Sick of RINO's!!!

In early November 2009, I wrote a little about my disdain for RINO's and Blue Dog Democrats. It's primary season in California, which means that the airwaves are being inundated with political ads. Unfortunately, neither of the Republican candidates for Governor are ideal. Poizner is a slime ball and you can read below all about Meg Whitman. She's since clarified her 'praise' for Van Jones, with whom she was most unfamiliar at the time.

Lean in close for the wet and sloppy one...

I'll answer the question of my take on Meg Whitman with another question; when are you going to get fed up of voting for the lesser of two evils?

This goes back to growing tired of the pragmatism versus principle argument that is going on throughout the Republican party, spurred in large part by the election of Obama and more recently by the nomination of Dede Scozzafava in NY-23. For far too long, the citizenry of this country has sat upon the sidelines taking no real action in supporting a candidate of any sort. And as a result when the primary comes along, the candidate we'd prefer (i.e. Tom McClintock for Governor, 2001; Fred Thompson for President, 2008; etc.) loses to a candidate that has larger name recognition or a prettier smile. We sit back and pontificate amongst ourselves on why these conservative candidates are the only acceptable choice for the office they seek and then sit back on our laurels as a much more moderate and distasteful candidate handily wins the primary. Once the primaries are over, then we watch this milquetoast candidate go on to run against the candidate from the other party, and then hold our noses as we enter the voting booth and publicly state that we've just voted for the lesser of two evils. Are you catching my drift here? We are to blame for 'middle of the road' candidates, and the RINO plague that currently infests the Republican party.

Now specifically as to Ms. Whitman... My principles would never allow me to support Barbara Boxer for Senate, ever. However, the last time that Boxer was up for re-election, Ms. Whitman publicly supported Boxer, and maxed out on donations to the Boxer for Senate campaign. (Also supported by Meg Whitman are moderate icons Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as well as Democrats John Kerry and Mike Honda.) There are few in the Senate who in my opinion are more liberal than Mrs. Boxer, and yet Ms. Whitman not only publicly supported Boxer, but also donated money to her, snubbing Republican Bill Jones in his bid for the Senate seat. I would be interested to know what has changed about Mrs. Boxer, and Ms. Whitman in the last 5-6 years that would allow Ms. Whitman to support Carly Fiorina or Chuck Devore against Boxer as a Republican candidate would have to do in order to secure the Republican nomination. In addition, Ms. Whitman seems to be pleased with the job that self-proclaimed 'Radical Communist' Van Jones was doing, as recently as May 2009. If you'll recall Van Jones was President Obama's Green Jobs Czar and an admitted 9/11 truther. What business does a 'darned good' conservative Republican have supporting an avowed communist and 9/11 truther who is in the Obama Administration?! I have yet to hear Meg Whitman explicitly denounce the Stimulus package which has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. Ms. Whitman seems to have a hard time showing up to complete her civic duty. She was not registered to vote until 2002 and since that time, no voting records can be found in any of the counties or precincts she has inhabited. Recently, Ms. Whitman has also made some 'pro-amnesty' comments in interviews, all of which make my skin crawl.

Ms. Whitman may indeed be a Republican, but she, should she get elected, is going to be the type of Republican than is difficult to distinguish from a Democrat and that is one of the factors contributing to the Grand Old Party's current wander in the wilderness.

I refuse to continue to elect RINO's and then spend 2, 4 or 6 years complaining about the direction of the country. Ms. Whitman will not receive my vote, because she has not earned it, period.

Please take the time to comment!

Conservatives and Libertarians: Friends of Necessity

Together At Last!

This is certainly not an original thought, but as I've been pondering the recent political landscape one thing seems clear to me: Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than they do not, and need each other in order for reason to once again rule Washington, DC.

It was very apparent to me shortly after iWon's inauguration that the political right had fractured into its thousand tiny little sects, each claiming had their brand of politics been adhered, the White House would never have been lost. The truth is the political right is as varied as the individuals that make it up. The reason for it's diversity is that in order to be on the right, you must be able to think for yourself. As Limbaugh is repeatedly saying, 'Conservatism is an intellectual persuit...' It takes nothing more than 'feelings' in order to be a liberal. All one must do is let their heart lead them in matters to know what being a liberal is all about. Unfortunately, what the heart desires is hardly ever what is best for anyone.

The right, naturally breaks down into multiple small interest groups congregating around which ever conservative principles they deem most important. Unfortunately, following an elector defeat, the party out of power turns inward upon itself blaming other sects of the same ideology for the defeats. Most recently I've witnessed a very bitter battle brewing between the self proclaimed 'Libertarians' and 'Neocons.' Now, as we all know, the Necons must be stopped. Libertarians, just like most other sects on the right, believe that they have the magic formula for ultimate happiness and peace and harmony and political power. Yes mom, I realize that was a run on sentence. Stick with me. As most political sects do, Libertarians have rallied around a leader which they believe best speaks for their movement. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Ron Paul. Paulnuts have targeted another conservative leader for their ire and disdain. That charismatic (read loony) leader is Glenn Beck. Hilarity ensues, or not:


By the way, the unedited, uncorrected title of that Video on YouTube is as follows:

Glenn Beck is a Neocon Not a Libertarian And he never supported Dr Ron Paul true constitutionalist Glenn is trying to infest a true grass roots people with his pretender fairytales

Now, here's the deal... Ron Paul is dead on about some things, and batshit crazy about others. Let's start with the good. I am all for (as are most on the right) returning this country to it's founding principles, and to taking a much more originalist interpretation of the Constitution. I am also all for the government staying the hell out of my personal life. He's a little off on Tax policy, advocating no income taxes what-so-ever, but I'd much rather have his tax system than our current one. However, to insinuate that the United States was somehow responsible for what happened in Manhattan on 9/11/01 makes the man certifiable. His isolationist policies make him a perfect candidate for Congress... in 1911. To somehow believe that the economic and security interests of the United States can be served, while simultaneously closing all military bases in every foriegn country is naive at best. Also, to even consider going back to the Gold Standard is novel idea, but no where near pragmatic. From the Wikipedia:

The total value of all gold ever mined would be US$4.78 trillion

Last year's GDP: $14.2 Trillion

Anyone see the problem with going back onto the gold standard? Here's a hint: $4.7 Trillion < $14.2 Trillion. Now, as to Beck... Where to begin? Beck has been right in intent and poor in execution. His recent program on Communist symbology in the artwork at the Rockefeller Plaza in New York made 9/11 truthers look sane by comparison. However, he seems to be the only 'major media figure' inquiring about corruption within the appointments of the Obama Administration. Many today would have no idea who Van Jones is, were it not for Beck's investigations, and 'asking reasonable questions.' Here's the dirty little secret, though... we all need eachother. True story. We need those on the right who advocate for originalist interpretation of the Constitution, who shed light on the inner workings (both good and bad) of the government, who understand governments place in our lives a la the founders intent. We need all these views, together. The fact is Libertarians and the rest of the Conservative movement need each other to succeed. Let's reclaim the White House, Capitol Hill, and get a Conservative bench, then we can fuss over legalizing pot, mmkay?

For the record, I consider both Ron Paul and Glenn Beck conservatives. They are both to be found on the right side of the political spectrum, however, they both self identify as Libertarians. I am not insinuating, as Paul supporters do, that Beck is a Neocon and not a Libertarian.

Ron Paul, not for President 2012.

Please take the time to comment!