choose to continue living here should then either respect the law of the land, or move to a country such as England or Canada where the form of government is more to their liking.

FeedFW
You mentioned many good points in your last post and, with God's blessings, I look forward to future discussions with you on Obama's presidency.

I'm out

Illusory Hopes
The article is a very simplistic and “wishful thinking” argument. The Democrats are a party of totalitarian mentality and extreme hatred to everything that symbolizes Republican values. Hussein Obama is a radical leftist whose thinking process is driven by his socialist ideology and radical agenda.

For example, the signing of the executive order to close Guantanamo, and other CIA prisons overseas and the ban on torture is a small evidence that he believes that America is the ugly and it has to follow the global community’ values.

The fact that in the new White House website George Bush is still attacked and trashed as inept, it proves that the Obama’s comrades believe that a radical change must be done in America. How can Blackwell ask Republicans and patriot Americans to work with a socialist administration who do not believe in the American people?

This is just the beginning of this catastrophic administration. Those who believe in “let’s give him a chance” are so naïve that they do not understand what a socialist and radical leftist think.

Just watch what a top economic adviser to President Obama has told a congressional panel about the billions of dollars of the proposed economic stimulus plan. Robert Rich said that it should be allocated with social issues in mind, to make sure the money doesn't go to just "white male construction workers" or the highly skilled.

See it here:

Reich's statements were highlighted in a video by NakedEmporerNews, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opxuUj6vFa4

Socialism in America? You better believe it.






vicki
"Support of Commerce", that's not there either. That would be misconstruing "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes", particularly as the intent of "among the several states was to make sure no one state was imposing so many tariffs upon another as to make it unprofitable to export or import.Again, it really had nothing to with the practices of private businesses.

Opposition


The left has taken the highly partisan position that anything the conservatives want is evil simply because the conservatives want it or are doing it, even if it's something the left was clamoring for just a year or two ago.

Obama is now in an impossible position because some of what BushII tried was actually the right thing to do, and the left wants "anything else". (I certainly don't think BushII was right on everything, it's just that the left barely realized he did what I object to.)

Obama has to choose between being dumb and "betraying" his base. He might get away with it because his base has the memory and attention span of a gnat. Stall a few weeks and get the MSM to prep them, and his base will cut their own throats.

Republicans? The problem with voting for "the lesser of two evils" is that it tells the crooks how much more they can get away with.

Happy Rationalist...
I'll take a stab at this...

I'm not a concerned about specific groups voting, be they women, blacks, or communists, as long as they are legal citizens and pay taxes. I would also prefer that some kind of minim standards of understanding history, current events, political positions of the candidates and such be demonstrated, but that will never happen. While many women vote emotionally rather than rationally, I'm not prepared to say that they all do or that it is an entirely bad way to vote, but I appreciate Ann and her rapier wit.

Should we be required to work 40 hours or should we be free to decide how many hours we will work? Should an employer be required to hire somebody for 40 hours or should he be able to offer jobs that require more or less hours? Employers do compete for laborers in some markets and laborers in those cases do much better than government minimums.

Your children shouldn't have to work, but should they be prevented from working? What ever happened to the concept of voluntary agreements.


Furthermore...
In spite of OSHA and EPA, we continue to have accidents, spills, fires, workplace injuries and fatalities. One wonders how much credit these agencies should take for the bad things that happen as well as the good. A properly working tort system will make it more painful for companies to harm employees and customers than the government ever will. A properly functioning media will make sure of it.

It isn't that conservatives are for unsafe and unhealthy work conditions, shoddy products and services, or unfair pay and benefits for labor. We just don't believe government bureaucrats have the knowledge to decide what is right or best. We don't live in a one-shoe-fits-all world. The government can protect individuals from coercion or fraud or theft or threats from other individuals, companies, or associations. After that, it is up to us as competent individuals to negotiate to a mutually agreeable contract or find something else. Political elites who think they know better than each of us how we should order our lives suffer the fatal conceit. It didn't work too well for the USSR. You would think liberals who chafed at Bush's actions would resist more government regulation lest Obama gets beaten by another Republican in 4 years.

Lenard
I don't post on Huff Post so I wouldn't know, but if I were to hazard a guess I would have to surmise that according to muliple postings by other unhappy and otherwise frustrated conservatives there is no difference between a liberal and a conservative. Right is Left and Left is Right. I do know that the word "troll" is a universal insult used by both sides against the other so try that and I would guess capitlization, punctuation, and venacular insults against the right will gain you unlimited posting access on HuffPo as is true here.

Nate
A bucket full of manure does not equal a truck load of manure.

The left has constently delivered an entire convoy of manure.

Republican Core Principles
Dear Mr. Blackwell,
As a party Republicans have mouthed the so called principles of our Party, but our actions have not matched our words. If spending we have been out of control and seemingly afraid to take on the "other side of the asile" to stand firm for those principles. We have allowed the Dems to bully, degrage, and disrespect everything we say we stand for. In many cases our members even helped. Right now I consider the Party to be a disgrace to the memore of President Reagan. If you really desire to be the Party Chairman you are going to have to be able to clearly articulate your vision and plans to right our ship which at the current time is serriously listing to the left. Those who are in a position to financially support the Party are waiting.

Frank from Dayton

Charles
Well, I'm not sure what you're point is, but even manure is useful to some people.

FeedFWD
I work for a plant that is required by law to dispose of waste in a way that is damaging to the environment, and we cannot get it through the idiot in charge's head that it is more damaging than what we want to do. (We want a long term return, not a short term bonus, this is where many of us have worked for decades. What we want to do would actually benifit the envioronment, and our long term paychecks.)

I'm just waiting for the twit in charge to move on so we can see what size of brick his replacement is going to pass when he sees the damage done.

FeedFwd
Your incredibly civil reply to my posting was more than I could have hoped for. You expressed your opinion in a mature, clear, and concise manner that I can not help but respect. As to your answer concerning women voters, is that how you would describe all women including those closest to you and would you appreciate women and their contributions more or less if women were more like men? Would you be ok with all employers holding the sole right to dictate working conditions that held you hostage to your monetary needs (i.e. sweat shop conditions) or do you have complete trust in the proprietors ethical and moral decision to put quality of working conditions above profit? Would you be fine with children working in factories for more than 40 hours a week, with no breaks, no sick time, no age limits? Do you believe you would be free to choose the hours you would work or would employers be free to say if you don't choose my conditions you choose not to work?

I'm not being intentionally snarky, just looking for more clarification.

Charles
The right has taken the same stance on anything that the left wants to do.

It's opposition for oppositions sake and it benefits nobody. I made a previous comment in this thread earlier today dealing with that.

I disagree Ken...
...it was not a peaceful transfer of power. The crowd was hostile toward the previous president as they continue to be. As if he were trying to stay in the White House or something. He took the high road once again though and showed incredible class while these people insane with violent cruelty continued to express their tastelessness.

The comments on this thread
have been missing the rancor that often times accompanies these types of discussions...on both sides I might add. I commend you all for the civility you've shown.

However, I still have deep misgivings about the present administrations' plans to "fix" the economy, as well as other areas of our lives. I cannot possibly support policies that are detrimental in the name of "unity." It would be behaving as if two wrongs really do make a right!

Here's an illustration. Suppose the neighborhood bully is beating up my little brother. The cops come and instead of dealing with the bully, they just start thrashing my baby brother with their nightsticks. Those cops are the big-government types who want to solve all our problems, but by their actions only make the situation worse. It doesn't matter that they have good intentions of stopping the fight, the cops are adding to my baby brother's injuries.

HappyRationalist...
Please reread my post about women. I thought I made clear that I don't think all women behave emotionally and I don't believe all men behave rationally. I do believe it isn't 50-50 for either group. Women do tend to be more emotional and men do tend to be more rational. And as I also said, I'm not entirely opposed to emotional thinking/behavior. As the French say about men and women: "Viva la difference!"

I believe that supply and demand dictate who has the upper hand in an employer-employee negotiation. You might be surprised to know that while I don't care for unions and I think they have done more harm than good, I don't oppose the voluntary establishment of unions. In some cases, unions may be able to offer a better deal for both employer and employee. If a prospective employee doesn't like the terms of employment, he should look for other opportunities. As I noted, in some places, there are shortages of qualified labor and employers take on the burden of paying higher wages to attract workers and then paying further to teach them the skills needed to do the job. In some cases, they are repaid by the worker leaving to do the same work somewhere else, now that he has been trained. I don't see anybody crying for the employer in that case. Everybody wants more pay! It's human nature.


furthermore...
We do have separate laws for minors and I'm generally OK with that. They aren't allowed to enter into a contract or buy alcohol and tobacco products or drive a car or vote below a certain age. Still, I think it would be OK for kids to work if both they and their parents agree to the terms. I could go either way on child labor laws, because I have known parents who don't care for their kids and wouldn't look out for their best interest. I know because I have adopted some and fostered even more.

The key to earning better wages, isn't government regulation, but developing skills and experience that make you more valuable as an employee or contractor. There was a time when options were more limited because transportation and information was not as easy as it is today. You might not be able to move so easily or learn of opportunities elsewhere. Today there is no excuse. If your family obligations are limiting you, it is unfortunate, but having a family is also a voluntary choice. Sometimes we have to make unpleasant choices and/or deal with the consequences of choices we have made. I just chafe at suffering the consequences resulting when "the government comes to help me".

Andrea...
Do you think Ken will read these posts and take them into consideration? I hope so. If he does, he can expect my support.

FeedFwd
You said, "After that, it is up to us as competent individuals to negotiate to a mutually agreeable contract or find something else." What makes you think anything besides the laws that allow workers to organize and demand mutually agreeable contracts would encourage employers to work out mutually agreeable contracts for time card employees. I have never been able to negotiate the terms of my employment anywhere. As an individual what do you propose workers do to coerce an employer to accept employment on your terms?

It sounds nice as a theory but I am failing to see any realistic applications that would work in the real world of a highly competetive environment of too few jobs and too many willing to work.

No, stick to what's Right
This is another one of those Republican "loyal opposition" columns. Utter nonsense. Obama is a president who deserves only hostility and opposition from conservatives. Remember, please, what you folks said about Obama during the campaign: not really an American citizen, is a covert Muslim, a Marxist, anti-Christian, anti-life, pro-gay, a supporter of terrorism, etc. etc. If this is what you think he is, then playing the role of "loyal opposition" isn't patriotic--it's ridiculous.

Real conservatives should be gearing up to resist everything Obama tries to implement. They should be working to remove him and Biden from office. They should be clogging the courts with barrages of lawsuits against everything Obama proposes. They should seek out or invent evidence to show that Obama is an enemy of this country.

Where do I get this? From reading TH and other right-wing sites for the past two years. You folks know I'm not making ukp this stuff. I assume that you meant all of it. Obama hasn't changed, and neither should you.

So, if conservatives are to dominate in the Republican party, they must commit themselves to the task of removing the Obama administration as soon as possible.

Loyal Opposition
I agree that it is our duty to fight for our beliefs, but how can we corral the Maverick and others like him to support the party platform and basic conservative positions? Let's defeat these people in the primaries!

The laws of economics are immutable...
If there is too much of anything then sellers will be less willing to pay more and buyers will have to "sweeten the pot" to close the deal. Just because there are few open jobs available that offer comfortable compensation, doesn't mean the government can fix it by arbitrarily regulating labor. If you raise the price of labor (e.g. minimum wage), then the employers will hire fewer people. I don't know your specific situation and I can be sympathetic. Many of us have lost jobs... my brother was out of work for a year and he had a wife and kids to support. All of us compete for jobs and go through some kind of performance evaluations. But you can try to raise the productivity of your employer making your employer more profitable and yourself more valuable. Of course, you may have to take a job at an "unfair" wage to get a foot in the door. You could do what many have done and start your own company. One thing that would help all of us is to get government out of the business of business. Replace the income tax with the Fair Tax and employees will be more affordable and companies will be more willing to create new jobs. They won't be at such a disadvantage to companies in locations who don't use income taxes. Replace the regulations that place a higher burden on new and innovative or entrepreneurial companies. The legal system can be a crap shoot. If negligence and workplace problems were resolved in court rather than by regulators, companies will be motivated to find a higher standard of working conditions that keeps them out of court. On the other hand, the standards might not be as likely to be capricious and arbitrary. I don't know how that would work, but I'd certainly like to give it a try. I don't think it would work any worse than what we have today.

FeedFwd
Do you mean Ken Blackwell? I don't know if he reads the comments or not since I haven't been posting here very long. A couple of the columnists do, as I have seen replies from them. Although I don't know if that was just a reader pretending to reply as the author. Who knows?

I'm just happy to see friendly discussions where capitulation is not expected of conservatives. :)

Ask-Bid spread...
In every voluntary transaction, there is a minimum price the seller is willing to receive and a maximum price the buyer is willing to pay. Sometimes these are very close, maybe even identical. In that case, each party benefits (by definition of a voluntary transaction, each is better off before than after, assuming they are rational actors). In some cases, the buyer's maximum is lower than the sellers minimum and there will be no transaction. If I am only willing to pay 10 dollars to go to the Super bowl, I am not likely to find a seller who will accept $10 for a ticket. If I offer $100 for a new Mercedes Benz sedan, it ain't gonna happen. The interesting situation is the case where the buyer's maximum is greater than the sellers minimum and the difference is significant. The transaction should occur. Clearly, both parties can agree on a price that will make each better off. The problem is that the same transaction could occur at any number of prices. The buyer, who is better off, Will still feel like he paid too much and got screwed. The seller, who is also better off will still feel like he didn't get paid enough and got screwed. Labor unions can create a common price that "hides" the ask-bid spread and makes everybody feel better. Ignorance is bliss. Commodity markets and stock exchanges create liquidity that effectively does the same thing.

Reply to Manuel in CA....Post #92
Excellent responses to Mr. Blackwell's remarks....simply excellent....sums up what I believe as well. Thank You!

Here's one more:

"Democrats and Republicans should work together to find not Democratic solutions or Republican solutions, but American solutions."

Too late...I cannot recall ONE instance in my lifetime that this has ACTUALLY been achieved.

P.S. Ken, I'm glad you did'nt get caught up in Taft's Coingate....as an Ohioan for many years, that sure was EMBARRASING!

Working with the Dems
On the basis of the last eight years? You are a dreamer sir and on the basis of this article I'm withdrawing my support for you as the Chairman of the NRCC. You're a nice guy Mr. Blackwell but what this party needs, if it's going to survive and if America is going to continue to evolve as the hope of the free world, are pit bulls, sir. Think Sarah Palin on steroids. Think another Ronald Reagan. But lets not hear any more about working with a party that has consistently demonstrated absolutely no interest in doing so. We are the good guys and we don't need to apologize for it. Whatever we do they're going to launch every sling and arrow in their bottomless quivers at us. Get used to it, love it, get a backbone.

FeedFwd
Your responses continue to be civil and well worded and I appreciate the opportunity you have afforded me to enjoy a civil debate where disagreements in ideology are present but insults and vitriole are absent.

Though I agree with, in principle, many of your points concerning employment in this country and our freedom to better our situations, I disagree that without regulation and laws that prevent abuses the American worker would not enjoy the freedom of choosing employment that meets their individual needs free from fear of retalition of employers towards those who would choose to find grievance in their situations.

History provides too many sad examples of abuses heaped on the American worker in the form of violence, dangerous working conditions, retaliations, extreme hours, and compensation disparities as well as discrimnatory hiring and firing practices with no legal recourse for the victims which has sadly made protectionary laws necessary.

These points are where I have found the conservative values I was raised with conflicting with my sense of fair play and belief that sometimes the necessary evils we employ in the form of government intervention and regulation are less evil than the miseries that We The People can inflict upon each other.

My belief is that We The People should wage a Loyal Opposition to any infrigement on our rights as a totality, not just one group or the other, but what will be fair to all. Even the fringe elements on both sides, whose ideologies are polar opposites, two sides of the same coin, have more in common than they think. Both the Right and the Left suffer illness, the loss of their children to accident and disease, feel happy at times and sad at times. Our laws should, if applied in the context of humanity and it's many diverse and complex natures, apply to all of us and benefit and protect all of us whether or not we personally ever require their lawful intervention on our behalf.

Interesting perspective
Andrea, your analogy about the role of government and the perceived injuries it heaps upon us was interesting. In regards to the economy,and I can assume in regards to every government imposed protection or assistance, you wrote:

Here's an illustration. Suppose the neighborhood bully is beating up my little brother. The cops come and instead of dealing with the bully, they just start thrashing my baby brother with their nightsticks. Those cops are the big-government types who want to solve all our problems, but by their actions only make the situation worse. It doesn't matter that they have good intentions of stopping the fight, the cops are adding to my baby brother's injuries.


I'd like to propose an analogy of my own that illustrates a different view:

You and your baby brother both want a cookie so you ask mom (the government) if you can have a cookie. Mom says you can each get one of your favorite cookies "if" you can get it yourself.

Though, in your mom's eyes, you are equally beloved and cherished, and though you are equal in your will and determination to reach the cookie, it is a fact that you are not equal in ablity (knowledge, skills, strength, or reach).

You, after a few jumps with arms stretched up high, towards the top shelf, finally succeed in reaching your favorite cookie. Your baby brother, though he tries hard, just isn't able to reach his cookie. Eventually you or mom will assist your baby brother by picking him up so he can reach his cookie.

Each child reaped the rewards; one accomplished their goal on their own through skill, determination, and in this case, order of birth which granted greater advantages; the other, though his will and determination were just as strong, your baby brother would have never reached his goal without assistance, most likely from mom because siblings notoriously disregard fairness.

Nate @1:28pm
I would be one of those who think that many if not all lefties are socialists or communists and those hate America. Liberals are constantly pushing socialist agendas. Socialized medicine (now disguised as an effort to get everybody insurance coverage), is one such example. “Spreading the wealth” to quote President Obama is right out of the Communist Manifesto. I can’t speak to the laziness accusation. Dimwitted can be shown by simply reading posts on TH by such geniuses as Mario, Ranger29, koolmuse, and Catfish Keith to name just a few. Just give some of these individuals posts a read sometime. Why don’t you tell me the last time conservatives booed an outgoing U.S. President. Far more liberals have demanded that their political opponents be silenced through legislation such as the “Fairness Doctrine” than have conservatives. Why don’t you tell me about the last time a conservative politician tried to silence liberal media? Yes some conservatives go overboard. By contrast most liberals openly hate both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, etc… Why don’t you tell me about the last time a conservative politician demanded that liberal leaders be jailed for crimes against humanity? The few conservatives that go overboard are no match for the legions of liberals who routinely attack conservatives. I’m sorry but there is no comparison.

happyrationalist
I don't particularly like Andrea's example, but yours also leaves much to be desired. You seem to assume that it is the role of government to provide for others, or to ensure that where one falls it is the role of government to make up for their lack. If you can see that somewhere in the Constitution it says we are responsible to do good to others, I would like to see it. Rather it is to stay out of the way as much as possible and prevent others from doing harm, or punishing them once they have done so. If you like socialism, please fell free to enjoy it, but not here, try Canada, or England, but please whatever you do stop hijacking this government and let us have our Constitutionally guaranteed form of a Republic.

happyrationalist
Furthermore in your example you portray the government (Mom) as putting the cookie on a shelf, a bit absurd, and really saying that government created the problem in the first place, and is only fixing what it shouldn't have done in the first place. I like this better; Mom (the private citizen0 cooks a nice big meal and when the younger child[Johnny](those who haven't given their all in life) and older child[Mark](those who have diligently applied themselves) sit down to eat, but dad gets home and says to the older child upon seeing him start to wolf down his meal"whoa slow down son your eating more than Johnny", whereupon Mark replies "but I'm bigger and can eat more, but dad says "no it's just not fair to eat more than Johnny, you just stop growing and when Johnny catches up with you, then you can both eat the same."

Lenard
Here's what confuses me, and other reasonable people, about the far right (and, yes, the far left); The automatic instinct to resort to knee jerk insults in response to anything that might slightly differ from their own perspective. We labor, sadly, under the misplaced and misinformed fixation of believing our GOP representation are, in fact, holy crusaders of protecting and upholding just the values of the far right to the exclusion of all others.
In reality, our elected officials, are actually on the payroll of each and every taxpayer in this country whether they share party identity or not. They represent All of Us, not just you or me and that is what we should expect of them.

What is a republican?
Not me. I'm a conservative and that means I don't have friends in the socialist Republican Party. I still see no difference between republicans and democrats and haven't for more than twenty years. The Neo-CONS and RINOs like McCain will drool all over themselves when given the chance to help the Messiah, don't worry. I think this writer is too idealistic to be taken seriously. There is no loyal opposition. There is no opposition in the republican ranks. Just a bunch of me-too liberals.

hapyrationalist
Did I insult you? I fail to see at any point where I called you a name or ridiculed you. I am merely asking you to seriously consider what is the more proper response to the fact that here have the Constitution which in all honestly is strictly limiting, but many rather than allow it to be administered distort particular phrases and inject meaning into words that have no relationship to their intent. The response is either work to support the administration of the Constitution, or not liking that go to another country where another mode of government is in place. Why fight to take away the heritage that has been bestowed to us? One can only assume a less than benign intent.

hapyrationalist
Did I insult you? I fail to see at any point where I called you a name or ridiculed you. I am merely asking you to seriously consider what is the more proper response to the fact that here have the Constitution which in all honestly is strictly limiting, but many rather than allow it to be administered distort particular phrases and inject meaning into words that have no relationship to their intent. The response is either work to support the administration of the Constitution, or not liking that go to another country where another mode of government is in place. Why fight to take away the heritage that has been bestowed to us? One can only assume a less than benign intent.

hapyrationalist
Did I insult you? I fail to see at any point where I called you a name or ridiculed you. I am merely asking you to seriously consider what is the more proper response to the fact that here have the Constitution which in all honestly is strictly limiting, but many rather than allow it to be administered distort particular phrases and inject meaning into words that have no relationship to their intent. The response is either work to support the administration of the Constitution, or not liking that go to another country where another mode of government is in place. Why fight to take away the heritage that has been bestowed to us? One can only assume a less than benign intent.

ooops
sorry folks

HappyRationalist
I understand what you are saying; your illustration is, in fact, the typical liberal or progressive way of viewing government: the supplier of all our needs and the leveler of the playing field.

I have a few things to say in response: 1) Social welfare is not the proper role of civil government. That is the role of the family and, failing that, the church or charity. 2) No matter how hard you try, all things in life will never be equal. Not everyone will be beautiful, highly educated, happy and well-off. That is reality. 3) While it is good to want to help one's fellow man, when you involve the coercive force of civil government someone's rights will always be infringed. In the case of social welfare, the tax-payer is the one who is injured. His money is taken from him by force and given to others. Theft is still theft whether it's officially sanctioned or not. 4) Big government fosters dependency and slothfulness instead of self-reliance and industry. Where is the initiative to work when the government provides whatever we need?

RonC @10:35pm
Wow you nailed it! Like you, I am a conservative and I have never belonged to any political party. I supported the Republicans when they appeared to be following Reagan's policies. After they abandoned his principles I came to the conclusion that the Republicans were no different than any other politicians. At least the Democrats follow their professed beliefs; even to the point of fanaticism. Republicans only seem to care about getting elected. To hades with all politicians.
GOP=Getting Ourselves Paid

13Bravo
When is the last time there was a liberal President who did something that could be considered a crime against humanity, that is comparable to the things that people on the left accuse Bush & company of doing?

The fact is, liberal is a far more broad term that is being used to describe a whole host of people with all kinds of varying opinions. It's not a solid political movement in the way that conservatism is. Anyone that has any views on the left is lumped into the liberal catagory which is silly. Conservative is far right, liberal is far left. You're lumping a lot of moderate people into the category and into the crosshairs of your disdain. I lean to the left on social issues, and I lean to the right on gun rights, the death penalty, and some economic, privacy, and property issues. Am I automatically a liberal since I have some left views? Some posters on this site would say I am. I don't believe in communism and I also don't think the U.S. is heading towards communism. I believe we need a degree of socialism for this country to be great. By that, I mean only that the government should provide a helping hand to those in need. I don't want the government owning businesses or regulating every single tiny thing but I do want the government to make sure there are standards.

The Fairness Doctrine is a travesty and I will be real surprised if Obama puts it through. You may disagree with the man but he is not by any means stupid. Enacting the FD would bring far more consequences than it would rewards.

Lenard at 8:34
Your analogy is off. The government does not tell the older son that he can only eat the same amount as Johnny. What the government does is make sure there is take something off of everyone's plate to make sure there is at least something on Johnny's plate. That's the point of social welfare.

Obviously though, there is abuse, waste, and inefficiency. The system needs reformed, not removed.

Nate
The government has no right to do so, period. It is theft plain and simple. It is Unconstitutional. You also missed the point of what was being done in my example. There are those who excel in life and do so by choosing to do so, no one has the right to punish them for doing so well because others CHOOSE not to do so well. If someone chooses to have a family which they cannot provide for, why am I punished for something someone shouldn't have done in the first place. AGAIN, if you don't like this form of government LEAVE and go elsewhere, it's that plain and simple. Stop lying about what the Federal government has the authority to do.

Nate
Do this Nate, SHOW ME where in the Constitution, where in the Constitutional Convention debates, the ratification debates, the ratifications themselves, anywhere that social welfare is in any way something brought forth. You can't you and others of your ilk superimpose a value set on the government, hijack it and use illegal power to force others to your way of doing things. Why don't you rather serve those in need, put strength, virtue and character in them, teach them to make wise decisions. If this is something that one is not giving one's life to, and one(many) is stealing from others to make up for this, one is a hypocrite of the highest level, and this describes the vast majority of those who push for Socialism.

I'm sorry...
But I think a family is a poor analogy, because everybody is a dependent except for the breadwinner. In some cases, there maybe 2 breadwinners and no dependents (DINKs), but in most families and the examples used, there are dependent kids. The kids are not only dependent financially, but more than likely incapable of fulfilling the adult role of self-reliance and don't even know the rules.

A better example, which crops up around tax time to explain why those who pay less tax get smaller tax cuts (it would seem obvious), is about some friends who go to dinner. Each has a different ability to pay for dinner.

Happy, there are no doubt many examples in history of abuse, fraud, theft, and assault. It is a thin line between where the government is protecting us and where the government is tyrannizing us. The government is like trying to carve a pine wood derby (if you have never been involved with Cub Scouts, I apologize)or perform an appendectomy with a machete or a chainsaw. It's like trying to hang a picture with a sledge hammer. It's like trying to chisel a life size statue of Obama's bust with a jack hammer. You get the picture. While you and others may embrace government to make sure we are all protected, I fear that an overprotective government will in many cases do more harm than good. And that is with people of the highest character and intellect running things. Now, forgetting for the moment that Obama is president, just imagine if the most partisan and disreputable politicians from the opposition party gain control in the future. Restraining government power isn't about trying to hamstring the guy you like, but making sure the guy you don't like can't do more damage than necessary.

Lenard
I wasn't around when social welfare was created so I had no part in it obviously. By the time I came of age and started paying attention to the affairs of our country, social welfare had been here for a long time. I do not claim that it is completely constitutional but it's there anyway and I'm glad that it is. My position on that then is that if it is not constitutional, we need to amend the constitution so that it is.

I can anticipate a lot of flack for that position.

You make the argument that you shouldn't have to support other people. I would agree to a certain extent. There needs to be restrictions and guidelines so that habitual users of the social welfare programs are weened out and the people who genuinely need it remain. Here's an example of someone that benefited.

A friend was married and had 3 children with her husband. Soon after the 3rd was conceived, they separated because he had been constantly cheating on her. She had no training of any kind. She enrolled in nursing school and applied to receive food stamps, help with child care costs, and other subsidys. Two years in the future she graduated from school and had already been placed into a job. She is able to support herself and her children with the income she makes from her job as an RN and she no longer needs government assistance.

That is the safety net I think this country needs. Yes, personal responsibility is important, I would not argue against you at all on that. The problem is, bad choices and unforeseen circumstances are going to happen anyway. I don't want the government to coddle people, but I do want the government to offer a helping hand to someone that needs to get back on their feet. Obviously, people abuse the system and we need to be vigilant so that people who just don't want to work are not sucking up resources that should be helping people who need the help genuinely.

Nate
You keep missing the point, it's Unconstitutional, please learn to change your paradigm. The Federal government exists for the most part to do that which the States are incompetent to do, this is why such things as Common Defense, and regulate commerce AMONG the states are there. There is room on a state and local level for aid of some kind, but the Federal government needs to handle the larger issues and by doing so will more competently handle those tasks. Instead everyone looks to the Fed G to handle everything which only creates the horrible mishandling of everything that we see before us today. Whatever states and created jurisdictions within those states decide to do is for them to decide this is called state rights, see the 9th and 10th amendments. Honestly sir you have an appalling misunderstanding of the purpose of government.

Lenard
I understand government just fine which is why I stated that I was not sure if it was constitutional and also stated that if it was not, the constitution should be amended to make it so.

I worry that the states may turn a blind eye to providing the services that I feel the government can and should provide. I also feel the Federal government is in a better position to provide those services over the entire country more efficiently. The problem we have today is that efficiency is not being stressed by the people in charge.

Nate
Please understand this, you are approaching this issue from the perspective of a National government, not a Federal government. We live in the "United" States. In ratifying the Constitution each Sovereign State ceded a portion of authority to the Federal government, in order to have something like Medicaid, Medicare, this would also have to be ceded through the Amendment process given in the Constitution, and even then if certain states found this to such a usurpation of their powers they could leave the "Union". As of right now we haven't had any amendments passed and what goes on is theft, with many willing accomplices. It is getting worse which is why many are becoming increasingly agitated, and it may come to a point where we see great division in this country. Perhaps multiple secessions and then other unions formed, or perhaps taking up arms to RECLAIM stolen rights and powers.

Nate...
It isn't just about efficiency. Or maybe it is. Do you ever ask why the government is so inefficient at everything? All you have to do is study human nature.

The government creates nothing but hassles. When the government takes on a responsibility, whether it can be done privately or not, there is no competition, which leads to little or no choice and greater inefficiency. Even a perfectly efficient government has to hire people to administer and run the efficient program, so the actual cost is the real cost plus an adder (kind of like shipping and handling). Since the government is pressured to keep costs low, they tend toward a one-shoe fits all solution and abhor creative and innovative thought. This is why we should push as much as possible, government activity down to the state or local level. Then we can vote with our feet for the states who find the best mix of government involvement and liberty. Not only that, we get 50 states potentially choosing different solutions from each other and the best ideas can then be copied by the states with poorer ideas.

efficiency
Nate writes:
"The problem we have today is that efficiency is not being stressed by the people in charge. "

And why, precisely, would the people in charge stress efficiency? Without competition there is no motivation to be efficient. This is why private enterprise (in a competitive market) ALWAYS works better.

In any organization...
leaders tend to want to run a fiefdom or kingdom and will work to grow their part of an organization. In a competitive market, that desire is tempered by the fact that your competitors will eat your lunch if you don't stay "lean and mean". In government, there is nothing to check that desire to build up little kingdoms. In fact, we have all heard of stories where bureaucracies blatantly spend/waste money they don't need, because if they don't their budget will be cut next year. In other words, government rewards inefficiency. And in this world, if you reward certain behavior, you generally get more of it.

Nate @8:53am
Your response tells me several interesting things about you. First off, that you actually do believe that Bush violated human rights conventions. Why don’t you tell me what exactly Bush did that is a crime against humanity. Your obvious belief that Bush has actually done something illegal lumps you into the far-left. Rational people know better. Your accusations and the accusations of people like you make you like those far-right people who thought that Clinton had Vince Foster killed, sold state secrets to the Chinese, etc. I lump you into the group that irrationally wish to imprison people with whom you disagree.

Most of my views would be said to be to the right; I believe in and practice my 2nd Amendment rights, I believe that murderers should be executed, I oppose abortion, I believe in sealing the borders, etc. Some of my left views would be that we should have a form of welfare for those who need help (but not as a lifetime entitlement). I do have other lefty views but what they are escape me at present.

The left leaning people I know personally fully identify themselves as liberals. They, like you apparently, see no problem with accusing an American President with crimes against humanity despite the total lack of evidence. You are known by the company you keep.

I have no interest into getting into another asinine debate with a liberal over semantics. The last time this happened was over the definition of atheist and agnostic. You liberals live to try and redefine words.
I am glad to hear that you oppose the Fairness Doctrine. It is a pity that more to the left do not.

13Bravo
I don't necessarily believe that Bush committed crimes against humanity. That's why I made a point to use the word "accuse".

Whether you agree and like Bush or not, you can't ignore the fact that he did a lot of things that may or may not have been legal. I don't really advocate an all-out witchhunt now that Democrats are in power but I would not oppose an investigation either. For me to be happy with it, it would need to be done by an investigator or a group that was approved by a bi-partisan committee. This would help to insure that it is not a biased witch hunt. I have no desire to see any congressional hearings and read about the fiasco in the news every day. I think we need to make sure that if Bush did break any major laws that the appropriate actions are taken but I don't want to hear about every tiny thing he did that was in a legal gray area. Something like that would be counter-productive and would take away from Obama's ability to lead this country effectively. It would also be annoying to have to hear about day-in and day-out.

So, I neither strongly advocate or strongly oppose investigations of Bush and Co. If they are going to happen, I don't want them dominating the political scene.


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.