Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

RAMBLINGS from ConservativeCathy: Real Conservative Values

I was compiling a list of numerous topics (SOPA, Economy, Defense, etc.) and listing what I could find as the most representative statements from both Romney and Santorum.  I was doing this as my research indicates that Romney is more conservative (fiscally, constitutionally) than Santorum.  But as I became more aware that it would be impossible for anyone to logically/rationally say that Santorum (or Gingrich for that matter) was more conservative than Romney (or conservative at all) a light bulb went off in my head.  This is not an issue of just putting facts in front of people it is a problem with word definition.  My son and I often have long debates over what is meant or interpreted by a phrase or word.

The actual definition will not help explain my beliefs so I am presenting my political party platform (would prefer if the Republicans adopted something like this) so when I say conservative you know exactly where I stand.

Below is what I would like to see as a conservative platform that I believe that most groups can get behind.  I would encourage an open rational discussion from others.

This country has direction and a guide in our country that must be followed – The Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  This should be taught in detail in public schools so that all grow up with an understanding of the original intent.  For me the ideal party platform is based on the belief that the Founders meant what they said and it was to be interpreted for areas that they had no knowledge of at the time but not that it is to be interpreted for all new laws people want to see.  That is what amendments are for.

That my party stops using the term “democratic” improperly as we are a democratically elected representative Republic and all should actually understand that concept and why that was chosen.

Once we accept the above premise then we go back to the 1st amendment and follow it where religion is concerned.  All religions are allowed and proper as long as they do no harm to others.  You cannot preach hate inciting violence just like you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater.  You can preach any other belief you want.  Let’s deal with the 2 particular issues the Republican Party has taken to heart (unfortunately).

ABORTION.  I do not want to discuss whether or why you support or do not support this.  I again refer you to the Constitution – The government has no right to be involved in this type of decision.  Row v. Wade and how it is being interpreted is not going to be overturned (even by the right wing appointed justices).  The federal government should not and has no authority to fund this type of service – period.  Regardless how I feel about 3rd trimester abortions the federal government does not have the authority to make laws regarding this.  Now I could make a suggestion that an amendment to the Constitution be made regarding how life is determined by scientifically stating when a fetus becomes viable – but I am sure that would cause others to start the debate again.  Back to the Constitution this is your only option as the federal government does not have the right to interfere in the doctor patient relationship and what occurs within that relationship – that would be a state issue.  Socially speaking if parents were actually doing their jobs this might actually affect this discussion.

Now the other big issue GAY PEOPLE.  This is a religious issue and can be discussed within the religion.   I do not consider believing that God is against gays as hate (stupid but not hate – I think Jesus promoted love and I think judgment is God’s purview) as long as your beliefs do not cause action against someone else.  Again this comes back to what I said previously you could believe anything you want as long as you do not harm to anyone else.  Now you can hold things like “Gay Parades” to the same decency standards that exist for other parades.  I think that sex should not be discussed in public schools until (I was going to say High School – my age showing here) Middle School.  This discussion should be biologically based only.  School is not the place to be making judgments one way or the other – except I think that scientifically and biologically schools can state that abstinence is the only 100% workable format.  Again I ask why are parents not doing their job?  I rather like Cris’ format for government only being involved in civil unions and marriage being a religious ceremony. But again this is a states right’s issue unless you all agree on an amendment to the Constitution.  Which I think needs to be done as it is becoming federal when crossing state lines which of course it will.  Maybe we can all agree on the civil union and work from there.

This is a rather long discussion but I also want reiterated here that all government buildings belong to the people so all religious displays should be legal as long as government is not paying for them.  This country is a majority of Christians and so we celebrate Christmas (it is a Federal Holiday), we do celebrate Easter, we also celebrate Halloween, Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick’s Day.  So it is what it is.  These celebrations do not hurt someone who does not believe in them so get over it as long as your tax dollars are not being used to support any celebration (Chicago is exempt for St. Patrick’s day – such a long tradition).

We really need an amendment for a balanced budget along with an amendment for the budget to be capped.  I think that you can debate how to cap it but once we start following the Constitution the budget will not be as high except that we also need an amendment ensuring that federal deficit takes priority in budgeting plans (meaning it needs to be paid off ).  The only reason that we should ever allow debt again would be for war or maybe you can suggest something I can not think of but it should be pretty great.

We will not be in the business of assisting people as that is a state or local government’s place – except of course all of our military need to receive all of the care that is needed for them and I do mean the BEST of care possible. I really do not think this is the area where cuts are made except for inefficiencies/beauracracies.

Since I am a realist and do not see Social Security being overturned as unconstitutional (as it is) we need to come up with a plan that supports savings accounts/stocks etc.  Pick an age and make it 50 years and older or 45 – I do not care and everyone below will need to continue paying taxes to fulfill the current agreement for that age up to death. For everyone else it from now on it will be a choice – a savings account with your state government, a savings account that you can not access until you retire (whatever age but you can not work anymore – you can invest but not work) or invest in stock market/mutual funds that again are not accessible or any combination of the 3.  This will be totally tax free.  So now citizens are personally responsible for their own lives.

I think we need to actually clarify our economic system so that it cannot change with the wind and have an amendment to the Constitution stating that we are a capitalistic country and believe in unrestricted free trade.  That cronyism eliminated as far as is legally possible and that the rules of capitalism (contract law, property rights, laws against fraud and theft, be considered sacrosanct and inviolable).

We need an amendment to the Constitution stating that every citizen has the right to work and not be forced to join and pay a union.  Also added into that all government positions cannot be unionized.

We need to support minimum standards for all grade levels and have a national test for those standards.  All states can do their own thing with public schools as I propose the Department of Education is eliminated but all students must meet the standards we desire for our citizens.  Keep in mind that I believe that you do not lower standards but always raise them and eventually more people will achieve them.  We need an electorate that understands our government and Constitution, can read to a 12th grade level, do basic math (multiplication tables in their head to 12’s), know how to count money without a machine, understand basic English grammar and how to write at a 12th grade level, need to understand the actual history of our country and a general understanding of world history – particularly how it affects current events as with a little study you become aware of how things repeat themselves (might that be because no one ever learns or hears about the lesson?) and science.  Again religious beliefs have no place in the school except that you can believe what ever you want but need to understand what others in the scientific community are doing and why whether you accept that or not.  Our platform should be clear in stating that school is not for preaching anyone’s belief system – again that is what parents are for!   Also that our platform clarifies that government is not there to promote whatever the latest scientific trend is.  Oh and by the way I do not think that government should be concerned with nutrition pyramids or picking foods for us but I would support offering physical activity requirements in public schools – whatever happened to Kennedy’s physical program?

All insurance can go across state lines and federal standards will be set for insurance companies (based on protecting the consumer not giving them something)

A federal fund will be set up for states to borrow from for emergencies at the going interest rate.  The loan will be based on percentage of costs and will not fulfill all that is necessary as again citizens must accept personal responsibility for choice in life such as where to live.

The federal government stops funding anything not allotted to it in the Constitution (just about everything we are currently involved in).

We do not financially assist another country unless there is a real time return for that – can’t think of that occurring other than rebuilding after wining a war.

There is so much more but I think I make my point – social issues belong in the social market not the government.  Freedom is paramount as long as you hurt no one – or your rights extend to where they touch mine but not beyond.  Personal responsibility is the guide for all laws and regulations.

I think that any reasonable person would see that Romney would have no issues with agreeing on most of these points (if not all) and Santorum would have issues with most of them.  To me that clarifies the issue as to whom is conservative and whom is not.  Gingrich would also have issues as it would not allow him as President to have those BIG IDEAS as they have nothing to do with the Federal Government.

And while I am rambling I have a point to make regarding the Moon site that Gingrich and his followers want – am I the only person to remember that there is an international treaty that states that no country can do anything proprietary on the Moon?

So any of you who want to join and support my platform, add to it or clarify it let me know and those who have issues with it – let’s discuss it rationally.

2 Comments

Filed under American Exceptionalism, Aristotle, Budget, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Congress, Conservative, Constitution, Corporate Welfare, Debt, Debt Budget, Declaration, Economics, Education, Election 2012, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Founding, Free Will, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, GOP, Laws the GOP should pass, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Patriotism, philosophy, politics, Problems with the GOP, Religion, Rick Santorum, Tea Party, Teaching, Uncategorized, Unions, Welfare

Debate Predictions and Recommendations

From what I’ve been seeing here is what will likely happen in tomorrow’s debate…plus some advice (hopes) that I know will not be making it to Romney, but it’s still an emotional stress relief for me to say it.

From Left to Right: The Fundamentalist Wackjob, The Conservative, The First Emperor of the Moon, Fruitcake...hey, I at least make my bias clear.

 

It appears that as much as Ron Paul hates all three of his opponents, he hates Rick Santorum the most. I think we will see Paul use every chance he has to insult the psychotic fundamentalist.  (On a side note, when commentator’s at Breitbart’s “Bigs” are hitting Santorum despite their clear editorial bias against Romney, you know Santorum is in trouble.  )

Newt also will hit Santorum.  He will hit Romney too, but he has to show why he is not just better than Romney (he’s not) but also that he is better than Santorum (tough call, they’re both sleazy career politicians who can be bought for the right price, so the question is do you prefer arrogant philandering or sanctimonious insanity?).  Of course there exists the distinct possibility that Newt will ignore everyone on stage and spend the entire debate yelling at the moderator…Newt does wacky shit like that, it’s too bad we can’t elect him Court Jester.

 

And given the extreme insanity of Santorum and his campaign over the last few days (questioning theology, defense of the aspiring joke, saying Obama’s a Muslim, running completely on social issues and ignoring the real issue of the economy, not to mention his uber-liberal voting record and the fact that he is absolutely opposed to liberty in any form) they’re going to have a lot to hit him with.  A lot.

 

And with any luck, given that the polls in Michigan and even Georgia are beginning to trend in Romney’s favor, if Ron and Newt sufficiently bloody Santorum then Mitt will come out ahead next week.

The one problem is going to be that when Santorum is not on defensive he’ll be attacking Romney.  Not that he’ll have anything relevant to say, but here is where it is up to Romney.  Mitt has to turn every attack, deflect it and the use that as a springboard to hit Obama.  Every single time.  Mitt has to use every chance he has to hit Obama and hit him hard and never really care about the other three people on stage.

 

And I’ll admit he needs to loosen up a bit.  I have listened to him enough to know when he is passionate about something, and he’s passionate about America and about freedom, but he has spent so much of his life clearly trying to keep his emotions under control in public and he needs to let them out a little.

 

That and I want to again hear “I am convinced that if we do our job, if we lead with conviction and integrity, that history will record the Obama Presidency as the last gasp of liberalism’s great failure and a turning point for a new conservative era.”  That is the line he needs to hit hard.  That was, hands down, the greatest line from all of CPAC and it needs to be repeated.

 

Now I have faith that Mitt will keep his eyes on the prize and focus on attacking Obama.  And I have faith that Santorum will be the crazy asshole he always is, but I really hopes he makes a major campaign destroying gaffe…you know like he’s been doing for days but the liberal media refuses to give those quotes the attention they deserve because they know Obama can beat Santorum (won’t they be shocked when the public proves to be as fickle as always and actually votes the psycho in).

 

Of course the scene I would love to see more than any other won’t occur…I would love it if they gave Congressional candidate Martha McSally a few minutes to deliver a message to Santorum in person.

2 Comments

Filed under Conservative, Election 2012, GOP, Government is corrupt, Government is useless, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics, Problems with the GOP, Rick Santorum

It’s story time…the story of the conservative who was called a liberal

It’s the tale of a former governor of what is possibly the most liberal state in the union. Let’s call him R. Early in life R was a big supporter of the most liberal president in history. Before R ran for president his only political position had been this governorship. Both times he ran against opposition in the primary his opponents chided for having only been the governor of a liberal state. But before R had been governor he had been the president of one of the largest private organizations in the country, having a stake in the one of the largest industries in the world. What did he do during this time? R made some deals that cost people a lot of money…and to this day he is hated for those choices…but his actions guaranteed people in the industry income for generations to come whereas only worrying about the immediate needs would have cost the future the wealth that was to come.*

As governor R did some things that conservatives didn’t like. He signed a bill that restricted unlimited gun rights. He singed a liberal bill about healthcare and abortion but later said he would not have signed it and was later firmly pro-life. R was a strong defender of the environment…He was also extremely tough on crime, but R’s pseudo-conservative foes really didn’t acknowledge this point.

As chief executive R tried to always be a fiscal conservative…but he had a problem. Liberals and a few RINOs controlled both houses of the legislature. And they wanted to some really liberal things. But he had things that he knew needed to be done. He knew he could fight the liberals tooth and nail on all their entitlement projects, or he could cut deals, he could soften the blows the liberals planned to the economy where he could and get conservative necessities in exchange for liberal pet projects. When he couldn’t cross certain lines he would just veto what he had to. Newt Gingrich as always called his plans foolish, suggested preposterous ideas that would never work and only end in failure…and when he couldn’t get what he wanted Newt, backstabber he is, just insulted our conservative.

The first time R ran for the presidency he lost to the establishment candidate. A weak willed RINO who questioned our conservative governor’s conservative credentials on every point. This allowed his critics, the second time he ran to claim that his economic ideas were either foolish or weren’t truly conservative…ignoring the fact that his opposition has supported big government programs for their entire lives.

But you know what happened. Conservatives forgave R his deals with liberals because they saw he was doing the best he could with the legislature he had. They not only forgave him…they all but anointed him a saint.

….oh wait…who did you think I was talking about? Romney? No, I was talking about Ronald Reagan.

Because the fact of the matter is there are some similarities. I’m not claiming that Romney is “The Great Communicator,” that he is not. Nor do I think he is as good a Reagan in a lot of ways…who is. But what I want to talk about here is the way we conservatives are holding a double standard.

Reagan allowed massive increases not just in spending but in deficit spending on entitlement programs because it was the only way he could get what he needed for his primary goal: the destruction of the Soviet Union. He even raised taxes a little after his initial tax cut. And there are a thousand other little deals he cut with the Democrat Congress that would usually be called anathema to Republicans if it weren’t for the fact that we understood there was a point and reason for doing those things. We saw the forest from the trees. We saw where his hands were tied and granted that given the situation he did the best he could and forgive him the liberal deals he cut because they served a greater good. And when liberals bitch about his deficit spending we rightly point out it was their Democratic House which did all the spending.

Now if you applied the same logic to Romney you look at it and say: Yes he created a mandate for health insurance in Massachusetts, but that was certainly better than putting everyone under government run healthcare and destroying the private sector in Massachusetts as the liberal legislature wanted to originally do. It was certainly more conservative, it was certainly more free market oriented. Had he gone to the mat and stood only for the free market he would have lost and you would have socialized medicine in Massachusetts that would make you yearn for the Canadian system. Was it perfect? No. Was it more free market than what the left wanted? Yes. What are the worst aspects of “Romneycare”? The parts that Romney either vetoed and was overridden by the Massachusetts legislature or the parts that the liberals put in after Romney left. (If we’re going to hold people responsible for legislation passed after their term in office, then Reagan is responsible for Obamacare, FDR and LBJ are responsible for welfare reform, and Lincoln is responsible for Jim Crow laws…wait that doesn’t sound right…yet somehow that’s the argument against Romney). Ann Coulter pointed this out.

Or perhaps you want to hit Romney for his indexing the minimum wage in the commonwealth to the inflation rate. Yes, let’s ignore that the liberals wanted it to outpace the inflation rate (i.e. create an economic apocalypse). Yes he should have fought against the highly liberal legislature who would usually override his vetoes (for instance he vetoed 250 bills one year, all of them were overridden ) or he could suggest something he could sell that wouldn’t completely destroy the economy. Yeah I can see how going to the mat would be the better call there. And recently he said his “thoughts” on the minimum wage “haven’t changed”…hmmm, he didn’t say he was going to raise it, only that his thoughts haven’t changed…to me that’s political speak for “I’m not going to say something that is going to get me in ever more trouble, but I’m not going to lie.” His thoughts could be that he would like to cut, he’s never said, we only know that his actions opposed letting it go higher than the inflation rate. How terrible.

Everything Romney did in Massachusetts was designed to be more businesses like, more conservative, more capitalistic than what the liberal legislature wanted…but still pragmatic enough to get passed because he knew if he fought the good fight then the liberals would just override his veto and get what they wanted.

We have always forgiven Reagan his liberal trespasses because we knew it was the best he could do. It is the most hypocritical double standard to say that Reagan’s best when cutting deals with liberals was fine…but Romney’s is not.

You can either accept that Reagan is a conservative and thus Romney is too. Or you can condemn Romney, which means you must condemn Reagan as well…and if you condemn Reagan then get the hell out of this party.

*[He unpopularly cut a deal with the studios that said actors would not get paid royalties on movies they did not have royalty guarantees on, but guaranteed that all actors would get residuals on all movies, TVs shows or other forms of cinema that were ever made after that deal.]

5 Comments

Filed under Budget, Capitalism, Congress, Conservative, Debt, Economics, Election 2012, GOP, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, People Are Stupid, politics, Problems with the GOP, Taxes

Dangerous Right Wing Social Engineering

Now I’m sure that Newt will call this “Right wing social engineering” and has made it all to clear that he will not have anything of its kind in his administration, but I want you to hear this man speak about what actually raises people out of poverty, about what actually creates jobs…and if you don’t like it, hey vote for Obama or Newt, they’re both opposed to this idea.

Now you show me someone else who talks passionately and knowledgeably about capitalism and I’ll consider them.  Until then, Mitt is my man.

1 Comment

Filed under Capitalism, Election 2012, Evils of Liberalism, Founding, Free Will, Government is useless, Happiness, Individualism, liberal arrogance, Long Term Thinking, Mitt Romney, Obama, philosophy, politics, Tyranny, Welfare

Stupid Liberal Quote of the Day…RINOs pretend they’re Republicans

“What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history.”

This particularly dumb statement, not surprisingly comes from RINO Sarah Palin.  Palin who loves pork projects that provide bridges to no where.  Palin who never met a liberal RINO she wouldn’t support.  Palin who to this day takes tax payer subsidies.  The ever conservative Palin, who during her governorship, her state had the highest per capita amount of pork barrel projects at the expense of tax payers from the rest of the country. The populist who never met a liberal spending project or liberal spender that she didn’t love.  Yeah her.

Yeah well now she is backing the most liberal GOP contender (let me feign shock for just a second…I’m shocked, shocked!)  in the race, Newt Gingrich…although like a liberal she doesn’t actually have the spine to come out and endorse him, no, she wants to hedge her bets so that there won’t be a backlash when her boy goes down (because it’s really not that Sarah is a liberal, she’s not really anything, her only guiding political principle is saying or doing whatever keeps Sarah in the limelight).

But she seems to feel that the attacks on Newt are unfair.  Stalinistic.  That just because people in the Reagan White House can’t agree on what their opinion is doesn’t mean that it’s rewriting history.  What it means is he was a Congressmen, in the minority, one of 435, during Reagan’s years.  Most Congressmen are beyond forgettable.  So to rewrite history and say that Newt was a driving force in the Reagan years would also be “Stalin-esque,” wouldn’t it Sarah?  Newt probably didn’t have much to do with Reagan or his movement.   Partly because Newt is just an opportunist who will use whatever tactic he can to gain power.

But let’s see what the biggest impression Newt made on Reagan and his copious diary entries…

From page 123 of the Reagan Diaries, Monday January 3rd.  “Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budge at the 1983 level.  It’s a tempting idea except it would cripple our defense program.”  Defense, that would the be central focus of the Reagan administration, right?  Thanks Newt.  I’m sure the Politburo wished your proposal had gone through.  That’s the biggest impression Newt made on Reagan, a fun but hopelessly naive idea.  That is the only time Reagan mentions Newt, in a diary that goes into detail about everything (even detailing how Prince Charles takes his tea).  Yeah, Newt you and Reagan were tight.

The attacks on Newt’s history in the Reagan administration come from the fact that Newt was the one who first tried to rewrite history, portraying himself as Reagan’s trusty right hand. If the attacks have gotten a little vicious it’s only because Newt’s claims were so preposterously absurd.

The fact of the matter is that Newt has a long history of endorsing liberal ideas when they are politically expedient and personally beneficial and endorsing conservative ideas when they were expedient and personally beneficial.  In fact I think he has a track record of making major changes in his core beliefs every 19 years or so…

1 Comment

Filed under Stupid liberal quote of the day

Newt shows he knows nothing about history

Newt’s latest argument against Romney runs as such:

“Why would you want to nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama?”

So we shouldn’t nominate Romney because he lost to McCain because McCain lost to Obama.

Okay let’s see if that is a valid argument by looking at history.  Obama has been compared to Carter a lot (I think it has something to do with the socialism, incompetence, destroying the economy, arrogance and Jew-hating), so let’s see if you had used that argument in 1980:

“Why would you nominate the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Carter.”

The guy who lost to Carter in 1976 was Gerry Ford.  And the guy who lost the nomination battle with Gerry Ford was the former Governor of uber-liberal California, Ronald Reagan.  So by using Newt’s logic, we should never have nominated Reagan because he obviously couldn’t beat Carter because he couldn’t even beat a wimpy moderate like Gerry Ford.

Now I’m not saying that Romney is Reagan (although wouldn’t it be cool if he showed us a side of himself we never saw before once in the White House) but the fact is that Newt argument is BS.  And for a history professor, and a supposed Reagan Republican, not to mention someone who was in the House at the time, to not know how stupid his argument is…it’s just sad.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Carter, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, Obama, politics