Bill Whittle and why 2027 is an important year

Bill Whittle is a paragon of explaining Conservatism and how it works.

Under George W. Bush, the federal budget grew by leaps and bounds, and under Obama it has literally exploded. Even though the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that our economy hits a brick wall in 15 years, Geithner admits to not even having a plan to avert our impending fiscal doom. And just for the record, the CBO made that projection with Geithner’s numbers.

Bill Whittle makes great videos which never fail to educate and this one is no exception. Please take a few minutes and watch, it is well worth your time.

 

 

Past videos talking about today’s problems

Here a few videos that are from as far back as the 1970′s, yet they are so very appropriate to what is going on in America today.

Here is Ronald Reagan – and as the title to the video says, “Now more relevant than ever.”

Former Prime Minister of England, Margaret Thatcher. She, like Reagan knew how to deconstruct the liberal arguments.

Economist Milton Friedman laying it all out and punching holes in Phil Donahue’s sails.

And finally,  another Reagan video. I wish I could claim credit for this video, but I cannot. I found it over at FloppingAces.net and knew I wanted to post it here.

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability question 2 rebuttal

The question in this part of the continuing third party viability debate is:

Is a third-party vote “wasted?” If so, how? If not, why?”

I want to say that I have enjoyed debating scratcher. He is passionate about what he believes and makes excellent points. Scratcher has his rebuttal up at his blog, so now I will respond.

Here in part is what scratcher said:

“I guess if you want to believe in changing the Party, a third party vote may seem like a waste. But if you’re like me and believe the Party can’t – or rather won’t – be changed, then a third party may be the only way to go. It’s got to come down to what you want to stand for come election day…”

Okay, if you only want to look at this topic via what it means to you, personally then yes; I agree with scratcher. Voting for a third party is what you need to do; which goes to the original point I made that a vote cast is not a vote wasted. But does that vote cast do anything to keep the liberal statists from advancing their agenda? It isn’t just that you vote for a third party, it is what your vote does to aid the opposition. To this, scratcher said:

“Realistically, we can only be thankful right now that the progressives haven’t been able to force their agenda of change on the schedule they’d hoped to. A bottom-up infiltration of an unwilling and aware entity could take decades… if it succeeds at all.”

Well I would only mention Woodrow Wilson at this juncture. Since his Presidency, statism has been on the march; slowly in general, sudden at times, but steadily ‘progressing’ on our society. Statism has long been pushed by the left, it isn’t an invention of Barack Obama and even though it will take decades, we need to start somewhere. We can no longer let statism go unchecked, for as we have seen of late, the far left in the Democratic Party will stop at virtually nothing to foist their socialist agenda upon the American people. That is why voting for a third party in the general Presidential election would be nothing short of disastrous for the conservative cause.

Scratcher also said:

“I think it proves instead the point I’m trying to make. The trouble with NY-23 wasn’t knowledgeable voters resisting a RINO liberal and breaking for the third party candidate. The problem was an arrogant Republican Party that ignored those voters, then sent Newt Gingrich to tell the common folk what was best for them. Had the Republican establishment thrown their support behind the popular and desired conservative candidate, Hoffman and the GOP would have both won – as would the voters.”

First of all, Newt Gingrich noted his mistake in supporting Dede Scozzafava in a meeting with Tea Partiers in New Hampshire:

“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says that he was wrong to endorse Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava in last November’s special election in New York’s 23rd District.

At the time, as a party builder and someone who has always been trying to help build the party, it struck me that she was the local nominee. She turned out to be a huge disappointment. And she turned out not to be frankly a loyal Republican,” Gingrich added. Responding to those critical of his endorsement, “And I think that those folks have the better of that argument.

And secondly, I think that what we need to remember here is that the Republican National Committee, according to their bylaws are prohibited from getting involved in the picking and choosing of a local candidate. Once a candidate has been chosen, the RNC can throw its support behind that person, but they cannot select candidates. This was a local problem made by Chicago style backroom deals and would probably not ever have been noticed in a different election cycle; which is only more proof that the Tea Party Movement is effective as it stands. Without their involvement this past year, you would not have seen the amazing election results in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Something else that scratcher said really hit me:

“That’s what it’s coming to for me. I’m going to vote for the person I think is best for the job, and never mind the Party choices. Will it reform the Republicans? I doubt it. But if they lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives like myself breaking for the third party, perhaps they’ll start looking for more appropriate candidates.

Wow. Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Card Check, Amnesty for Illegals – I can only ask, does anyone think that we can afford to lose enough elections due to independent-minded conservatives voting for third party candidates to force a change in the GOP that way? Personally, I don’t want to take that chance.

We have, coming up in the next two election cycles, a once in a lifetime chance to effect change in the Republican Party. The Tea Party Movement has sent a clear message that the electorate is fed up with the big government, out of control spending ways that the GOP fell into. Rasmussen says that the GOP is enjoying an unprecedented lead in the generic congressional ballot survey:

“Evidence is mounting that adopting Obamacare over sustained and vocal public opposition to government-run health care could lead to an electoral catastrophe for Democrats, as they fall 10 points behind Republicans in Rasmussen’s generic congressional ballot survey.

The survey measures which party candidate for Congress voters intend to vote for in the November congressional election.

Rasmussen notes that: “The two parties were very close on the Generic Ballot throughout the spring of 2009, but in late June – around the same time Democrats began their campaign for health care reform — Republicans pulled ahead for good.”

If the GOP still has a double digit lead come November, the party will regain control of both houses of Congress with significant majorities.

For a little perspective, the GOP only held a 4 point lead in 1995, one year AFTER the Contract with America. Presently we are eight months away from the mid term elections. To waste this lead on the idea that we should hitch our horse to a third party wagon will only get us stuck in the mire of a fractured conservative vote while the far left in the Democratic Party continue on down the road to their socialist utopia.

Blogger Debate Series Continued – Third Party Viability question 2

The question in this part of the continuing third party viability debate is:

“Is a third-party vote “wasted?” If so, how? If not, why?”

This question is trickier to answer than it appears. Because it assumes that any vote could be wasted. The simple answer to that question is, “No, a vote that is cast is never wasted.” To vote is to speak your conscience, to announce your choice for the candidate you want to represent you in public office. So in the purest sense, a vote cast is never a vote wasted, even if cast on a candidate you are sure won’t win; third party or no.

Now if the question presented were to ask, “Is a vote for a third party what is needed to, A. send a message to D.C. and B. the way to get our country back on track to the principles and concepts of our founding?” In that case the answer would be a resounding “No!” Why you ask? The answer lies in what the electorate wishes to accomplish. Change of ‘regime,’ be it Democrat OR Republican; or more specifically, change of ideology in either party can only come about via infiltration and usurpation of said party. You cannot effect change by presenting a third party. You can go on all day how the Republicans blew it after they took power in the ‘90s, and I will not argue with you on that point. They did blow it, big time. At first, they were gang busters, presenting America with a balanced budget four years in a row, but in due time, the temptations of power caught up with them. But is the answer to this really the development of a new political party?

Even a viable third party would only offer that a new kid on the block, once in power would succumb to the temptations and vices that both the Democrats and Republicans have in the past. As I stated in the first part of this debate, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That being said, we are left with two options:

  1. Conservatives need to take back control of the GOP
  2. We, the Conservative electorate need to remain vigilant and hold our party to the highest standards and keep them on track to the road of smaller government and more individual liberties

This is by far, the hardest path to carve in today’s political landscape, but as my Dad once told me, doing the right thing is rarely the easy thing. It is much easier to sit back and take the populist route by spouting third party rhetoric and trying to capture the energy of the Tea Party Movement that is present in America right now, bending it to your will. The Tea Party’s power lies not in it being a third political party, but as a wake up call to the powers that be in the Republican Party. So far it is working. If you want proof of the power of the Tea Party, then look to the recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and especially in Massachusetts. THAT is where the power of the Tea Party lies, in motivating the moderate Democrat and Independent voters to make choices for conservative candidates.

Lastly let me say that if people want third party choices, then let those choices be in the primaries. For then you don’t have to worry about splitting the vote and this might be the only viable way a third party could work in this country. A healthy, robust primary race with Republican and third party candidates could put a fine point on the message we need to send to D.C. Mounting a third party in the general presidential election would only serve to spell disaster for the conservative movement in America.

Share

Blogger Debate Series Continued: The viability of a third political party.

The question this time is forwarded by Steve at motorcitytimes:

Some people think, long term, that a true Conservative 3rd party is necessary, because the Republicans have proven only slightly better than Democrats when they were in power. The thinking goes; we are never going to change Washington, so why bother voting in the Republicans.
Others say that we need to refocus the Republicans because if we actually form a 3rd party, we are guaranteeing that the left will win election after election.
The question is what should the focus of Conservatives be going forward, a revitalized Republican party or a true Conservative party?”

Do we need a third party?

No.

A Conservative third party with whatever name you choose will only succeed in giving us more progressive, far left liberal candidates gaining office. This is the premise of my article which is a rebuttal to scratcher’s thoughts on whether we need a third party to make the GOP tow the line. You can read all of scratcher’s article here. In part he says:

“I’m now coming to believe that the only solution may be a conservative third party. To be honest, I don’t much care at this point what they call themselves. Be it the Libertarian Party, The Constitution Party, The TEA Party, or even the We’ve-Had-Enough-Of-Your-Collective-BS Party… Anything but the two we’ve been forced to pick between. They’re exactly the same anyway. In the words of Will Rogers:

“The more you observe politics, the more you’ve got to admit that each party is worse than the other.”

We need to send a message. We need to demand candidates, of whatever party other than the established two that will vow to adhere to the Constitution and shrink the ever expanding federal government. No new “contracts” or “Mt. Vernon” nonsense. Each politician must read – and adhere to – the Constitution.”

These are honest sentiments to be sure, but are they practical? Can change be effected in this manner? Let’s look to history to see how third parties have faired in the past. Of course most of you are racing ahead of me and are already thinking of Perot and Teddy Roosevelt. But let’s look anyway, shall we?

In 1912 the political landscape was in such uproar that it makes the partisanship we witness in D.C. these days look like a Sunday picnic. You had the Republican Party pushing their choice – NOT the people’s choice – as the GOP Presidential candidate. This despite the fact that Teddy Roosevelt won 9 out of the 12 primaries; he took California, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. So what happened was that the voters awarded President Taft 48 delegates; and Theodore Roosevelt won 278 delegates in the primaries. However during the GOP convention, The Republican National Committee was dominated by Taft supporters, so Taft was awarded 235 electoral votes and Teddy Roosevelt only garnered 19.

To say the “Rough Rider” and his supporters were mad was something of an understatement. His supporters stormed out of the convention and essentially held their own, nominating Theodore Roosevelt to the “Bull Moose Party.” During the general election, Roosevelt got 27.4% of the vote while Taft got 23.2% of the vote, thereby splitting the Republican vote nearly down the middle. Woodrow Wilson received 41.8% of the vote and became the 28th President of the United States. Had the Republicans not stabbed Roosevelt in the back, he would have been able to claim 50.6% of the vote to Wilson’s 41.8%. In hard numbers that would have been 7,608,963 for Roosevelt and only 6,296,284 for Woodrow Wilson. I know that Roosevelt was a ‘progressive’ in the Republican Party, but he would have been a much better choice than what Wilson turned out to be. We all know about Woodrow Wilson and his ideas for a ‘one world government.’ He brought us the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1913, not to mention that he took over the railroads with the Lever Act. Wilson also brought us America’s first-ever Federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913. In short the biggest expansion of government that this country had seen to that point. Do we really want to unleash more of this on our country right now?

As for the Presidential election of 1992, let’s look at what Perot achieved. His on again, off again and back on again candidacy aside, he received 18.3% of the vote in the general election. Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush got 37.5% of the vote and William Jefferson Clinton received 43% of the vote. Had Perot not been in the race, it is easy to see that H.W. would have won in a landslide. What did we get with Perot’s interference? Well it is probably safe to say that Clinton wasn’t as damaging to this country as Wilson was, but he gave us, among other things, expanded Earned Income Credit, an impeachment, and a new meaning for the word “is.”

Now I have laid out two strong examples of a third party killing the Republican candidate. So I think that the formation of a third party isn’t what we need to be considering. No the question we need to be asking ourselves isn’t, “Can a third party really help us get our country back?”

Well I know when I can communicate an idea effectively and I know when someone else can do a better job. So with that, I turn to the “Great Communicator,” Ronald Wilson Reagan in his 1977 speech to the 4th Annual CPAC Convention:

“Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights?

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends — perhaps including some of you here tonight — who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.”

Even back in 1977, Reagan knew that the only way for the Conservative movement to succeed was for it to take back the GOP. Some say there is no difference between the two parties. I posit that there is. How many Republicans voted for Obamacare? How many Independent AND Democratic voters turned out for the GOP candidates recently in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts? If there were no difference between the parties, then why has Cap and Trade been stopped? Why has Card Check been stopped? How many Republicans voted for Obama’s wildly inflated budgets? During the recent ‘Healthcare Summit,’ did the Republicans sound like the Democrats and Obama? If there is no difference between the parties, why is it that Obama didn’t pass his overtake of the healthcare system last summer when he set that first deadline?

I’ll tell you why. The GOP has finally started waking up. There is an old adage that absolute power corrupts absolutely. After the “Contract with America” I will be the first to admit that the Republican Party lost its way. It got bloated and addicted to pork. George W. Bush’s spending was abhorrent for a Conservative. The people began to get angry, and I don’t mean the anger stoked by the far left Lame Stream Media over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am talking about the deficit spending that the GOP and Bush partook in.

But the Republican Party is slow to move and I know that infuriates a lot of folks on our side of the aisle. However, we need to remember that just because we might be able to launch third party. And let’s just say for the sake of argument that we actually take the White House in ’12, without changing the rules in D.C. we won’t have accomplished much. If the GOP can get sloppy and bloated and addicted to Big Government and back room deals and…well you get the picture, then so can a new third party.

No Ladies and Gentlemen, the question isn’t “Is it time for a third political party?” The question is “Isn’t about time We the People hold the Republican Party accountable to the principles and concepts of our founding?”