Archive for 2008 Election

My Last Post Before The Election: For A Young Conservative

Posted in Politics, Top Posts with tags , , , , on November 3, 2008 by raingeg

After just about two years of campaigning and two years of very interesting politics, its about to come to an end, and I’m actually pretty happy. I can’t wait for all of the political street signs to come down and just have a year away from the whole election process. The last time that we really had a break from election politics was 2005, after the ‘04 election and between the ‘06 midterm election.

For a while now I’ve been pondering the roll of younger people in the conservative movement. Because generally speaking most young people tend to lean leftward. I don’t know if that is due to the young persons not being in touch with the real world or because they are indoctrinated by their leftist college professors. Nonetheless, being a young person myself, I have desires for the conservative movements role in politics and the young people that take part in it.

If there is one thing that is different about today’s society for a young person compared to the society that my parents grew up in, its that being a conservative and a young person is not nearly as lame as it was in those day’s. Today, conservatives don’t necessarily fall into the stereotypical mold that they might have in the 60’s and 70‘s. It is very possible to be young, cool and conservative.

How can we, as young conservative’s, allow conservative ideals to penetrate the minds of our peers? It can be summed up in one word, respect. Respect the other side. There is so much disgusting junk that has come out of the far left and those on the sane side of conservatism need not sink to that level. A level probably reached by teachers in high school and college and activists on campuses and elsewhere that do a better job of silencing opposition than they do allowing it.

From the looks of the country at this time Sen. Barack Obama has a very good chance of winning this election. If Obama wins the election we must recognize that even though we do not agree with him, he is our president and we need to respect him. If he does something that is commendable than we should commend him. If he does something that we do not agree with, which he more than likely will, we should sanely voice our dissent without attacking the mans character.

We can’t take the route that The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and frequently take when it comes to their dissent with President Bush, dissent that often turns into hatred.

But please don’t let me be mistaken, just because we respect the other sides right to freely speak, doesn’t mean that have to be pacifists when it comes to our words. If you have a viable and truthful critique of another human there is nothing wrong with attacking their political/social beliefs and actions, but that can be done without attacking another persons character.

Young and old conservatives alike need to hold politicians accountable. It is imperative that the Republican party clean up their act and get some better politicians that have better PR. Hopefully we can do this in the 2010 midterm election. The Republican party is really the only place conservative politicians can be heard, but a lot of those “Republicans” that have been in and are right now in congress don’t have conservative values and have greatly damaged the image of Republicans. And as far as President Bush goes, he has done a fairly bad job communicating to the American people. Had he communicated better with the people during his time in office he would have a better approval rating and he wouldn’t be such a threat to John McCain during this election.

The last thing that needs to happen, is we need to figure out what our aim is. If our aim is becoming more conservative than let that be our aim. But if our aim is to continue down the path we’re on, by allowing the politicians in the Republican party (again the only place where conservatives have a voice) to continue being fiscally irresponsible, with us advocates of more conservative government floundering somewhere in between, we will never live up to our conservative name. Being a conservative is not only a social issue.

So young conservatives out there, go out tomorrow and vote! I know I’ve just written about how we need to be more conservative, and I know that voting for McCain seems like a step away from that goal. But you must realize how much greater damage can be done by doing the opposite or doing nothing at all. We will have time to fix our message, but I’d rather do the repairs under McCain than Obama. So lets hopefully get McCain in and then lets get to work by holding him accountable. I am not thrilled with the condition of the Republican party, obviously, but I am not at all comfortable with the state that the Democrat party is in. If we allow them to get in to office far more than the Republican party and conservatism will be damaged, so don’t for a minute think that inaction will only be punishing the Republicans. This election is important and before you sleep tonight, pray for our country and pray for our future President.


Third Party? No.

Posted in Politics with tags , , , on November 1, 2008 by raingeg

Am I a man of principle? I had to ask myself that question when I was forced by my peers to ponder whether or not in good (political) conscience I can vote for someone based entirely on the fact they are the lesser of the two evils. In this country, with the way that our election process currently works, you are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils because they are the only viable option to win. And you might not be voting for someone as much as you are voting against the opponent of the candidate you voted for.

Does that make me void of principle? It certainly does not. One might ask, why it is viable to vote for someone that you don’t entirely agree with based solely on the notion that they have a better chance of winning? It is viable, because in the search for a candidate you will most likely never find someone that you will totally agree with. The basic truth that one must attest to is the fact that the only person one can vote for and be in total concurrence with would have to be ones self. Compromise is virtually always a must when it comes to the election process and politics, whether it be a small or a large amount, one must compromise. Voters must compromise something in order to allow the person they agree with most to get elected or to not elect the candidate they don’t agree with the most.

Doesn’t voting for a third party send a message to the other parties? To a small degree yes. But in the long run, not really because its hard to send a message to people that don’t take you seriously. That would be like bringing pellet gun into war. Do you honestly think the enemy would take that seriously? I think not. Pellet guns look like guns, they feel like guns and they even have ammunition, but if that ammunition is incapable of aiding your fight its worthless. Third parties look like parties, they feel like parties, and they even have candidates, but the candidates have almost no chance of winning.

Third party’s tend to be more extreme versions of the republicans and democrats or right and left, taking one or two principals form one of those sides and using that as the driving force of their parties platform. And those more extreme versions of republicans and democrats tend to hurt the party that favors that certain principal more than they help it. An example that favors my argument would be the 1992 election and Ross Perot’s affect on the race. Ross Perot had more of an appeal to disgruntled center-right voters and that took a toll on the Republican ticket. It is quite possible that had Perot not run and taken nearly 20% of the popular vote Bill Clinton might not have won. And did that send a message to the Republican party? Not really, because eight years later another Bush, George W. Bush, was running and the two party system that is so prevalent in today’s society was still the standard operating procedure for the election of a president.

Three’s Company: Obama, Fannie and Freddie

Posted in Contributed, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on October 13, 2008 by raingeg

Many investors are nervous because of the current uncertainty in the stock market, and the general lack of liquidity in the financial markets. Now, however, is NOT the time to sell. There are some unique buying opportunities in a market that has lost 20% of its value.  If you can avoid the herd mentality fueled by the same type of speculation that caused this crisis, there are good profits to be gained in the future – if you are prudent and patient. The American economy is still the strongest in the world. Success from Wall Street to Main Street, however, may have something to do with who is elected President in 2008.

The argument put forth by the Obama campaign and his media minions is that John McCain and the GOP have caused the decline in the economy and the stock market. Their endless “blame Bush” mantra seems to apply here. They want you to forget that lower incremental tax rates for individuals and businesses, as advocated by the GOP, have increased revenues to the Treasury dramatically since 2003, and are a worldwide example of successful tax policy.

The Democrats endeavor to inoculate Senator Obama from any connection to any of the current market volatility. They want you to believe that Obama and his liberal economic brain trust will change America for the better and make the improvements needed to correct the economy.  Yet Barack Obama wants to raise corporate taxes and make it more difficult for small businesses to reinvest in their own operations.  Obama’s tax policy will further slow our economy by confiscating more money from investors and decreasing liquidity in the market.

In addition, the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a result of crooked accountants cooking the books to make their bundled loan packages look like profitable risks to the Wall Street banks.  These same officials got away with their crimes by lavishing money on mostly Democratic legislators, including Obama, who was the second highest recipient of Fannie/Freddie money in Congress.

Obama looked the other way when these same executives opened their golden parachutes and took off with taxpayer money.  The way he tells the story, it seems like it was everybody else’s responsibility, just not the Democrats in Congress. Now Obama and his friends are trying to cover their tracks and pointing fingers at the one man who called to reign in the government sponsored entities – John McCain.

Senator McCain has advocated for stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — dating back to 2006. As a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, McCain supported legislation that would have curbed the greed and corruption surrounding the subprime mortgage market.  This bill was killed by Ranking Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee.

Is it any wonder why Obama would try to deflect attention from his own connections to this crisis?   James Johnson, who headed his VP selection Committee, was Fannie CEO and “Subprime Mortgage Queen” Penny Pritzer, Obama’s campaign Finance Chair, were both not only involved in this debacle but directly responsible for creating the situations that began the sub prime lending schemes and caused the mortgage collapse.

The real problem, however, is more insidious. Since the mid 1990’s, Democrats have used home ownership as a club to gain political advantage from minority groups and low-income voters, with whom they sought to curry favor across America. The Democrats, collaborating with community organizing groups like ACORN, beat up bankers, regulators, and whomever else, in order to drive their dangerous political agenda.

The result was that many hundreds of thousands of loans were made to first time homeowners with no chance of repayment. Bankers across America suffered with excessive delinquency, which resulted in the secondary mortgage industry being wrecked by these politically connected executives selfishly intent on gaining voters for their Democrat candidates. Meanwhile, the Democrats running Fannie and Freddie made untold millions. These are undisputed facts.

We face an election for the United States Presidency on November 4th and we’re still faced with serious questions about Obama’s fiscal policy.  Most importantly, can Americans trust the Democrat party to play fair in the future, on the Housing issue, or any other partisan issue, when for over a decade they only played in a way that benefited them personally and politically?  Should Barack Obama be trusted with proposing tax policy, when he has voted nine times against lowering the capital gains tax rate, seven times against implementing tax incentives for small businesses, six times against lowering the estate tax and three times against repealing a more than decade-old increase in taxes on Social Security benefits.

When you are looking at your 401-K, or IRA, why would you ever entrust your future to Barack Obama and the Democrats?  It’s possible that the rest of the marketplace, now seeing the real possibility of an Obama Presidency, may be bailing from the market. Many observers are beginning to opine that the recent market issues have a lot to do with a lack of confidence in a potential Obama presidency. The handwriting is on the wall, and the future looks grim if Obama wins in November.

-Bruce Ash