Posted on 08/09/2010 9:56:37 AM PDT by pissant
Palin is the only Conservative that could beat obama... America will not vote for moderate, talking out of both sides of their mouth... or out of 4,312 sides like romney... or a milquetoast already run has-been rino.
LLS
At least try to get a clue, but then if you were capable of getting a clue you wouldn't be massaging the legs of demented tools like pissy.
Beware Sarah and other unworthy RINOS! It's Pissant and His Mighty Brigade of Waddling Warriors! Their thighs may be chaffed on the inside, but if they can ever lose enough weight to walk outside and do something...you're in TROUBLENotably quotable.......
:-)
I think RR was both more and less than this list.
He had no formal schooling outside of Eureka College, graduating in 1932. Many called him intellectually incurious; Clark Clifford once memorably labeled him "an amiable dunce."
Reagan was an executive President who succeeded due to his executive skills. He was not one for mindnumbing detail.
He was the conceptual opposite of Jed Bartlett...as Bartlett is a fictional character in every sense of the word. RR was nothing if not real.
Palin is one of the few Republican politicians actively disliked by more Americans than Obama. I don’t see why Obama wouldn’t prefer to run against her.
Link please. MSDNC doesn't count.
At present, neither major political party in our nation represents the interests of the Producers. The Democrats have been fully absorbed by the socialist Left who see government as the source of all value, regardless of the fact that human rights inhere in individuals, and not groups, and that value is created by creative effort, not by its forcible redistribution.
The Republicans, for their part have largely abandoned principle in exchange for the right to champion half measures: they will protect your right to half of what you deserve in exchange for all of your support. They will keep the thieves at bay, for a while, anyway, as long as you agree to pay them the same tribute as those would take it all. Both parties wish you to believe they are your friend; one group steals and offers you a false comfort in return; the other restrains the thieves from doing their worst and asks you to be thankful for their intervention, by which they profit nonetheless.
I, myself, await a more compelling choice.
As to your categorical qualifications for executive office, you offer some valuable considerations.
People skills: I agree that it is vital for a leader of free people to know and respect their human nature and motivations. Among our politicians, honesty in this regard is rare, for it means admitting that one's own needs and those of one's constituents do sometimes conflict. In those instances, the requirements of one's representative citizens must prevail.
Political skills: building coalitions based upon compromise is important to one's continuation in office, but it is undermined by a failure to respect the fundamental rights of all. Most politicians eagerly sell the rights of some in exchange for the support of others. Our Constitution, relentlessly enforced, is what might constrain the very human impulse to desire that which one has not earned by honest effort and free exchange of value.
Communication skills: what matters most on this respect is content and not verbal facility; many people are willing to be tricked and lied to for short-term advantage. But effectively appeal to "the better angels of our nature" and many who would otherwise be seduced will pause long enough to consider what others might do to them, if similarly propositioned at the expense of their virtue.
Superior temperament and leadership ability: nothing is more rare in political life, for it is informed not by temporal pleasure but by honesty, honor, decency and faith. We get the leaders we deserve. As John Adams noted, our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people and added further:
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies.
I was blessed with an incredible history teacher in college many, many, many years ago...he described the split as Country vs Court, and it's been a theme in American History since before the Revolutionary War.
So I guess what we're seeing is nothing new.
The Republicans, for their part have largely abandoned principle in exchange for the right to champion half measures: they will protect your right to half of what you deserve in exchange for all of your support...
Very well said. I think there's no point in putting Repubs back in power, if we get the same Repub result as from 2001 on.
I'm hopeful the Tea Party movement can take over the Repub Party. If not, I'd be willing to look at a third party...as long as having political tin ears is not a platform plank.
I'm resigned to the notion that we've been headed to where we are for a long time, and it's not a political season's worth of work to get us back to where we want to be.
There's a local (Seattle area) radio personality named John Carlson who was a Gov. candidate a few years ago. He says that in politics (this was several years ago) it's no longer left vs right, but inside vs outside.
You're in fine form today! I thought I was the only one getting cranky with the PDS Posse.
I was betting the first episode was going to be pissant and Bob J camping with Sarah Palin and attempting to convince her to endorse the Falcon Party and Duncan Hunter for President in 2012. What a disappointment.
LLS
You sound just like an Obama sycophant.
LLS
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former." - Federalist #78
Sounds rather quaint today, does it not? Our Federal courts have progressed over time from impartial arbiters of legislative intent and textual meaning to upholding the fiat of unelected bureaucrats who claim the power to tell Americans how many grams of saturated fat they can have in their bran muffins.
Another reason it is revealing to frame our greater political conflict in terms of "the courts vs. the people" is because while we used to pride ourselves on being "a nation of laws rather than of men", our politicians no longer even think in those terms. Rather, they appear to assume the interchangeability of both, dependent upon electoral victory, eschewing fixed principles and limited powers wherever some human imperfection or difficulty arises.
This, of course, is the essence of modern Progressivism: the impulse to apply government power to constrain and direct human endeavor wherever the result of voluntary interaction is adjudged "unfair" or "inequitable", which increasingly reaches into every crevice of human life.
Also over time, those doing the "reaching" are Insiders - a permanent Elite class whose matriculating members graduate to sinecures from which they command and control the labor, capital, information, and ultimately: the fortunes of others. Furthermore, our Elites frequently assume a right to do so, owning to commonly-understood tokens of superior pedigree: family name, private school diplomas, club memberships, and suitably arranged internships. Among the members of this class are national politicians, academics, news media members, private resource funders, and various literati and culturati whose works essentially paper the walls of the Progressive sound chamber.
The "Outsiders" in our world are of three distinct sub-classes. One is the Producers - those of knowledge and ability who create things of value (products and services) for which others wish to exchange value. Among this group are small business owners, tradesmen, professional service providers and technical workers.
Another subgroup is the "Dependents" (formerly known as "the masses") - those upon who our legislative elite members lavish attention, borrowed money and also some of the fortunes appropriated from Producers in exchange for votes at election time, while keeping them permanently poor and unaccomplished.
Finally, there are the "Enablers" - essentially the ground troops for the elite class - composed of public sector union members, bureaucrats, and non-profit political issue groups, any of whom may be called upon to promote the electoral interests of the elite at any time, acting in a somewhat whimsical sense as the "muscle arm" of the Progressive Crime Family. "Nice biz-ness ya got dere. It would be a *shame* if anyt'ing were ta happen to it... get it, pal?"...
By “Court” he meant an urban elite, not the judicial branch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.