AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I do realize that they can push your patience but I do not think that a lobotomy would be helpful!

No, it is not a lack of empathy. Why would anyone want to empathize with the right? It would be akin to empathizing with a virus.

It appears to me that we as a society lack empathy and that there are some that lack more than others and some of these people are leaders in our government!

Something to think about, Our environment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj_9SXbw0uo&feature=related

Thanks. I am going to listen to the rest of his speaches tomorrow. What he had to say in the first one was absolutely true.

I am glad that you liked it!

He is a very smart man. It does seem that he means well and most of what he says does seem to be true but he does get some things wrong but don't we all?

I know that you guys get things wrong, but i never do. I am a conservative you know.

If you are a Rush Limbaugh conservative you sure got me fooled!

The NY Times examines one American flip-flopper who is definitely a conservative, definitely in need of a personality overhaul and more than a bit strange:

EDITORIAL
Mitt Romney in a Time Warp
Published: May 12, 2011


There was something almost quaint about Mitt Romney’s speech on health care Thursday, as if we were watching early sound footage of Theodore Roosevelt.

Republicans no longer talk about the virtues of government social programs, especially if they intend to run for president in a party that now considers Medicare the first cousin of socialism. Yet there was Mr. Romney defending a mandate to buy health insurance as passionately as in any similar speech by President Obama.

When he was governor of Massachusetts, of course, Mr. Romney created a health care system very similar to the one championed by the president. He could have walked away from it, as he did in the 2008 presidential race, or fecklessly repudiated it, as Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, did in the Republican debate last week regarding his earlier support for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases.

This time, to his credit, Mr. Romney is standing by his record, perhaps hoping there might still be a few primary voters who appreciate candor — assuming he doesn’t pivot again in the heat of the right-dominated primaries.

Tearing it down might help him politically, he said, but “it wouldn’t be honest.” He said he did what he “thought would be right for the people of my state.” A mandate to buy insurance, he said, makes sense to prevent people from becoming free riders, getting emergency care at enormous cost to everyone else.

Where he went off the rails, however, was in not acknowledging that that same logic applies to the nation. Mr. Romney tried desperately to pivot from praising his handiwork in Massachusetts to trashing the very same idea as adapted by Mr. Obama. His was an efficient and effective state policy; Mr. Obama’s was “a power grab by the federal government.”

He tried to justify this with a history lesson on federalism and state experimentation, but, in fact, he said nothing about what makes Massachusetts different from its neighbors or any other state. And why would he immediately repeal the Obama mandate if elected president? Because Mr. Obama wants a “government takeover of health care,” while all he wanted was to insure the uninsured.

That distinction makes no sense, and the disconnect undermines the foundation of Mr. Romney’s candidacy. At heart, he is still the kind of old-fashioned northeastern Republican who believes in government’s role while trying to conceal it under a thin, inauthentic coating of conservative outrage. But in its blind abhorrence of President Obama, the party has also left behind former centrists like Mr. Romney, and it is unlikely that any amount of frantic pandering about the free market will change that. He is trapped not only between the poles of his party but between eras, a candidate caught in an electoral time warp.

Budget Mix-Up Provides Nation's Schools With Enough Money To Properly Educate Students
MAY 9, 2011 | ISSUE 47•19


Members of Congress say they are “mortified” to be associated with a bill that gives more money to schools.

WASHINGTON—According to bewildered and contrite legislators, a major budgetary mix-up this week inadvertently provided the nation's public schools with enough funding and resources to properly educate students.

Sources in the Congressional Budget Office reported that as a result of a clerical error, $80 billion earmarked for national defense was accidentally sent to the Department of Education, furnishing schools with the necessary funds to buy new textbooks, offer more academic resources, hire better teachers, promote student achievement, and foster educational excellence—an oversight that apologetic officials called a "huge mistake."

"Obviously, we did not intend for this to happen, and we are doing everything in our power to right the situation and discipline whoever is responsible," said House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), expressing remorse for the error. "I want to apologize to the American people. The last thing we wanted was for schools to upgrade their technology and lower student-to-teacher ratios in hopes of raising a generation of well-educated, ambitious, and skilled young Americans."

"That's the type of irresponsible misspending that I've been focused on eliminating for my entire political career," Ryan added.

Ryan went on to tell reporters that the $80 billion budget slip-up will "unfortunately" help schools nationwide to supply students with modernized classrooms and instructional materials. Struggling to control his frustration, Ryan said he prayed the costly mistake would not allow millions of American students to graduate with strong language skills.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a full investigation into how the nation's schools were able to secure the necessary funds to monitor teachers and pay salaries based on performance.

"The fact that this careless mistake also ended up financing new teacher training programs, allowing educators to become more than just glorified babysitters, is disgraceful," Reid said. "Now we are left with a situation where schools can attract talented professionals who really want to teach our children, which will in turn create smarter and more motivated students who wish to one day make a contribution to society."

"In all my years in government I have never seen such a shameful error," Reid added. "Our appropriations process has gone horribly awry, and I for one demand to know how it happened."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) echoed congressional leaders and vowed to do "everything in [his] power" to resolve the costly error that led to schools updating their curriculums to emphasize math, science, and language arts, and provided students with instruction on how to use newly purchased computers to aid their research.

"Once these kids learn to read and think critically, you can never undo that," Boehner said. "In 20 years, we could be looking at a nightmare scenario in which vast segments of our populace are fully prepared to compete in the new global marketplace."

"It could take a whole generation to cancel out the effects of this," Boehner added.

Congressional leaders also stressed that providing the nation's students with an adequate education that prepared them for college or supplied them with a solid grasp of basic knowledge could also have a devastating impact on the economy by creating a new class of citizens uninterested in settling for fast food meals and useless plastic knickknacks.

"And politicians will be adversely affected as well," Boehner said. "What will our nation do if the next generation knows that all we care about is our own selfish interests and pandering to the wealthy elite? Is that the future you want? Not me."

Nice, thanks for sharing!

A high school sophomore from New Jersey is challenging Rep. Michele Bachmann to a debate on civics and the U.S. Constitution. In an open letter to to Bachmann, Amy Myers of Cherry Hill, N.J., said, “I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted.

“I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics,” Myers wrote, according to a report by City Pages’ Nick Pinto.
Politifact rated Bachmann’s statements about the U.S. Constitution’s census requirements in 2009 as “Pants on Fire” false. CNN’s Anderson Cooper dinged Bachmann back in January for her revisionist history regarding the U.S. Constitution’s racist past.

Here’s Myers full letter:
Dear Representative Bachmann,
My name is Amy Myers. I am a Cherry Hill, New Jersey sophomore attending Cherry Hill High School East. As a typical high school student, I have found quite a few of your statements regarding The Constitution of the United States, the quality of public school education and general U.S. civics matters to be factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted. The frequency and scope of these comments prompted me to write this letter.

Though I am not in your home district, or even your home state, you are a United States Representative of some prominence who is subject to national media coverage. News outlets and websites across this country profile your causes and viewpoints on a regular basis. As one of a handful of women in Congress, you hold a distinct privilege and responsibility to better represent your gender nationally. The statements you make help to serve an injustice to not only the position of Congresswoman, but women everywhere. Though politically expedient, incorrect comments cast a shadow on your person and by unfortunate proxy, both your supporters and detractors alike often generalize this shadow to women as a whole.
Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the follow challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education:
I, Amy Myers, do hereby challenge Representative Michele Bachmann to a Public Forum Debate and/or Fact Test on The Constitution of the United States, United States History and United States Civics.
Hopefully, we will be able to meet for such an event, as it would prove to be enlightening.
Sincerely yours,
Amy Myers

A challenge to scott brown:

ABC News’ Rick Klein (@rickklein) reports: Newton Mayor Setti Warren announced his candidacy for the Senate this week, the latest in a growing field of Democratic candidates who are hoping to take down Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., next year.

Warren, an Iraq war veteran and former aide to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had been urged not to run by some Democratic power-brokers who wanted a more seasoned candidate to take on Brown.

But the young mayor – the state’s first black mayor to have been elected by popular vote – told us on ABC’s “Top Line” that he’s got the range of
experienced needed to represent the Bay state in the Senate.

“I understand how to create jobs here in Massachusetts,” Warren told us. “We really need to have someone who understands the values and the sentiments of the state, who will provide the leadership needed, and the skill set. I think those skill sets represent what we need right now in that seat.”

Warren has taken some heat from Republicans for attacking Brown over his support for a tax-cut compromise late last year, even though President Obama helped cut that deal -- and Kerry, among other Democrats, voted for it.

Warren deflected questions about how he would have voted on that package, saying that “the president made the best deal possible.” But he said he would not vote to further extend tax cuts for upper-income Americans.

“Scott Brown's approach was to hold middle-class tax cuts hostage in order to give the wealthiest Americans tax cuts. He made that decision in December; the president made the best deal possible at that point,” he said.

“We're at a time now that president has made clear that we need to move forward and not extend the tax cuts for the wealthy -- invest in job creation and competitiveness. Brown has been on the record as late as April saying he would support those tax cuts. It makes no sense.”

While Brown has proven popular in polls in Massachusetts, Warren said Massachusetts voters will reject him in his bid for a full term.

“Scott Brown committed to being an independent voice in this state. And he hasn't -- he's voted 87 percent of the time with his national Republican leaders. He's voted to gut programs that matter -- job creation, job training. Those are values that aren't represented here in Massachusetts. He doesn't believe in the science of global warming. That's not the kind of leadership that we need in the seat right now. And I think people in this state don't understand it, and I think they’re not going to support it in 2012.”

Warren also said he’d push to wind down the war in Afghanistan: “I am pleased that we found and killed Osama bin Laden. We have to make sure that the region is safe, and that we begin to bring our troops home. I've been talking about this for the past four day -- reducing our military footprint in that part of the world.”

And – responding to a famous campaign flub that contributed to the downfall of the Democrat who lost to Brown in 2009, Martha Coakley – Warren said that yes, he’s ready to shake hands in the cold outside Fenway Park.

“I love the Red Sox -- they're doing pretty well. I was at a game a few weeks ago. I’m gonna be out there, and across the state. We've been to cities and towns -- that's the kind of campaign I'm going to run, and that's the kind of campaign that will win.”

From Salon:


After doing his best to build suspense for it, Mike Huckabee used his Saturday night show on Fox News -- "Huckabee" -- to declare that he will not seek the presidency in 2012.

The decision is significant because Huckabee loomed as a formidable contender on the GOP side. Had he run, he might actually have been considered the frontrunner.

Since his 2008 campaign, in which he performed far better than anyone had expected, Huckabee had worked to broaden his appeal -- which was limited mainly to religious conservatives -- through his Fox program and frequent appearances on talk shows, like Jon Stewart's "Daily Show." The gambit seemed to be working; a poll conducted a few months ago found the former Arkansas governor to be the most popular national figure among Republicans. He also generally performed better against President Obama in trial heats than any other GOP prospect.

As a candidate, Huckabee would have been the clear favorite in the lead-off caucus state of Iowa, where he finished first in '08.

Huckabee's absence will leave Republicans (at least for now) with relatively few candidates who have plausible chances of capturing the nomination. Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty fall into this category, and Mitch Daniels will too if he runs. And maybe, if you're feeling generous, you could include Jon Huntsman. But besides them, the GOP field is littered with niche candidates defined by narrow ideological appeal and/or polarizing personal traits -- Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and so on.

Huckabee is only 54 and will presumably remain visible in the national media well into the future. And he remains an immensely popular figure to many Christian conservatives. If Republicans fail to take back the White House next year, his name will presumably figure in the 2016 mix. But for now, he's out -- and the GOP has one fewer realistic option for a '12 standard-bearer.

Herman Cain is the man to lead the ongoing conservative ascension.

What would you think about Neal Boortz being vice president?

I would prefer Newt as VP.

I would have thought you to be the kind of guy that would want the whole trinity you know the baby Jesus {Shawn} The high priest of the church of the painful truth {Neal} and the god father {Rush}

It would not be the first time I was wrong!

Sean rubs me the wrong way, I can handle limited doses of Rush and Boortz is just plain awesome, but he won't run for office.

You do realize that they are philosophers?

Aren't they all?