Throughout his life, Ronald Reagan delivered many memorable speeches. Americans remember them by their names–”To Restore America,” “A Time for Choosing,” “City Upon a Hill.” His speeches sought to challenge and comfort, strengthen and nurture and instill in us all a reminder of what it means to be an American. No where is this more evident than his address at the first annual CPAC conference, a speech which ended with the immortal line, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”
Tonight, another American President known for his speeches took to the podium, hoping to bring healing to a community and nation in need. Speaking at the Tuscon memorial service, President Barack Obama sought to echo the sentiments expressed by President Reagan some 37 years ago. Recognizing the caustic fallout from the weekend’s tragic shooting, Obama, in his own way, called for a renewed sense of civility in the political discourse ringing out across the land, a promising tone from a President who has remained virtually silent since the shootings as his supporters concocted hate-filled ad hominem attacks on conservative pundits.
If we are to live up to Reagan’s legacy, we need to begin by acknowledging Obama said the “right things,” time will tell if his followers heed his advice. We need not engage in verbal sparring with our political opponents; we must only hold firm to the principles and truths we know to be true. If this unleashes an angry tidal wave of abuse from the Left, we must refuse to be drawn offsides by their hard count, and instead focus the attention back on the principles we believe make the United States THE exceptional nation.
Regardless of your political affiliation, the peaceful transfer of power we witnessed today, during the opening of the 112th session of Congress, should make us all proud to be Americans. Critics regularly criticize House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) for being too emotional, but I must admit, watching the pageantry associated with selecting him as Speaker, made me a little emotional. It’s the same type of emotion I experienced two years ago when I watched Barack Obama become the first African-American to be sworn in as President of the United States. The potential energy contained in the peaceful transfer of power drives our nation in a positive direction. It is, and I don’t believe I am resorting to hyperbole here, the reason we went from a colony to a super-power in 200 years, and why we remain an exceptional nation.
In order for this potential energy to be released and make as an ever greater nation, those who inherit the power must simply remain true to the principles on which this country was founded, the same principles that helped us evolve through the years. It seems as if Democrats forgot this simple fact over the last two years, looking to the outside for some secret to unleash this purely American energy. We need not look to the East or West, North or South, across the Atlantic or across the Pacific, to find the catalyst for this release of energy, but merely within ourselves.
Republicans now control the House, while the Democrats maintain the Senate. However, the electorate sent a strong message to all politicians in Washington in November–Americans are sick of “politics as usual” and want change. In order to see that change come to fruition, we must tap into to the bottled up potential energy. This means those Republicans voted in with the confidence that we would return a sense of fiscal responsibility and Constitutional accountability to our government will do exactly that. If not, the voters will hold them accountable in the next election.
It all sounds good now. Republicans will read the entire Constitution out loud on the House floor tomorrow. On Friday, they may vote on a repeal of the health care bill. They have vowed to slash spending. It sounds like a government we can all be proud of, but we also know these politicians to be human first and politicians second, so they will definitely not live up to all their promises, but will they do enough to release this powerful, transformative energy?
For now, we can only hope. Until then, I know for a fact that America is better today than it was yesterday. As long as we have more days like that over the next few years, we will be making positive steps to harnessing this energy.
I don’t care much for stand-up comedians, but there are a few–Silverman, Seinfeld, Robin Williams when he does a show–that I’ll stop down to watch. I’ve become an even bigger fan of Silverman due to her active social media life. I follow her on Twitter and love seeing her videos on FunnyorDie.Com. I find her comedy to be smart and relevant, something few other comedians ever accomplish.
I don’t care too much for her politics. During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Silverman campaigned actively for Barack Obama, partly through her social media instruments. Even though I disagreed with her choice for President, I found her political bits to be humorous and entertaining. Simply put, Silverman performs her job as a comedian as well as anyone in the field. While armed with plenty of hot political opinions, she has never tried to cross-over into the world of political analyst.
Perhaps Ann Coulter could learn a thing or two from Silverman. Like Silverman, Coulter makes me laugh. Like Silverman, Coulter spouts a lot of outlandish political thought. However, unlike Silverman, Coulter presents herself as a legitimate political analyst.
Last night, I read a Coulter piece a friend linked to on his Twitter feed. She attempted to address one of the hot-button issues among the conservative crowd, President Obama’s religion. As with most of her writing, this piece consisted of a series of ad hominem attacks and “straw-man” agruments and very little relevant political criticism. The only thing I gained from reading the piece was a reassurance that Ms. Coulter really, really hates liberals. I did laugh at several of her one-liners and at that point began to formulate the opinion that Coulter would be better suited as a stand-up comedian than a political commentator.
Think about it, with the exception of Dennis Miller and the Blue Collar comedy troupe, the word is virtually void of conservative comedians. Coulter is never short on material, so I’m sure she could throw a routine together overnight. She could take it on the road and sell out comedy clubs and other venues across the nation, giving conservatives a new reason to laugh.
I share many of the same frustrations as Coulter with the current administration. I feel Democrats have failed miserably at addressing the economic crisis facing our nation and have set our nation on the slippery-slope towards eternal dependence on a strong Federal government. Yet I feel there are more constructive means to winning these political battles than writing an article whose main thesis is Mike Huckabee is the only true Christian liberal.
If we learn anything from Coulter it should be that the saying, “don’t quit your day job,” doesn’t apply to every wannabe entertainer. In Coulter’s case, I would highly recommend her quitting her “day job”–whatever that might–and focusing instead on her career in comedy.
On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their preliminary cost estimates for the pending health reform legislation. Democrats lauded the reports findings, noting that the figures–cost of $950 billion and reduce the deficit by $150 billion over ten years–hit the marks President Barack Obama laid out when the health care debate began over a year ago. While these numbers may fall within the parameters dictated by President Obama–the New York Times does an excellent job of explaining how it was impossible for them not to–this battle has little to do with deficits or health care reform. In the end, it comes down to one word–”power.”
Regardless, it appears Democrats have the votes they need and passage is inevitable. Over the past couple of days, I’ve watched the reactions of several different factions involved in the debate.
As expected, members of the “Tea Party Movement” have expressed outrage at the bill and out of frustration have started directing their anger at the politicians involved with ramming the bill through. NBC reporter, Luke Russert, tweeted earlier that Tea Party activists were hurling racial slurs at Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), one of the more visible faces in the health care debate, and other Democratic politicians. It’s unfortunate that some people feel the need to resort to ignorance to voice their opposition. Clyburn and other Democratic politicians are making a huge mistake in supporting the current bill, but it has nothing to do with the politicians’ race, hurling racial slurs at politicians will not prevent the bill from passing, nor will it help reduce the size of the Federal government.
Another group I’ve followed reaction from is the intellectual elitist/Hollywood crowd. This group, largely made up of people who have made a lot of money from doing virtually nothing–either through trust funds, inheritance or bad art–feels guilty for having so much and doing so little. This creates a void in their life and they spend their free time–something else they have plenty of–searching for ways to give their life meaning, supporting health care reform gives their lives’ this meaning. After all, they believe everyone will now have free health care and that a perfect utopia cannot be far behind. This group is ecstatic. While I strongly disagree with this segment of society, they’re so far out of touch with mainstream American society that I cannot hold this instance of bad judgment against them. They lack the proper knowledge to fully understand the practical implications this bill will have on American society.
Without a doubt, the most smug group are the Democratic politicians. Power drives politicians. This goes for Republicans as much as Democrats, but the Democrats have control of both houses of Congress and are the party responsible for this health care bill. This bill was born out a hunger for power, but sold to the American people as a humanitarian necessity. Simply put, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama could care less how much the average American is paying for insurance premiums, nor do they have any real interest in the number of Americans currently without health insurance. These politicians care only about power and health care reform provided the perfect opportunity to control over a large portion of the American economy currently run by the private sector. This group is walking around D.C. right now, chest stuck out, nose stuck up, fake smiles chiseled on their faces, overjoyed that their dream is nearing reality, soon they will have power our Federal government has never seen.
Then there’s me. I’ve made it clear from the beginning that I don’t believe the Federal government has any role to play in health care reform, unless it’s removing itself from the equation altogether. While I do believe reform is needed, I don’t believe that the Federal government is the proper to agent to usher in that reform.
But what about the poor people without health insurance? Our nation is filled with the most generous people on the face of the planet. I have no doubt that, if provided with sufficient tax credits, American people would gladly increase their charitable donations to churches and other altruistic organizations. People run charities a lot better than the Federal government.
When I look at this health care bill, I am saddened by the unabashed bigotry of some of the bill’s detractors. I’m offended by the bravado of the elitists on the East and West Coasts of this nation, who look to the government to solve their personal issues, at the cost of millions of average middle-Americans. I’m disgusted by the egos of the Democratic politicians, so hungry for power, that they’re willing to totally destroy our constitutional Republican form of government, which has worked so well since the founding of our nation. Most importantly, I remain resolute that this socialism starter course will not take hold in the bowels of the Americans people, but rather be discharged as the filthy excrement it is. The first big BM? November 2010.
The New York Knicks defeated my beloved Mavericks 128-94 tonight. A 34-point loss is probably one of the more curious ways to end a 13 game winning, but after we handed the Knicks their worst loss ever at Madison Square Garden in January, I knew they would be looking for a revenge. Streaks are made to be broken and I knew that eventually the Mavs’ streak would end, but for it to come in such an embarrassing fashion makes it that much worse. There were moments in tonight’s game where I couldn’t tell if the Mavs wanted to be at Paquiao/Clottey fight instead, spent too much time at the Lower Greenville St. Patrick’s Day Parade or if they just wanted to play down to John Hollinger’s expectations. Whatever the case, this was one of those games in an 82 game season a NBA time is going to have.
What made tonight’s loss extremely disappointing is what happened on the court following the game. Not that it was anything new or unusual, but rather a disturbing trend I’ve seen play out in sports more and more often. As the clock ran out, I saw several Mavericks’ players laughing and carrying on with several of the Knicks’ players. Let me be clear, I have nothing against a friendly handshake at the end of a game as a show of sportsmanship. What bothers me is when professional athletes buddy up with their opponents after a game, especially after a thrashing like tonight.
Rush Limbaugh caught a lot of heat last year when he said he hoped Barack Obama’s policies failed. Whether you agree with Limbaugh or not, his philosophy–to see your opponent defeated–should be one adopted by all professional athletes. When I see athletes goofing around with their opponents, before or after a competition, I immediately begin to question whether or not they truly desire to be the best at what they do. If I were to take such a half-hearted approach at my job–not caring that my competition was destroying me–I would surely be fired.
Not to sound like the “old man,” but when I was a kid, athletes weren’t like this. When I watched Randy White (the Cowboys Hall of Famer, not the Mavericks spare), I knew he wanted to destroy his competition. I didn’t see “The Manster” discussing dinner plans with John Riggins. Likewise, when I saw Nolan Ryan pitch, I saw a man burning with a desire to win. I never saw him fraternizing with opposing batters.
What do you guys think? Do you think professional athletes are too friendly with each other?
Recently, I penned a piece exposing the Democrat’s faulty logic in continuing to press forward with health care reform in the face of widespread opposition. In that piece, I made it clear that Democratic politicians are not alone in their use of faulty logic to promote a personal agenda. Indeed, Republicans are just as guilty of the charge. Consider the faulty logic displayed by the Bush administration in the build-up for the invasion of Iraq. Even many “third party” and independent candidates build their political platform on a foundation of faulty logic. Perhaps that’s why so many rational people find the world of politics so disgusting; it’s a world void of logic.
It seems that some elected officials make the mistake of assuming that we live in a democracy, when in actuality the United State is a constitutional republic. Other politicians profess to understand the distinction, yet continue to govern as though in a simple democracy. On Friday, Republican members of the Texas State Board of Education voted to adopt new social studies and history curriculum that would, among other things, refer to the United States government as a “constitutional republic” instead of a “democracy”. Ironically, they relied solely on a democratic principle–the simple majority–to ram through the curriculum’s most controversial elements.
At the heart of the “Texas Textbook War,” is the attempt on the behalf of cultural conservatives to inject their beliefs into the textbooks. This includes their belief that the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian values,” studies of the role of conservative political action committees during the 20th Century, and an ultra-conservative interpretation of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960′s. While there is definitely a time and place to debate these ideas in the classroom, they would be taught as fact if the current curriculum survives a final vote in May.
Not surprisingly, the attempt to radically alter the way history and social studies are taught in Texas’ classrooms has generated intense opposition from Democrats and many Republicans. Earlier this month, two of the board’s most outspoken cultural conservatives, most notably Dr. Don McLeroy, lost Republican primary elections to opponents who oppose this curriculum. McLaren remains defiant in the face of defeat, and vowed to push through the curriculum before relinquishing his seat, a maneuver that would make Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama smile.
The biggest difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic is the allocation of protections of the minority from the “tyranny of the majority.” The Constitution serves as the primary guarantor of the rights of the minority, but Republicans on the SBOE seem to reject that notion as well. On Thursday, they blocked a measure introduced by a Democrat that would have taught the importance of “separation of church and state” as contained in the First Amendment. While Republicans claim to support the idea that we live in a constitutional republic, their actions indicate they favor a simple democracy when the results further their agenda.
Students should be taught the difference between a “democracy” and a “constitutional republic.” The nuances between the two forms of government seem to baffle even the most astute politicians. Elected officials have the responsibility to ensure balance exists between competing ideas in the classroom, but must understand that one extremist stance does not balance out another extremist stance. Perhaps educators can use the examples of Democrats on health care reform and Republicans on textbook adoptions as examples of the dangers of simple democracy and to teach the protections provided by a constitutional republic. Until then, we the people must remain resolute in combating faulty logic wherever it may occur in the realm of politics. Our freedom and liberty, not to mention our children’s future, depend on it.
Even though I am one of the most politically active people you will ever meet, I rarely watch political speeches. Perhaps I’ve seen too many to know exactly what to expect, but I find it hard to sit through “rah-rah” speeches designed to excite the base, but containing very little real substance for the American people in general. The last time I had watched a State of the Union Address was in 2002, after the 9/11 attacks. I was already growing weary of the Bush administration’s build up to war and his speech that night was further proof the Republican Party have left me way behind. After that, I never listened to another George W. Bush speech all the way through. His stumbling and bumbling were too much for me.
The last time I watched a political speech I actually enjoyed, and one that actually moved me, was in Barack Obama’s keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. However, I am of the opinion that since that time, President Obama’s oratory skills have declined significantly. I told myself I wasn’t going to watch his State of the Union Address last night, but after reading all the comments on my Facebook and Twitter feed, and walking in on the very beginning of the replay of the speech on Fox News, I broke my vow. While every political pundit has long since published their analysis on the speech, I thought I would share my unique perspective of President Obama’s big night.
1. This President likes to hear himself talk
I’ll admit, while I may not be big on his substance, Barack Obama is a great public speaker and he knows that. There’s no shame in admitting be proud of one’s public speaking skills. I am a great public speaker and I love to hear myself talk, so I know one when I see one. This President has given more speeches in his first year in office than any other President prior and while SOTU addresses usually run long, Obama’s clocked in at well over an hour. I really can’t fault the guy on this one. If you’ve got it; flaunt it!
2. President Obama has aged A LOT! I still remember the Barack Obama from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. That Barack Obama didn’t look much different than candidate Obama on the campaign trail in 2008 or the President Obama who was inaugurated last January. However, watching the President last night I couldn’t help but to notice the graying of his hair and the aging upon his face. While you can always tell the effects of aging on a President when he leaves the office, I cannot remember another President aging so quickly.
3. NBC Should Offer Obama Their 9 PM (10 EST) slot!
While NBC executive scramble to find something to replace the failed experiment that was the Jay Leno Show, their answer was right in front of them last night. The President is a great speaker, has an ego, is smart and witty and has connections throughout the entertainment world. Indeed, this is “Hollywood’s President.” He would do a great job hosting a late night talk show, earning the network huge ratings and earning President Obama a much healthier salary than the one he enjoys as President of the United States. Plus, he is far more qualified to be a late night talk show host than the leader of the free world.
4. Stop Blaming Bush
If you look in the archives of this blog you will find a ton of posts critical of George W. Bush. Simply put, I thought he was the worst President of my lifetime. However, Bush has been out of the White House for over a year and I can’t stand to hear Democrats continue to blame all our problems on him. Did he cause a lot of problems? Hell yes he did. Did he live our nation in a state of disaster? Yes. However, Democrats have controlled the executive and legislative branches of our government for over a year now and our nation is no better now than it was under Bush. Indeed, things have only gotten worse.
5. One Redeeming Moment
The one redeeming moment of the entire night came when President Obama promised to end the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the United States Armed Forces. This is long overdue. Though I didn’t vote for Obama, his election instilled in me hope that advances would be made in the fight for equality for all my brothers and sisters in the GLBT community. Sadly, Obama has failed to do anything to further the cause of this often neglected group. If he can overturn the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy, I will have to seriously reconsider my opinion of his time in office. Until then, I give him props for at least making an effort.
As the results for the Massachusetts Senate race began to trickle in, exactly seven precincts reported before MSNBC pundit, Keith Olbermann, insinuated that race possibly played a role in the results, never mind that both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are Caucasian. Olbermann’s straw man argument was directed at the grass roots political organization, which played a major role in the Republican candidate’s surprise showing and represents yet another attempt to classify all opposition to the Democratic agenda as personal attacks against President Barack Obama.
While I fiercely reject the labels “conservative” and “Republican,” and dare not speak for those associated with those labels, I too oppose many of this administration’s policies, but it’s noting personal. Simply put, the progressive agenda of the Democratic does not work. I find the people behind the policies, especially President Obama, to be hip, creative and, most importantly, relevant, but in every other area of life EXCEPT making policies that directly impact my life.
I would have loved to have had President Obama as a professor in college. He seems like the type of guy who could lead some pretty powerful and interesting discussions on political theory. Unfortunately, not all of those theories are practical in the world in which we live.
To put it another way, many Dallas Cowboys fans dislike Wade Phillips as a coach. They feel his coaching philosophy is not one to lead championship teams. However, just about every Cowboys fan you meet will say the same thing about Wade Phillips, “he’s the type of guy I would love to be my neighbor.”
I feel the same way about President Obama. He’s the cool guy on the block with the picture-perfect family, the one you hope and pray invites you to his backyard cookouts, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you think his political philosophy is the best fit for this country.
What you saw in Massachusetts tonight was voters saying that they too find the current policies of this administration to be failed policies, but it’s nothing personal.
I’m interested in learning more about the incident involving a “conservative kiosk” in North Carolina, whose owner claims he is being “kicked out” of a mall because he sells “conservative” items.
With the exception of Fox News, who I consider somewhat unreliable at best, the national media has totally ignored this story. A Google search produced several blog hits and a few reports from local media, but I didn’t find many national stories.
Loren Spivack owned and operated a kiosk inside the Concord Mills Mall in Concord, North Carolina. In his kiosk, Spivack sold various items with political motivated slogans and phrases. The examples provided by the NBC station included bumper stickers with “Impeach Obama,” “Work Harder. Obama Needs the Money,” and “Al Qaeda’s favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/4/08″.
Personally, I find the stickers pretty lame and wonder how long it would take the average American to process the significance of the “11/4/08″ date. Sure, political junkies, such as myself, recognize the date as the day Barack Obama won the election, but you want a quick response and reaction with bumper stickers, from a mass audience, and that one requires a certain level of political awareness. Regardless, Simon Property Group, which owns Concord Mills Mall, communicated with Spivack that they would allow his lease to expire on July 31, 2009. According to this report, mall management felt that items sold at the kiosk were not “neutral” enough.
This decision follows a strongly worded letter printed in the Charlotte Observer, in which a recent college graduate complained about several of the items sold at the kiosk. The letter refers to several items with “pro confederacy statements” and items that promote “racism, sexism and even slavery.”
I understand that kiosks in the South sometimes sell items containing the Confederate flag or with slogans like, “the South will rise again.” Those type of items are definitely tacky, but no one has provided examples of these items being sold at the kiosk in question. Indeed, the only three items I can find mentioned being sold at the kiosk are the three bumper stickers mentioned earlier. In my opinion, none of the bumper stickers reported by the NBC station promote racism, sexism or slavery and none of them contain “pro-Confederacy statements.”
All three stickers contain anti-Obama messages, but speaking out against this President, voicing a strongly worded opinion about his election, do not qualify as “racist” or “sexist.” Speaking out against elected officials is American as apple pie. I’ve been doing it since I was a kid.
On October 14, 2008, I posted a blog expressing concern that criticizing then candidate Obama would result in this type of reaction. In the piece, I modeled two t-shirts I bought to express my discontent with the Bush administration. During the the Bush administration, I decorated my car with several “anti-Bush” bumper stickers, including “Vote Republican, It’s Never Too Late to Return to the Dark Ages” and “F The President”. I never went anywhere without my black rubber band that said “I Did Not Vote For Bush” or my blue band that said “Count Me Blue” (as in “blue states”). I wish I could contact the college student who wrote the letter to the Charlotte newspaper complaining about the kiosk. I would like to get their opinion on my anti-Bush t-shirts, bumper stickers and rubber bracelets.
Maybe it’s the punk in me, but I’m for free speech all the time, everywhere. I did not vote for Bush and I did not vote for Obama. I think both are poor presidents and I have spent a good chunk of my time criticizing both of them. Until the suits at Simon decide to comment on this issue, we’ll never know the full story, but if what has been reported so far is true, I would suggest a boycott may be in order.
Throughout his life, Ronald Reagan delivered many memorable speeches. Americans remember them by their names–”To Restore America,” “A Time for Choosing,” “City Upon a Hill.” His speeches sought to challenge and comfort, strengthen and nurture and instill in us all a reminder of what it means to be an American. No where is this more evident than his address at the first annual CPAC conference, a speech which ended with the immortal line, “We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.”
