andy58-in-nh

Welcome to my Home Page

on Free Republic

Welcome to New Hampshire!

NH Message Board

I am a proud gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment. 

LINKS:

National Review Online (NRO)
The Weekly Standard
The American Spectator
Real Clear Politics
Media Research Center
Redstate.com
Rush Limbaugh
Little Green Footballs Blog
Powerline Blog
TownHall.com

Never, ever forget.

MY RAMBLINGS:

The American Left:

The Vietnam War will not truly end until American liberals stop waving it around like a bloody shirt. The American Left, graying, but still infantile, refuses to let go of its ancient hatreds, which it carries around like a security blanket and pulls over its head when confronted with uncomfortable realities. One of these is the fact that America is now threatened by an implacable international enemy that wants to kill us - conservatives, liberals, blacks, whites -all of us. The memory of Vietnam (the Love-Ins! The Peace Marches! Peter, Paul and Mary!) warms the bones of liberals like a dose of heroin while clouding their minds to a world they can't deal with.

The primary philosophical underpinning of not only Liberalism, but of all Utopian ideologies (of which Liberalism is one), is the belief in the perfectability of mankind. Utopians do not believe in good and evil, or in Original Sin, but in an innate quality of humanity that may be molded by proper influence into an earthly vision of perfection. Modern Liberals believe that the agent of perfection is Government, and view those who resist its efforts - and theirs - as "reactionaries", who must be "corrected". The ultimate consequence of this belief may be found in the mass graves of Cambodia, or the crematoria of Nazi Germany.

No one enjoys having their hypocrisy revealed, especially Liberals. Logically pointing out their inherent bigotry often has the effect of psychic Kryptonite; it melts away the pretense of moral authority that so many Liberals wear like a suit of armor.

*   *   *

Having convinced themselves that every war conducted by a Republican President is Vietnam, the Baby-boom Democrats are bound and determined to make it so. That is their template: every war is Vietnam, every scandal is Watergate, and every Republican is Nixon.

On the Republicans:

At least half of the electorate is in fact sick to death of being romanced and abandoned every two-to-four years. Given the way we're treated by our politicians, we'd have every right to be waiting by the door with a rolling pin at the ready, and to bonk it right over the rotten cad's head when he walks through the door (looking for a little lovin' after a night on the wrong side of the tracks).

But we don't. Instead, we wrap our arms around the big lug and get all misty and imagine that This Time It Will Be Different. Perhaps we need therapy. The one thing I'm sure of is that dalliances of our own with liberal strangers on the other side of town won't solve anything either. We've got to sit down at some point and have a heart-to-heart with these rascals and explain to them that respect is mutual and our affection can't be bought with a few baubles and cheap wine. We've got to get our own House back in order, and explain to our Significant Others that they either stand with us or not at all. No more: living here, loving there, and lying in between. A new Contract with America would be a great place to start. Right after the election.

I am as disappointed and angry as anyone at Republicans in Congress. They have failed to cut the Federal Budget; in fact, they have expanded it dramatically. Entitlements and Pork still reign. In the past, I might well rooted for the Democrats to take over and remind people how truly awful they can be when given a chance to apply their economic illiteracy and military fecklessness to the real world, instead of just sniping from the sidelines.

But not now. The stakes are far higher today - and this is not your father's Democratic Party. We are engaged in a struggle against transnational Islamist savages who seek to destroy our civilization, our freedom and our way of life.

Today's Democrats are not the old-line anti-Communist liberal internationalists of the 1950's and '60's: they are hard-core leftists who believe that our country and our culture are to blame for all the world's problems. They sympathize with those who seek to destroy us; seeking negotiation and explanation (read: apology) in lieu of military action and defense.

If placed in power, a Democrat House and Senate would not only stymie President Bush at every turn, but would actively work to undermine the war effort; even while publicly claiming otherwise. They will raise taxes, further increase entitlement spending, punish American businesses, and investigate, intimidate, and threaten their opposition. Unlike Congressional Republicans, most of whom now meekly accept big government, modern Democrats actively believe in Gargantuan government. They also realize that once a spending program is begun it will never, EVER be undone because beneficiaries are concentrated, organized and powerful, and the taxpayers are diffuse, disorganized, and politically weak.

And all the while, as the threat from radical Islam grows stronger, Democrats will do their level best to ignore it while pretending otherwise. Say what you will about the Republicans - and you'd be right to curse them for much of what they have done and failed to do - they won't tolerate any more attacks on the US, ever. Democrats will. If the Democrats win, and do so because conservatives sat on their hands rather than help elect Republicans, conservatives will live to regret it.

Election 2006:

So: The "Mommy Party" won? What really happened was that the kids were being lazy and irresponsible, and when Daddy called them on it, they went running to Mommy because "Daddy's being mean!"

The kids (the voters) were being lazy and irresponsible, and when Daddy (Republicans) strongly suggested that their behavior had to change, they pitched a classic teenage snit and went running home to Mommy.

Now, Daddy may have given them good advice about standing up to bullies and about the need to work for a living and not leech off others. But Daddy also made some serious parenting mistakes.

Who was it who gave the ungrateful little tykes spending money and cool entertainment devices? Dad. Who let them play hooky from their homework because the sun was shining and it was too tempting not to take advantage of the moment? Dad again. (Mom wasn't around, as she was out shopping and having lunch with all of her friends where they'd complain endlessly about their husbands).

When Dad failed to lead by example, and say "No", the kids felt like they were being cheated out of an entitlement, and predictably ran off to the other parent - the one with the soothing words and the open purse. For Dad, there was only a diet of "hot tongue and cold shoulder" from the wife and a knowing look of contempt from the kids.

That's what happens when you lose control of your household by forgetting your values and doing what feels good instead of what you know is right.

*   *   *

In truth, the Republicans lost because they abandoned their core principles. When they embraced Big Government, engaged in corruption, and doled out "pork" by the truckful, they lost the very things that had successfully differentiated them from the Democrats in the past. Long suffering from a lack of principled leadership, congressional Republicans increasingly appeared spineless and incoherent, and as mealy-mouthed and dishonest as any lifetime Democrat big-city machine politician.

The only way for Republicans to get back on track is to admit that they deserved to lose, then figure out why, and change it. All else is a fruitless exercise in blame-shifting and rationalization.

*   *   *

It seems almost inevitable that after being in power for a period of time, political parties lose their way. After a burst of initiative and activity, followed by implementation of some or many of their goals - their enthusiasm wanes. They lose their focus as the original agenda takes a backseat to the imperatives of governance. And then, as time goes by, the object of governance is no longer the pursuit of coherent policy, but the maintenance of power.

Don't feel badly, and certainly don't give up. It happens to most political parties. The Republicans may well need to fall further before they are ready to pick their sorry behinds off the ground, shake off the dust and get back to the blackboard to relearn all they forgot while playing the game.

 
*   *   *

Much damage has been done to the Republican Party, and there is much time in the wilderness ahead, so I would suggest getting used to the idea of being a minority for a while. As an index of what has occurred, Independent voters did not fail to turn up on Tuesday - they did turn out, and in significant numbers, and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats (the figure I saw was over 60%). This is a sea change from recent voting patterns and it is indicative of a major shift in public attitude toward the Republican Party.

In brief, the Republicans came to power gradually beginning in 1980, failing briefly in '92, and then overwhelmingly in 1994. That was 12 years ago, the past three or four of which have been a Republican exercise in intellectual laziness, fiscal profligacy, ethical decay, disorganization, and lack of discipline. It doesn't matter a whit if a party is "right" on the merits of key issues: once power has wreaked its corrupting influence, the voters will take notice and act accordingly.

That is what happened on Tuesday. The Iraq war was a factor, but only because the Republican Party, having lost its formerly high standing with the electorate, lacked the ability to successfully make a case for it. The Republican Party is now widely viewed as the party of Big Government and waste, a development that would have Ronald Reagan shaking his head in sadness.

Do not kid yourselves, people - this will take a long time. 8-12 years would be my guess. The Republican Party needs a complete overhaul of its leadership and a reinvigoration of it grassroots operations. The process must begin with a restatement of core principles and ideas - Conservative principles and ideas - chief among them: limited Federal government, strong national defense, low taxes, the primacy and sanctity of human life, and secure national borders. It's time to start.

Politicians:

Lest we forget, most of our politicians have always been a species of invertebrate castrati who when they are not cowering behind the flimsy fabric of empty phrases, are most often picking our pockets. Patriots are commonly found out in the streets and fields of America; they are as rare as the duck-billed platypus in Washington, DC.

Liberals & Gun Control:

Their aim is to withdraw our freedoms, one by one, and then remove our ability to defend ourselves against their predations. "Liberty" is an antiquated ideal (it's so "Wild West!) to be replaced by the smothering embrace of the welfare state. People cannot be trusted with their freedoms because they fail to make the right choices - so they must be forced to do so (thank you, Mao Tse Tung, Joe Stalin and Pol Pot) - and "free will" is held to be a myth for those who think that guns make people do bad things.

Terrorism:

It is true that terrorists have an undeniable interest in overstating their influence and abilities. At the same time, terrorists have an interest in making their threats a reality, and so they work to obtain the money, arms, and influence with which to do so. If our Government were to base its security policy solely on the likelihood that Al Qaeda publicly exaggerates its own influence, the terrorists would eventually achieve the power that they claim and the destruction that they desire. That is why we need to act now, offensively, and with disproportionate force. You don't wait until the flood comes to begin building the dam.

*  *  *

Immigration:

I have not seen very much evidence of "hate" in these precincts regarding illegal immigrants. What I have seen is concern - justifiable concern, in my view, about the long-term effects of illegal immigration on our safety, security, economic growth prospects, and even our identity as a nation. The flood of illegals is creating enormous strain on our financial resources. Social Security fraud, insurance fraud, and tax evasion related to illegals are rampant. These are only a few of many societal costs that we are currently bearing, and which virtually every other country on earth would refuse to accept - including Mexico, whose own policy on illegal aliens is rather Draconian...

I respect the President greatly for what he is trying to accomplish in Iraq in the face of left-wing opposition and Congressional timidity. I have supported him verbally and in print on this issue and will continue to do so. But Mr. Bush is wrong about illegal immigration, even if his motivation is pure (and I think it is).

Millions of Americans, many of them non-"Buchananite" Conservatives agree with me. We see the effects and the costs of unrestrained illegal immigration on a daily basis and cannot understand why it is so difficult for our leaders to see it as well. Business wants cheap labor? Fine: I'm in business, too - but I know the difference between short-term profits and long-term losses, and have felt the lure of booking expenses as capital because it makes you look profitable when you're really floundering. Writ large, that's what illegal immigration is doing to America. It make our labor appear cheap, while deferring a large portion of the true cost of such labor to the taxpayers of this and succeeding generations. Congress, not the President, is largely responsible for this state of affairs for the same reason they can't be trusted with most financial matters. But this is an issue on which the President should be leading an honest and comprehensive review of our policy toward illegals.

If President Bush would abandon his overly-Romanticized view of immigration and apply the power of logic and the knowledge of history that is certainly within his grasp, the sad charade currently unfolding on Capitol Hill might be avoided.

The Media:

I used to work with these folks. True, they are almost all Liberals, but Liberalism is like the wallpaper to them - just a background that they share. What really matters is money and power - and in TV you get that through the Almighty Ratings Book. Understand that the Media elite are people who profess to abhor Capitalism (i.e., the sort practiced by ordinary businessmen and women), but are in reality among the greediest and least charitable characters on the planet.

The fact is that network "newspeople" just aren't all that smart - they only think they are. I have found this to be true of most "journalists" - they are highly-opinionated, but poorly-educated. They think the world of themselves, and very little of their audience. Moreover, they are surrounded by other journalists, which is to say, by Liberals. Therefore, when handed a "scoop" that richly validates their prejudices, they are only too happy to pass it on.

East Coast Intellectuals: 

Dick Morris, to me, is an instructive example of East Coast insularity. Many years ago, when New York was truly a Cosmopolitan city, its writers and artists could frequently be counted upon to express themselves with knowledge and perspective that extended beyond the Hudson River. People came to New York from all over the world; drawn by its opportunities, its wealth, and its boiling cauldron of ideas and human energy.

Today, far from being perspicacious Citizens of the World, many of New York's cognoscenti routinely relieve themselves of thoughts as narrow as a city alleyway and as provincial as a hensh!t on a pump handle. In the space of perhaps two generations, and no less demographically diverse than they ever were, New York's intelligentsia seem to lack the vaguest clue or regard for what most Americans desire and believe. With few exceptions, they seem to talk only to themselves, their Manhattan sound chamber echoing little more than the Liberal Line, expressed in increasing insularity from the world west of Jersey and south of DC.

It might be instructive for these opinion leaders to take a moment, put down their Times Sunday "Arts" sections, preferably without spilling their lattes, and: I don't know, read a Conservative blog, just for a change? Watch a football game? Read a book about military history? Turn on a NASCAR race? (All right - that's going too far).

Would they then understand that, to your average Southerner, or in my case, conservative New England Yankee, Michael Bloomberg comes off as a classic tax-and-spend liberal self-promoter with an annoying accent? A multi-Billionaire, he went and bought himself a nice mayoral job by using his radio and news outlets for political traction, while "choosing" the Republican label like a suit off the rack at Brooks Brothers. Bloomberg favors gay marriage, opposes immigration reform, and wants to ban all guns. He passed the largest property tax in New York's history, and made cigarettes cost $8.00 a pack. He's originally from Massachusetts, and was endorsed for reelection by the New York Times. What else do you need to know?

So Dick Morris, how do you think that record will play in Peoria?

Living in New Hampshire:

New Hampshire is a great place to live and raise a family. We enjoy a high quality of life (meaning really good ethnic food) combined with a relatively sane cost of living, and no income tax. Housing costs are higher than the national average, but only due to our proximity to Massachussetts (where $500,000 buys you a 3-bedroom ranch in a lousy neighborhood). Best of all, the government is virtually invisible, and local, rather than state, politics predominate. Now: please don't tell anyone, and if you must, please steer the Liberals to Vermont.

Election 2004:

So John Kerry says that Bush has "no plan to win the peace".

Of all the hare-brained catch-phrases emanating from the 2004 campaign, this one has to win the "So Stupid It Defies Gravity" Award.
"Win the Peace" is an air-whipped verbal confection cooked up by Democrat sound-bite chefs seeking profundity without the need for rational thought in order to achieve it. Wars are won or lost. Peace is first secured, and then defended - often by the armies that achieved victory on the battlefield. The government supporting those armed forces must have a plan to transfer responsibility for future control to civilian authorities. This is precisely what is occurring in Iraq today, and quite successfully, because that was the plan.

What was the plan to "win the peace" after WWII? We occupied Germany for years, fought off marauding bands of Nazi sympathizers and Communist rebels and criminals, and once general peace was SECURED (not "won"), divided the country with our Allies (unfortunately including the Soviet Union). What was the plan to "win the peace" in Japan? We firebombed and irradiated them into submission, forceably disarmed their military and then occupied the country until they could be trusted again.

*   *   *

Anyone really think we can trust JFK III with our armed forces in Iraq or elsewhere? Besides, The only "piece" he's ever won had million dollar bank accounts.

*   *   *

Zell Miller, every Republicans favorite Democrat, played Michael Corleone to John Kerry's Fredo (quote source: CrushKerry)

Zell Miller told the world last night that the Democrat Party, as exemplified by John Kerry, had broken his heart. And what a speech it was - no single Republican could have spoken the words Miller did with the same authenticity and emotional impact.
I know for certain that this speech will have a lasting effect - because today's Boston Globe contains almost no mention of it. I swear to you all, I'm not making this up. The Globaloney reported primarily on Cheney's address, and deep, deep inside the paper (page A21 or so) inserted a few quotes by Zell Miller, mentioning, as an aside, that it was in fact the Keynote address. This "news" article, written by veteran Bush-hater Anne Kornblut, portrayed the speech as "harsh" and "militaristic", without quoting from it at length, while letting us know that Democrats had already condemned the speech.

The "Spitball" comment (surprise!) was completely omitted, and that's the one that's going to leave a mark, folks - like the crashing impact of a .38 slug. Zell Miller did the Republican Party - and the nation a favor last night and gave John Kerry two in the hat. But it wasn't just "business" - it was personal, too.

In retrospect, we will probably recall that it was a good thing when George Bush received a wake-up call in the first debate. The President could not afford to coast to victory - the media was never going to let that happen, even if Kerry seemed determined to fumble away his chances. But now Kerry has found his voice (just as he always seems to do in the latter stages of campaigns) and the President is going to have to start fighting back, by challenging Democrat lies. The economy, for example, does NOT suck. The war was NOT wrong, it IS about terrorism, and we ARE winning. France will NOT help us, either (they're too busy making reservations for the Al Jazeera Fancy Foods and High Explosives Festival in Paris next spring. Okay, I made that up, but Jacques Chirac would definitely party like it's 1939. And it is.

On Canada:

...a 3rd-rate socialist backwater whose primary export is snow.

Education:

When it comes to preparing them for productive work lives, our schools are failing our kids. Technical training alone will not solve the problem. Technology is a moving target - it changes continuously; that is its nature, and so it should. What is important is the ability of people to adapt to change as it occurs. This implies an ability to think critically. Such ability comes only from a solid grounding in the basic elements of human knowledge: Math, Science, History, Language, Art, and Philosophy.

Unfortunately, what are kids are getting today is a mishmosh of liberal attitudinizing, racial and gender-based grievance studies, moral relativism, and pop culture. Even technical training schools have been affected by the decline of Liberal Arts - they tend to teach skills to get jobs (today's hot technology) instead of skills for life. And the most significant reason for that tendency is the lack of fundamental knowledge provided by schools in the formative years. Foreign workers are attractive to US employers not merely because they are "cheaper" (in many cases - they are not) but because they frequently possess knowledge and critical thought processes that many US workers lack.

Lawyers:

The wussification of America continues, aided and abetted by the Tort Pimps. Many of my fondest memories are of childhood Summers, consisting of riding a bike for hours - without a helmet, of course, exploring through the woods, playing in old treehouses and abandoned cars, swimming and diving and running forever without a care in the world. Today, Youth Services would come and arrest my parents, and whisk me off to a foster home, while a SWAT team of attorneys would decend like locusts with briefcases and camera crews in tow.

Economics:

"Labor" is not an indivisible entity. There are many different categories of labor, only the most superficial of which are "skilled" and "unskilled". In a dynamic service economy such as ours, the demand for labor is not determined solely by macroeconomic factors (wage rates, physical location, sales growth, production costs) but more by technical factors - access to training, productivity, process management, and technological advances.

Hence, there is not a "labor shortage" in the US - but there are shortages of people trained in specialized fields with technical knowledge who can quickly adapt to the "lean manufacturing" environment that predominates in our industries.

*   *   *

So how does Walmart's displacement of existing retailers, or, their almost complete reliance on foreign suppliers, end up as a net US job gain? (question from ARCADIA)

My answer is this: all US retailers of manufactured goods now rely almost exclusively on foreign suppliers. This is no more true of "WallyWorld" than of the old Main Street hardware and dry goods store. Foreign goods are cheaper due to lower costs for labor, raw materials, land, construction, taxes, legal fees - the list goes on and on. The US economy is in a difficult, but necessary transitional stage. We have moved, in the space of fewer than 150 years, from an agricultural to a manufacturing to a service economy. At the same time, technological advances have drastically altered the demand for services- those most in demand today did not exist 20 years ago (think: wireless computer networks).

This turmoil has both displaced old jobs and created millions of new jobs- but here's the catch. Many more jobs ought to have been created during the same period - but for some very short-sighted and just plain dumb government policies and regulations. These include a bevy of 19th-century anti-trust and labor laws that remain on the books long after their subject industries and jobs have ceased to exist, and a tax system that virtually penalizes companies for reinvestment and capital formation and taxes earnings twice and sometimes three times. I could go on at great length here, but I'll spare you the dry details just to note that competition does in fact create jobs. Lower prices for new products and services increases demand for the same, reducing excess production capacity and increasing the demand for labor. The economy has changed since the days of Adam Smith, but the laws of economics have not.

Cheers. I'm going to have my coffee now (100% Columbian).

ART GALLERY:

Harry and Nancy are Deeply Saddened

"Uh, Mr. Gore, it's Miller Lite that's less filling/tastes great...