About Me

Name: J. R. Maddux
Location: Vancouver, WA
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

A DIFFERENT CAMPAIGN?

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Tuesday, November 18, 2008 9:23:46 AM
 
 
   Pursuant to the 2008 presidential elections, both major party candidates promised
 
America "a different kind of campaign." There were high-sounding pledges about
 
"sticking to the issues" and staying above the negativity and mud-slinging of  the
 
past. Needless to say, what we heard about is not what we got. It may well be that
 
modern politicians don't know any other way to campaign than the "down and
 
dirty" mudfests that seem to typify current electoral politics. So what might "a
 
different kind of campaign" actually look like?
 
   It would certainly begin with the issues that are important to Americans. In a really
 
different kind of election, candidates would go beyond glittering generalities and over-
 
blown promises to explain to Americans WHAT they propose to do, HOW they plan
 
to do it, HOW MUCH they think it will cost and WHERE the money is going to
 
come from to pay for it. I realize that this would require a great deal of homework
 
for the candidates, but isn't it, after all, a reasonable expectation? Not only would
 
it create increased clarity about how a candidate would govern, it would generate an
 
actual standard of accountability that would get us beyond just voting for those we
 
"like" instead of those we "don't like."
 
   A different kind of campaign would be one in which the major media objectively
 
reported election related news, instead of choosing a side or a candidate and becoming
 
an unaplogetic advocacy arm. In our present reality so-called "journalists" have
 
convinced themselves that it's perfectly appropriate to inject their own poltical views
 
into their reporting, and spin the news to favor their own candidate. This is a direct
 
strike against the public who ought to have the right to make up their own minds based
 
on an objective, fair, balanced and "unspun" version of who said what and what actually
 
occurred. In the current media milieu, a discerning reader or viewer is well-advised to
 
take EVERYTHING reported with a grain of salt, bearing fully in mind that pure
 
reporting, political and otherwise, is virtually extinct, and a great deal of what is put
 
out for public consumption is tasked to advance the outlet's own political agenda.
 
   A different kind of campaign would set a higher and more civil tone. That does
 
not mean a Pollyanna-ish avoidance of what incumbents have done wrong, which
 
bad apples opponents have associated with or how dangerous their policies might be.
 
It does mean a responsibility to demonstrate how a candidate's own policies are better, what
 
they would do differently and how those they have aligned with are nobler, purer and
 
higher-minded. In other words, for every negative there should have to be a positive
 
counterpoint. Campaigns that focus mainly on how bad the other guy is leave frustrated
 
and uninformed voters deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils. And who
 
wants to vote for that, regardless of party affiliation?
 
   In a different kind of campaign, the public, not the campaigns would determine what
 
are and are not relevant issues. Today, campaigns tend to harp on whatever themes they
 
believe will interest voters and disadvantage opponents. If they have questionable past
 
associations they decry mention of those by demanding that opponents "get back to
 
the issues," subtly denying that character IS a very big issue, that the voting public
 
has a right to know about past alliances and performance, and using "Swift Boat,"
 
"racism" or other deflectors to force a change of subject. The net result is that
 
campaigns routinely spend as much time trying to obscure what they don't want
 
voters to know as they do peddling their unspecific promises that they DO expect
 
voters to believe. This is a waste of public time and a disservice to voters.
 
   Finally, a different campaign would do more -- not less -- to expose its candidate
 
to public dialogue. Barack Obama's encounters with Pastor Rick Warren and Joe
 
"The Plumber" Wurzelbacher nearly undid him, because they forced him to divulge
 
in a public and undisgused way his commitments to abortion and socialism. His
 
campaign did everything humanly possible to keep him out of unscripted situations,
 
thus denying the American public candid access to his thought processes. Ditto the
 
Republican campaign in their "handling" of Sarah Palin. Knowing that she wasn't
 
yet polished and ready for the media's "gotcha" questions, they virtually hid her
 
away. And their attempts to remake her nearly offset the benefits her genuineness
 
and the "down home" style she brought to the campaign. Let the candidates be the
 
canddiates, not some manipulated "shadow version" of reality, suitably vetted
 
for public consumption. And THEN let the voters decide.
 
   Leaping back through the "rabbit hole" into reality, I concede it is probable
 
that such a campaign will never occur. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't. And
 
the candidate courageous enough to hold himself/herself, the media and voters
 
accountable to such an open process, may very well be the ONE who can really
 
bring the change so desperately needed in American governance.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - PART III

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Monday, November 17, 2008 8:38:15 PM
 
 
   Whatever the failings of the Democratic party, identifying and elevating a charismatic,
 
articulate leader is not one of them. Barack Obama almost singlehandedly transformed
 
a presidential campaign that was supposed to be about critical national issues into a
 
referendum on his rather compelling personality. His success in that effort got him
 
elected. The lesson for Republicans is that unless they find a similarly compelling
 
leader -- an inspiring messenger to carry their message -- it won't much matter what
 
that message is.
 
   Leaders don't arise in a vacuum. They emerge from the crucible of human
 
interactions and public dialogue. Those wishing to mount a successful resistance
 
to Democratic socialism will do well to identify, elevate and polish such leadership
 
while they are re-packaging their message and determining just how their historically
 
conservative philosophy can relevantly address current national issues.
 
   The GOP is not without potentials for the leadership mantle. Such consideration
 
must start with this year's VP hopeful, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. No other
 
candidate either excited the conservative base or provoked rabid ralings from the
 
left like she did. In the post-campaign haze, the substance of criticism leveled
 
against her by the media has begun to fade. The most recent evidence of this is
 
the public retraction by MSNBC -- one of her harshest critics -- of the charge that
 
in a debate prep session she didn't understand that Africa was a continent, not a country.
 
It seems that both the "McCain staffer" who supposedly leaked the information, AND
 
the organization he supposedly worked for didn't really exist, and the "news story" was
 
based on an e-mail from a friend of a reporter's friend. (Just bye the bye, what kind of
 
half-assed news organization publishes so absurd a story without confirmation, and
 
on such thin documentation? I guess the answer is MSNBC, who gave the nation
 
Obamabots Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews).
 
   Palin has won universal respect from her fellow governors, who say she's plenty
 
smart and experienced to govern a country. She's clearly short on foreign policy
 
experience, but that can be remedied. And her folksy way of expressing herself,
 
while dubbed by some elitists "a lack of gravitas," won the hearts and minds of
 
a whole lot of ordinary people. If she runs in 2012, the media and the far left will
 
come out gunning for her. Some Republicans may prefer a less controversial candidate,
 
but her fire and spunk -- both qualities needed to challenge a presidential incumbent
 
will be hard to match.
 
   But not to worry, the list of rising Republican aspirants doesn't end with Palin. Paul
 
Ryan, an exciting congressional up and comer from Wisconsin is a solid conservative
 
with a strong personality and fine communication skills. Less effusive, but equally
 
brilliant is Virginia Representative Eric Cantor, expected to stand for Minority Whip
 
in the 2008 House. And don't forget young Republican governors like Bobby Jindal
 
of Louisiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and
 
Charlie Crist of Florida. All of the foregoing -- particu;aly Jindal, the nation's
 
first ever Indian American governor -- deserve a long look.
 
   The point is that the GOP doesn't just need ONE leader. It needs a whole cadre of
 
new leaders who bring youth, intelligence, political savvy and common sense
 
governance experience to the table. The Dems won with Obama. They might well
 
have won with Hillary, too. Wouldn't it be great if Republicans had two such
 
pre-eminent leaders from which to choose. That won't happen simply through the
 
dominant ambition of these leaders. How many people do you suppose contacted
 
Obama and asked him to run? It was a lot! And how many women's groups and
 
feminist leaders came out in support of Hillary? Count them! It's time for GOP
 
voters who care to pick a favorite (or favorites) and begin corresponding with them,
 
encouraging them, tracking their progress, talking them up. Who are the conservatives
 
in your own community who would make good state or national legislators? If you
 
don't know, why not? Revolutions are only won by those who care enough to support
 
the cause.
 
   Winning elections should be about messages. But the fact of life is that it's usually
 
just as much about messengers. And Republicans need some new ones!
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE GOP: WHAT NOW?

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Sunday, November 16, 2008 5:31:45 PM
 
 
   In a crushing repudiation of Republicans, Americans flocked to the polls in record
 
numbers to hand the Democrats control of the White House, House of Representatives
 
and Senate -- the dreaded "supermajority." While such an electoral move is unwise,
 
virtually eliminating checks and balances from the legislative and governance processes
 
and paving the way for near certain abuse of power, it is, sadly, also not surprising.
 
   The current unprincipled crop of Republicans in Washington are without direction,
 
fresh ideas or meaningful leadership. The two-term incumbent president is leaving office
 
 in near disgrace, his legacy being a too-costly, low-benefit war, a cratering economy,

worldwide ill will and Usama bin Laden still free as a bird. It would seem that the only way

forward for the GOP is up. Unfortunately, such an ascent will not happen simply because

Republicans wish it to. Hard work and a great deal of soul-searching will be involved.
 
   The party has to decide what it stands for and precisely where it wishes to position itself
 
on the political spectrum. It is unlikely that an electorate, lulled by promises of national
 
security and small government, but handed a war costing over 4,000 American lives and
 
an enormous fiscal deficit fueled by out-of-control congressional spemding will again
 
be persuaded to issue the GOP a blank check based on trust. In practice, this means that
 
a simple re-stating of conservative principles is not enough -- not by a long shot. Such
 
principles must address relevant issues such as the economy, the environment, energy
 
self-sufficiency and national security, and then be formulated into specific step-by-step
 
program proposals that clearly map the road to success. The greatest failing of both
 
recent presidential campaigns was their aversion to specifics that would have allowed
 
the electorate a real chance to evaluate their prospects for success. In the absence of
 
such content, the presidential election was nothing but a personality contest, which
 
suited the Democrats just fine.
 
   Before defining principles, policies and programs, Republicans must decide where
 
the party is best positioned going forward. It would seem that the current foray into

moderation was an abject failure, given the fact that too few independents were persuaded.

And but for Sarah Palin, the conservative base would have been content to sit the election

out -- such was their lack of enthusiasm about the McCain candidacy.
 
   Facing facts, some truisms emerge. Republicans cannot continue to move away from
 
the conservative base. To do so leaves too small a choice between them and moderate
 
Democrats and invites the almost inevitable rise of a powerful and vocal third  
 
(conservative) party that would fatally erode the GOP's electoral hopes. Further,
 
Republicans cannot win on a platform dominated by pro-life and anti-gay positions --
 
not because they're wrong, but because national surveys show that most Americans
 
are now pro-choice and, while not ready to re-define marriage, do have a wide
 
tolerance for gay rights. These are battles, not strategies, and to become bogged down
 
in them will only deter the party from identifying and clarifying issues that will strike
 
fire with a majority of voters. Consider that Barack Obama did not win the presidency
 
by running on a gay rights or pro-abortion message. Rather, he won on the themes of
 
change, hope and the economy. About to be in power, he will now be able to bring
 
about changes in those other areas that are known to matter to him. A Republican
 
resurgence could put them in a position to do the same.
 
   Before considering everything lost, consider that Obama won on historically flawed
 
policies that have met with failure after monumental failure. It is thus likely that
 
they will fail again, and sooner rather than later in a teetering economy. These failures,
 
along with the many needs that will be unaddressed by the Democratic administration
 
will provide the clues to Republican strategists and policy developers that will lead
 
to an evolution of ideas that can build a better America, fill a national void and have
 
an honest opportunity to persuade American voters who, after all, only want a better
 
life for themselves and their children.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCOPING OUT OUR NEW PRESIDENT

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Friday, November 07, 2008 2:05:32 PM
 
 
   On November 4 the American people voted. The sheep, spurred on by media
 
hype that seemed far more substance than reality, bitter parisanship and desperation
 
for new hope chose Barack Hussein Obama over John McCain by about seven million
 
votes. Many ardently believe that Obama will be the Shepherd. Nearly as many
 
desperately fear he will be the Wolf. The truth may be that he is neither, but that
 
remains to be seen.
 
   What is being hailed as historic about the 2008 elections is that America chose a
 
black man to be its leader. What is equally historic is that the campaign and
 
circumstances that led to Obama's election have definitively changed the way
 
future campaigns will be run, and the traditional assumptions about what gets
 
one elected president. This campaign was not about issues, political philosophies,
 
experience, qualifications, consistency of positions, past associations and loyalties,
 
or public record. If it was about any of those things, Obama would have lost and
 
lost big. The '08 election was about identifying an idealist, a leader, the champion of
 
a new direction -- a Ronald Reagan or a first-term Bill Clinton. This election
 
wasn't somewhat about that. It was ALL about that. It's what David Axelrod and
 
David Plouffe always knew and the Republicans never quite figured out. The
 
American middle -- the independents and undecideds -- didn't vote the politics or
 
the positions. They voted the man! It's not just the "hope we can believe in," it's
 
Obama they believe in.
 
   The Obama campaign did a masterful job of keeping Obama out of situations
 
where he would betray his political immaturity and inexperience by having to
 
field tough questions. Every time they failed to do that, he faltered (e.g., the
 
Camelback Forum, and Joe the Plumber). They courted, manipulated and
 
co-opted the media, influencing them not only to support Obama but to viciously
 
attack McCain and his running mate. They created an "aura of the gods" at the Denver
 
convention, styled Obama, preened him, made him appear glib, in control, thoughtful.
 
Even the contrived leaks about him playing in pickup basketball games while on the
 
campaign trail was designed to make him look young, hip, real. It worked!
 
   Republicans, by contrast, appeared old, out of touch, stuck in the past (not very hip)
 
and decidedly negative. It was the old Karl Rove playbook. And it didn't work -- at
 
all. It might have worked better had they recruited a young, vibrant, glib, handsome
 
candidate. And they can kiss off the next EIGHT years if they don't. But more important,
 
cool slogans, sweeping, unfulfillable promises, concepts with no specifics and untried
 
ideas only work when the other side has NO new ideas, is equally unspecific about the
 
HOW of the few changes it does propose and on too many issues is indistingioshable
 
from its opponent.
 
   Who is Barack Hussein Obama? We don't really know, and the press has forever
 
sullied its sacred trust by systematically refusing to help us find out. The darker
 
suspicion is that Obama is The Wolf, a liberal who will impose big government
 
socialism upon us at every opportunity. That may come to pass, although the
 
current economic crisis may prove a blessing in disguise by inhibiting the speed
 
at which that can occur.
 
   There is, however, a more hopeful view. Obama is on record as saying he wishes
 
"govern from the center," to build a powerful bipartisan coalition to overcome the
 
current gridlock malaise in Washington. His first staff appointment, Rep. Rahm
 
Emanuel as his Chief of Staff, has drawn equal fire from the Republican National
 
Committee and the MoveOn.org types. When both extremes are disappointed, that
 
would seem to define centrism (although no one doubts that Emanuel is a
 
barekuckle Decomratic partisan of Chicago ilk). Appointing a couple of centrist
 
Republicans to cabinet posts, and reaching out in conciliation to John McCain
 
would further indicate that Obama's promise was not just hot air rhetoric.
 
   I didn't vote for Obama, but you won't see any immature bumper stickers on
 
my cars proclaiming "He's Not MY President." Like it or not, he is OUR
 
president, and I plan to give him every chance, supporting him where I can, and
 
opposing him by every legal means available where I can't. That's not just my
 
right, it's my obligation as an American. It's the quintessential meaning of
 
citizenship. And it's just possible that we aren't the only ones not to know who
 
Barack Obama is. HE MAY NOT YET KNOW! He's still a young man, and of
 
limited experience. The future, and those he chooses to listen to going forward
 
will shape him into the president he will be -- for better or for worse. That may
 
be neither what the left hopes, nor what the right fears. While he is in the making
 
I, and many others who did not vote for him, will pray that God grants him wisdom.
 
patience and moderation. If he becomes his own man, and follows the road not
 
taken, the United States of America may just be all right after all.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - PART III

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:11:34 PM
 
 
   Win, lose or draw in '08. conservatives must face the fact that the '10 congressional
 
and '12 presidential elections have already begun. If liberal socialist Barack Obama
 
wins the White House, every effort must be made to unseat him in '12 before he
 
irreversibly damages America both at home and abroad. The certain Democratic
 
majorities in the House and Senate can be attacked as early as 2010. and should be
 
of the highest priority for Republicans. If this is to be done effectively, however,
 
some facts have to be faced in Republican circles, and some hard decisions made.
 
   Following the Rovian assumption that negative campaigning against a vulnerable
 
opponent is the cure-all, John McCain and most other Republicans have substituted
 
character attacks for solid, clear, defensible alternative solutions to the nation's
 
problems. It has done its damage, but that damage is minimized by the lack of concise
 
and well-defined policy alternatives capable of exposing not only the Democratic
 
candidates' weaknesses, but also the decisive merits of conservative Republican
 
policy differences. In short, it's time for Republicans to start from scratch and
 
build a campaign strategy that will win the hearts and minds of Americans even if
 
the Democrats run a strong candidate. This means assuming the opponent has no
 
blemishes on his or her record, no shady associations, no questionable dealings, no
 
scandalous quotes, e-mails or other writings. Republicans need to be electable
 
because they have better ideas. If they don't, then they don't deserve to be elected.
 
American voters operate on the "what have you done for us lately" principle, and
 
what Republicans have done (and not done) during the last four years of George
 
W. Bush's administration will not put anyone in office, but undoubtedly will keep
 
some out.
 
   So where should Republicans look for new ideas? Smart, savvy leadership,
 
Democratic failures and the confluence of historical happenstance are great
 
sources. Republicans should even now be sitting down with conservative think tanks
 
like the Heritage Foundation (and others), and climbing on board with Newt
 
Gingich's AmericanSolutions, identifying the make or break issues of the next
 
decade and beyond and forming clear plans to attack them. Democrats have built
 
an amazing coalition of leftist and special interest supporters, and it is foolish for
 
Republicans to continue believing they can succeed politically, going forward
 
without a similar cadre of "friends." Democrats have accomplished their electoral
 
majority by crafting policy initiatives that appeal to their special interest entourage.
 
If that's the way the game is played, Republicans will need to do the same thing. Once
 
issues and solutions are crystallized, powerful partners (and not only corporate and
 
political ones) must be developed to make those solutions more than wishful
 
daydreams.
 
   While ACORN and their ilk have cheated amply, one must still admire the legitimate
 
voter registrations they have garnered, and the singular success they have enjoyed in
 
influencing those new voters to cast their ballots for Democrats. If the Republicans
 
want to win in '10 and '12, they must find and fund partner organizations who will
 
do (by legal means) the same things to flood the polls with GOP voters. The "silent
 
majority" has become too silent, and who can blame them for they've had little about
 
which to boast for the last four years.
 
   The Democrats will make mistakes -- probably some glaring ones -- amd in a deep
 
recession the American electorate is in no mood to be patient. Republicans must
 
catalogue these failures of policy and performance in a very public way, reminding

 voters bent on punishing "the party of Bush" that one ought to be careful what
 
one wishes for.  If history serves, there will be no dearth of crises, both domestic and
 
international to test  a bumbling, self-serving socialist regime. Highlighting these
 
failures with full documentation will simply be reminding voters of apparent facts.
 
      The campaign begins anew today, and the one piece not discussed here at length is
 
Republicans' need to identify, elevate and groom new, young, fresh appealing candidates
 
for national office. That will be the subject of the next post here on Joining the
 
Resistance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - PART II

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Saturday, October 25, 2008 2:21:26 PM
 
 
   Whether Barack Obama wins the presidency or not, Democrats seem sure to increase
 
their congressional majorities in both houses. It will be a rough four years for
 
conservatives, any way you slice it. So, what can be done about it?
 
   First, in spite of its failings of the last eight years -- and they have been many -- the
 
Republican party is what we have to work with. Barring the unforeseen rise of a third
 
major party, long overdue, no one else has the base or the resources to challenge the
 
Democratic machine and a president who hungers for unlimited power. So we have
 
to think about how to rehabilitate the GOP. It's been done before, and it can be done
 
again. Republicans have failed America not because the principles of conservatism
 
are flawed, but because Republicans in power have not adhered to them. To rejuvenate
 
the party, then, there must be a purge of the neo-liberal philosophy of the Bush years,
 
and a re-commitment to the Reagan Revolution. Voters can demand and force such
 
a re-thinking by their elected representatives, if necessary by replacing them.
 
   Second, the new Republicanism must purloin some pages from the Democrats'
 
playbook. When Republicans swept into control, the Democrats did not simply
 
roll over. While they didn't win many votes, they did block a few and screamed to
 
high heaven every time the Republicans did something over the top. While they
 
sometimes resembled dogs howling at the moon, they did use their platform to
 
draw national attention to Republican positions they considered vulnerable during
 
future elections. Although limited, the strategy contributed to an overall degrading
 
of Republican popularity. The Democrats also used legal challenges and demanded
 
special prosecutors to investigate every suspicion of Republican wrongdoing, leading
 
to the demise of stalwart GOP leaders like Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Dennis Hastert,
 
Newt Gingrich and the like. Does anyone believe that there are no bones hiding in
 
Nancy Pelosi's closet among the Prada shoes, or that there's not fire behind the
 
ACORN and Ayers smoke? When the election is over, there will be plenty of time
 
to find out, and possibly to fan the blaze into a conflagration that will bring down
 
some prominent Democrats just as they did some leading Republicans.
 
   Third, new strategic leadership must be identified and elevated. The days of winning
 
office solely through negative campaigning are waning. A clear, concise conservative
 
message posing real solutions to real problems must be crafted, polished and packaged.
 
John McCain trails in the polls not because he isn't a good man, but because those
 
who have driven his campaign have made it negative, pedantic, reactionary amd boring.
 
Plans for a Republican administration were not carefully crafted and condensed into
 
defensible talking points that posed stark alternatives to Democratic socialism. Such
 
plans arrived late and in sketchy form as a reaction to the opponents' campaign. It is
 
difficult to stay on message when the campaign is unsure what the message is. Even
 
if the principles are sound, when the packaging is unattractive, the product won't sell.
 
   Fourth, the Democrats have been very savvy about building their base. Some would
 
assert that they've even been crooked, in light of ACORN and like organizations, and
 
the Obama campaign's attempts to stifle criticisms by legal recourse. While crooked
 
is no good, savvy is very good.  If the liberals can grow and support an ACORN,
 
then conservatives can build a similar organization to identify, educate and register
 
a host of new right and centrist voters, and there will be a boatload of potentials
 
out there. Think about all the businesses -- particuarly small or family-owned ones
 
that will be crushed by Obama "spread the wealth" socialism, the many who will be
 
downwardly mobile due to recession or depression spurred by Democratic tax hikes,
 
young hunters who will be afraid of losing their guns, workers who will feel
 
disenfranchised by congressional action that takes away their right to secret union
 
ballots, people enraged by high fuel costs and an administration that stalls on offshore
 
drilling, people whose basic sense of justice is violated by the Fairness Doctrine, a
 
Democratic legislative initiative designed to shut down conservative talk radio. Are
 
there as many as 1.3 million of these -- the number that ACORN claims to have
 
registered? Try ten times that many. But it will take organization and tons of hard
 
work to recruit and mobilize them.
 
   The Dems and an Obama administration will also do things (e.g., the Fairness
 
Doctrine) that will be highly susceptible to constitutional legal challenge. The GOP
 
should gear up fund raising efforts immediately to pose legal hurdles to every
 
questionable Democratic initiative -- all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.
 
Special prosecutors should be demanded to investigate every Democratic indiscretion,
 
and should Democrats obstruct them -- which they will -- the obstructionists should
 
be publicly identified and pilloried in any sympathetic media outlet. Democratic
 
leadership in particular should be targeted. If the ACORN investigation turns up
 
evidence of purposeful election rigging or other related malfeasance, Republicans
 
should immediately push to cut off federal funding to ACORN. While they may
 
not succeeed, the Dems who cover ACORN's exposed backside can be forced to wear
 
their complicity in future elections. Democratic initiatives like the Community
 
Reinvestment Act and blockage of tighter reins on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
 
should be exposed -- including Barney Frank's homosexual affair with Herb Moses
 
while the latter was shaping policies at one of the now discredited mortgage giants.
 
There is almost no end to the Democrats' vulnerability on such issues.
 
   There is one more crucial piece to the New Resistance movement. That will be
 
discussed in detail in the third part of "Joining the Resistance," coming soon.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHAT JOE KNOWS

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Thursday, October 23, 2008 7:03:23 PM
 
 
   During the last two weeks the name "Joe" has become quite significant in the current

presidential contest. Not one, but two "Joes" have been in the news. And each has shed

significant light on the contest now playing out before the American electorate.
 
   Joe number one is Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential candidate and running mate

of Barack Obama, who observed during remarks in Seattle that Barack Obama would be

tested by an international crisis within the first six months after election, that the way it was

handled might at first appear wrong, and that voters needed to be patient and "stay with"

Obama. Obama himself later sought to amend Biden's remarks to mean that WHOEVER

was elected would be so tested. But that was clearly not Senator Biden's initial intent. Now

Joe Biden, gaffes and all, is nobody's dummy. And he knows foreign policy. So what does Joe

know about a brewing crisis that will test a young and inexperienced Obama and which he

might appear to fumble?
 
   Interestingly enough, Biden's comments came just after a senior Iranian policy advisor's
 
remarks in London that Iran was consdering a pre-emptive strike on Israel in order to protect
 
their own nuclear program. Assuming that's a possible scenario, how might Barack Obama
 
react? His insipid initial reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia and the fact that he has
 
surrounded himself with pro-Palestinian advisors suggests that his obligatory rhetoric about
 
being committed to Israel's security is just that. Based on his record, the views of his advisors
 
and what he has said publicly, his probable reaction would be to scold Iran and refer the
 
matter to the United Nations where, as usual, nothing significant will be done. That will be

read by the general public as weakness, and by Jewish Americans and the Israeli allies as

abject betrayal. Such a scenario will likely cause many Obama voters a severe case of buyer's
 
remorse, and will irrtrievably damage America's image as an ally worldwide, and the
 
relationship with our only reliable ally in the toubled Middle East. Even Mahmoud

Ahmadinejad, who IS a dummy, wouldn't be stupid enough to attack Israel with John McCain

in the White House, because he knows that such an action would trigger a massive U.S.

military counter-strike that would send his tattered regime back into the stone age. Biden

knows that Obama simply isn't ready for such a test, and that public reaction will be intensely

negative. He's trying to deflate public expectations in advance of the events. And one must

ask what kind of incentive that is to vote for Obama in the first place?
 
   The other Joe's last name is Wurzelbacher. He's the poor Ohio plumber who had the
 
audacity to ask The Chosen One why he wanted to raise taxes on small businessmen, drawing 
 
the now famous response from Obama that he "wanted to spread the wealth around." It

seems that every time Obama appears in an unscripted situation, he blurts out the truth,

opening windows into his soul and character that his campaign team has fought relentlessly to

obscure. Remember his Camelback bumble to the effect that determining when life begins is

"above my pay grade," thus copping out on a full and frank discussion of the morality of

abortion? The Ohio blunder clearly shows his socialist leanings -- that his plan is to take

money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not -- some of whom pay

no taxes at all.  His campaign is still reeling from that one.
 
   Most interesting is the way the in-the-tank-for-Obama media has turned on Wurzelbacher,
 
regaling him for not having a plumber's license (which he doesn't need in his county to do
 
residential work) and because he owes back state taxes. Some have suggested that he was a
 
Repuiblican plant. All of this is simply a distraction from the point. It really doesn't
 
matter if Wurzelacher is a Democrat, a Republican or an Independent, whether he's left or
 
right handed, whether he's gay or straight, whether he was a Republican plant or Jack the
 
Ripper. The damning words didn't come from his mouth, they came from Obama's. Of
 
course, the press has chosen to ignore that, as they have Obama's other gaffes.
 
   Some real insight has come to us from these two Joes. Unfortunately, Obama supporters
 
have made up their minds like silly adolescents who buy their favorite rock star's every CD
 
even though it is musical crapola. You can't confuse them with the facts What do you know,

Joe?  Six months from now the old refrain may have a whole new significance, and we'll know

that we should have listened more carefully.
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

JOINING THE RESISTANCE - Part I

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:08:39 PM
 
 
   If the worst should happen, sweeping Democrats into veto proof majorities in both houses of
 
congress as well as the White House, what's a conservative to do? Well, you can join the rest of
 
the lemmings and follow The One over the cliff to socialist oblivion. Or, you can do what Susan
 
Sarandon and other Hollywood looney lightweights have said they'd do if McCain wins -- move
 
to another country. But there is a third alternative. You can join the resistance.
 
   There is no contradiction between being part of the "loyal opposition" while, at the same
 
time refusing to go along with the slide toward socialism by every legal means available. And
 
there will be plenty of those. You see, I believe in America and its hallowed Constitution, and
 
unlike the Hollywood hypocrites who promise to leave the country (but never do) when they
 
don't get their way, I will NEVER leave. I hope you won't either! But we can make THEM wish
 
we had.  Here are a few suggestions.
 
   First, we'll need to "Obamaproof" our assets. While we can't keep him from taxing our
 
salaries in order to "spread the wealth around," there are plenty of ways we can put our
 
other assets beyond his greedy reach. Consider moving assets into CD's or time-honored
 
commodities like gold and silver. If you know Obama is going to hike capital gains tax rates,
 
do your planning to cash out taxable assets before the year's end. You'll have almost two
 
months after the election, and there are plenty of fiscally conservative financial planners
 
out there to help you figure out how to protect what you have that Obama wants to give to
 
somebody else.
 
   Join a conservative political action committee (PAC). There are several good and effective
 
ones that can magnify your voice far beyond what you can do on your own. If you can write,
 
start a blog and invite your equally literate conservative friends to start posting on it along
 
with you. Make a contribution to a conservative legal effort that must gear up to fight the
 
Democrats all the way to the Supreme Court over the Fairness Doctrine, legislation aimed
 
at forcing conservative talk radio off the air. If it gets to the Supremes, it will likely be
 
found unconstitutional, but it's going to take money to get it there. When Obama and
 
the Democrats screw up -- which will take about two days after the elections -- join a
 
protest, carry a sign, get involved.
 
   Start hounding your local elected officials. Socialist, big government boondoggles can be
 
challenged at the local level even more readily than the federal ones. Attend a city council
 
or county commissioners meeting and speak your mind. You have the right. Start a constant
 
bombardment of your state and federal legislators with letters, e-mails and phone calls. Target
 
specific objectionable or neglected legislation, and tell them you will be monitoring their vote
 
in particular as you evaluate whether to vote for them in the future. If they ignore you, or
 
simply behave as Obama sheep, write a letter to the editor of your local paper, organize a
 
protest at their local office, circulate a flyer door-to-door to publicize their negligence in
 
defending the constitution and the best interests of their constituents. If you become aware
 
that any of them are being influenced by lobbyists or financial donations, write letters to
 
the ethics panels of the House and Senate, and contact your local news outlets. Socialism
 
gains control through secrecy and stealth. Flush the purveyors out into the light of day and
 
they'll scurry for cover like so many cockroaches.
 
   Never fail to vote in an election -- ANY election. Whether you're voting for president of the
 
nation or president of the school board take the initiative to find out who the candidates
 
really are, what they believe, what they've actually accomplished. Don't be swayed by glib
 
rhetoric or slick campaign ads. Occasionally, liberals can hoodwink those who don't usually
 
even bother to vote to turn out for an important election. That's what this ACORN business
 
is really all about. But historically, many of the people they're registering aren't very civic
 
minded and don't take the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship seriously in a consistent
 
manner. Many of them will vote once, PERIOD. You need to vote every time. It's the best
 
way to reverse the mess they've made.
 
   All Americans must abide by the results of the upcoming election. But that doesn't mean
 
we have to like or agree with them, or cooperate with the incoming "thugocracy" beyond
 
the bare requirements of the law. Fight back! It's your right!
Tags: RESISTANCE  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

RACIAL ILLOGIC

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Monday, October 20, 2008 10:59:15 PM
 
 
   The other day on a misguided foray into the morass of the leftist blogosphere, I ran across
 
yet another surpassing piece of left-wing illogic. This one had to do with the role of race in
 
voting preference. The writer, apparently operating several bricks short of a full load, argued
 
that while it IS racist to vote against a candidate because of his skin color, it is NOT racist to
 
vote FOR him or her for the same reason. The purpose of the argument was to decry white voters
 
who do not support Obama, while at the same time justifying black voters (e.g., in South
 
Carolina) for voting FOR him simply because he is black. The point seems to be that only
 
non-blacks can be racists.
 
   This leftist looney-tune, without knowing it, just dropped a neutron bomb on the liberal
 
shibboleth of affirmative action. The basic premise of affirmative action is that to overcome
 
a built-in prejudice against minorities, it is necessary to impose quota systems to be sure that
 
jobs are not awarded on the basis of racial preference. Such racial preference would be, in
 
the liberal view, discrimination, i.e., racism.
 
   Now in a two-party system like ours, there are only two people in serious contention for
 
the presidency. One is white, the other black. When you choose one -- whichever one that is --
 
because of the color of his skin, then it is aximoatic that you have excluded the other because
 
he did not share the same pigmentation. So either affirmative action is a load of horse hockey.
 
or African Americans voting for Obama simply because he is black are every bit as racist in
 
their motivation as the white knights of the Ku Klux Klan. And both are dead wrong and betray,
 
by the idiocy of their preference, the principles of the constitution.
 
   Quite apart from the obvious truism that a candidate's character and qualifications ought to be
 
the sole determinants in an election, it is quite obvious that the racial divide is just as prevalent
 
in our republic as ever. But this liberal bit of nonsense proves beyond a doubt that racists
 
come in all sizes, shapes AND COLORS.
Tags: racism  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY ACORN IS A BIG DEAL

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Saturday, October 18, 2008 10:02:07 PM
 
 
   Liberals are decrying complaints about fraudulent voter registrations by the Asociation of
 
Communities for Reform Now as a meaningless distraction born of Republican desperation.
 
Voter registration fraud, they argue, does not mean that illegal votes will actually be cast and
 
counted. They are lying through their teeth, and they know it! The ACORN issue is actually
 
a VERY big deal, and there are three reasons why.
 
   First, illegal registration does often lead to ballots being illegally cast. New Mexico has recently
 
proved that beyond the shadow of a doubt, showing that a third of ballots already cast in one
 
particular district are fraudulent. All of these bogus votes track back to ACORN submitted
 
registrations. It is simply another form of identity theft. One registers under someone else's
 
name, then votes absentee or goes to a polling place where standards enforcement is lax and
 
real identification is not required and voila, voter registration fraud has become vote fraud.
 
ACORN claims they have registered 1.3 million new voters in the last year. How many of them
 
are bogus, or how many will actually translate into criminal election acts are not known. But
 
how many votes does it take to tip the scales in a battleground state like Ohio?
 
   Second, voter registration fraud is a criminal act, in and of itself. ACORN canvassers, a
 
significant number of them convicted felons, have already engaged in bribery, using cash
 
and drugs to induce the same people to register over and over. That's a court documented
 
fact. Others have sat in libraries filling out registrations in the names of Mickey Mouse,
 
Mary Poppins, Duran Duran, Leon Spinks and the like, or just randomly copying names
 
from phone books. Again, not conjecture, but court documented fact.
 
   Third, what does it say to you that a campaign -- in the face of all this evidence of criminal
 
wrongdoing -- sends their lawyer out to the media to decry an FBI investigation into ACORN
 
as a Republican misuse of law enforcement? This is the same lawyer who wrote threatening
 
letters to TV stations airing the NRA commercial against his candidate, Barack Obama. His
 
name is Bob Bauer. But if ACORN has done nothing wrong and if, as Obama claims, their
 
campaign has no real ties to ACORN, then what are they so afraid of? Election law is
 
neither Repiublican, nor Democrat. It is simply the law of the land. So what does it say that
 
one campaign thinks the law so unimportant that they would deny the highest investigative
 
service in the land the liberty to find out what's going on? Do you think the Obama people
 
have something to hide? This doesn't even come close to passing the "smell test" and Mr.
 
Bauer's lame protests reek to high heaven. Now what is Obama hiding?
 
   Third, if ACORN, through their army of thugs, is perpetrating fraud on the electoral process,
 
what does it say to you about a campaugn and a candidate identified so closely with them,
 
and for whom they are unabashedly urging their new registrants to vote? What does it suggest
 
when a Democratic official -- Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner -- allows people to
 
register and vote on the same day, then spends taxpayer money running to one court after
 
another to ensure that no one will be required to verify the legality and legitimacy of those
 
votes? While the fine print is as yet unreadable, the headline clearly says "ELECTION

RIGGING." Barack Obama doesn't want ACORN investigated because he knows they're
 
dirty, and if the FBI proves it the pile of dominoes will eventually tumble right back into
 
his lap. When a man is so desperate to seize power that even the law of the land no longer
 
matters to him, what does that say about his fitness to govern?
 
   The unlawful shenanigans of ACORN and their kindred ilk will wind up costing the taxpayers
 
millions of dollars to unravel, and could wind up once again either tilting an election or throwing
 
it into the judicial system. It doesn't have to happen Why should we let it?
 
      ACORN voter fraud is a very big deal! Don't let the liberal thugocracy convince you
 
otherwise. Let's eliminate voter fraud, and let's not put a fraud in the White House.
Tags: ACORN  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE?

Posted by J. R. Maddux on Saturday, October 11, 2008 5:25:17 PM
 
 
   In 1959 Richard Condon wrote a taut thriller about a soldier who was captured and brainwashed
 
by the Chinese Communists, and then returned to his native country to run for political office. He
 
seemed to those who wanted to vote for him a pleasant and normal fellow. Only the intervention of
 
a former fellow soldier saved America from a colossal electoral mistake.
 
   Imagine a modern day real-life candidate who spends a lifetime being groomed by extremist anti-
 
American elements to run for the presidency. Suppose that he chooses -- not just as acquaintances
 
but as allies -- those who make no secret of their disdain for American democracy, and who see
 
lying, cheating and stealing as fully legitimate means of gaining power. Envision an insidious media
 
campaign that day after day slanders this candidate's opponents, while at the same time according
 
to him a godlike status that labels any criticism of him as racist, illegitimate or "not dealing with real
 
issues." Throw into the storyline a well-planned internet fund raising campaign that generates
 
hundreds of millions of dollars, enabling him to outspend his opponent extravangantly and buy
 
even more media coverage. At last, think about a corrupt extremist political organization sealing the 
 
deal by registering thousands of dead and fictitious voters, busing homeless people to the polls
 
and instructing them how to vote and buying votes with promises of drugs and money. A really
 
scary story, isn't it?
 
   Unfortunately, it's not just 1950's fiction. It's a present day reality. Because Barack Obama
 
is the first African-American to be nominated by his party as a candidate for the presidency,
 
because he is a handsome, glib, Harvard-educated liberal, and because his socialist views
 
approximate those of the left-wing mainstream media, his candidacy has all the appearance of