O'Dowd Politics

A call for pragmatism in politics.

Archive for the tag “republican”

14 Dec 2012

Guns and Tragedy. We Pray for Your Loss.

On days like today it is hard to think objectively about gun control.  On this day, December 14, 2012, 28 people were killed–among them were 18 perfectly wonderful children with their entire lives ahead of them.  Tragic, wrong, disturbing, wretched, and unthinkable.  We are all devastated.  Now is not the time to point fingers, to dig into our trenches, or to immediately get on the defensive in anticipation of the obvious response from the left.  Sure, gun control will become a renewed issue in politics, causing 2nd Amendment rights advocates to stand on principle; but while some call for increased regulation on firearms and ammunition sales we cannot forget the tragic loss of life or fill the holes left in these families with increased rhetoric and posturing.  Now’s not the time.

I realize that conservatives are sensitive about these issues–after all, it is at times like this when Democrats try to round up public support for increased gun control and regulation.  Republicans, however, cannot allow themselves to be put in the difficult position of defending gun rights at the expense of these innocent families.  Defense of the 2nd Amendment is paramount but not before some time has gone by to allow healing and recovery with those who have loss.  Put off the debate for another day elephants, and defer comments and discussion until after healing has had a chance to happen.  Liberals will try to make Republicans look heartless and cruel during these times, standing for the rights of criminals and defending those who take advantage of the helpless.  Don’t get caught in the trap, just say that you are praying for the victims and their families and now is not the time for debate on gun control.

My call for pragmatism does not stop at this issue.  Both parties are too entrenched in their positions and there needs to be an honest dialogue about whether there are things that can be done to make our schools, government buildings, and overall communities more safe.  I’m not advocating for additional gun restrictions, I’m saying that both sides need to set aside partisan views and look objectively for a solution.  Should there be additional help for the mentally ill?  Can we develop an early warning system?  Does the solution look like some algorithm that can somehow identify patterns in behavior before tragedy strikes?  I’m not sure.  Maybe the answer is to arm 4th graders and allow them to patrol the school grounds for terrorists, but either way, partisanship cannot find a real solution.

Today, gun rights enjoy incredible popularity.  Most people agree that regulation and controls are not the solution to violence and crime.  This is good for conservatives and for 2nd Amendment advocates who don’t need to spend a lot of energy to get support from the public.  My message to Republicans?  Don’t get on the defensive.  Show heart, compassion, and extend comfort to those who have suffered loss both today and over the past two years.  Don’t allow the liberals to trap you into appearing insensitive and entrenched, and come together with people from both sides to take a close and unbiased view of the real problem that leads to these tragedies.  Above all, do the right thing without pandering to the NRA or some of the crazy people who seem to want the government to mandate that everyone carry a firearm regardless of criminal history, mental state, or ability.  Lastly, pray for those who have seen loss, show compassion, and hope that someday soon hope and healing will come to the families that have been affected by this tragedy.  Sigh.

O’Dowd

 

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism, To my Republican friends and tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
10 Dec 2012

Off the Cliff

image

Posted in Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
04 Dec 2012

Hello Party Leadership!?!

Image

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism, Tax Policy and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
02 Dec 2012

Should Citizenship be Free?

The title of the post probably harkens up thoughts of immigrants sailing into New York harbor or perhaps visions of Mexican immigrants pouring over our southern border.  My intention however is to consider whether or not people who live in the greatest country on earth, and who benefit every day from the privileges that millions of men and women only dream to enjoy, should be able to live with no personal contribution to the government that protects their life, liberty, and prosperity every day.  Recent studies have shown that 45% of individuals who filed taxes payed not one dime to the federal coffers.  Conservatives like me may think “Great!  At least someone wasn’t robbed blind by Uncle Sam.”  I beg to differ.

There is a legitimate purpose for government and we all, regardless of political views or party, recognize that freedom isn’t free and that the federal government is necessary to protect us from those who would do us wrong.  In my view, the proper role of government doesn’t stop there–Washington has a role to play, as is outlined in the Constitution, in commerce, promoting science and research, the post office and roads, and a variety of other duties that we take for granted every day.  Without the government in its proper role, there would be anarchy, we would have no economic system, and the strong would lord over the weak.  Do we need a well-funded federal government?  Absolutely.  Now back to my question: should citizenship be free? Absolutely not.

One of the major reasons we are in this fiscal mess is the law of givers and takers.  If the taker can require the giver to give, then the taker will always take until the giver has nothing more to give.  To make matters worse, when takers outnumber the givers, the giver will be exhausted of resources much faster and there will be nothing but poverty throughout our land.  Today we are not quite there.  45% of taxpayers are takers and 55% are givers although this doesn’t account for the many who do not file taxes.  This must change.

We can argue and debate about what the percentage needs to be for each tax bracket, and how much more the rich should pay than the poor but I have a simpler solution and one that will go along way toward achieving a balanced budget in this country–ensure that everyone, including my friends who are poor and who gain thousands of dollars a year from Uncle Sam simply because they have children, pay at least $1 no matter how small their income is. If everyone is a giver, and nobody is mooching at tax time, we will have a much better outlook on our country’s balance sheet.

Today a dollar isn’t much.  You can buy a large soda or a king-sized candy bar for a dollar or go to the 99 cent store and load up on tons of junk but how much is your freedom worth?  Go ask the Jews who lived in Nazi Germany or even those who lived in slavery in our country’s darker times–I’d bet a dollar that they’d trade you that candy bar for their freedom any day, and twice on Sunday.

O’Dowd

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism, Tax Policy and tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
01 Dec 2012
2 Comments

Oh How True!

Imagei

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism and tagged , , , , , ,
30 Nov 2012
1 Comment

C’mon People! Work Together!

Image

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism and tagged , , , , , ,
27 Nov 2012

Fiscal Iceberg?

Image

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
26 Nov 2012
2 Comments

Young People are Narrow-Sighted

Having just passed my third decade, I’m absolutely appalled by how narrow-sighted young people have become.  The departure of America from capitalism to selfishism has completely changed the electoral dynamic in this country.  At one time people voted on principle: conservatives voted for smaller government, more individual liberty, business-friendly policies, and religious freedom; liberals on the other hand, voted to gain a larger, more centralized government,  entitlements for the poor, elderly, and downtrodden, fewer moral restrictions, and the removal of religion as a central element of our society–principles no doubt that many on each side still espouse in their selections for public office.  An increasing factor, however, has become the power of the selfish pocketbook in the political arena.

It is no secret that campaign financing has been a major issue over the past few years in U.S. elections, court battles, and public discourse.  McCain-Feingold’s attempt to limit campaign contributions from corporations and special interest groups went down in flames when the Supreme Court decided that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to promoting their interests. (Interesting topic as courts recently found that for-profit corporations cannot exercise religious liberty in the case of Hobby Lobby vs. Obamacare–a ruling that is being appealed.) Individuals, in a similar vein have become increasingly concerned about protecting their own financial interests in elections, in much the same way that corporations do.  The major problem?  Individuals vote while corporations do not.  While buying, bribing, and blackmailing for votes is illegal; promising real and tangible economic benefits to specific key voting groups is not.  President Obama did not have hoards of representatives at polling places handing out crisp twenties to everyone who promised to vote for the Democratic candidate, but he did promise to provide thousands of dollars in benefits to the youth, free healthcare to the poor, free assistance to the elderly, and free citizenship waivers to the young illegal immigrants in the form of differed action.  Bribes? Maybe not.  Bribes? Certainly.

News outlets reported today that 60% of voters under 30 years of age voted for Obama, though down from his high in 2008 of 2 in 3 young people, it was enough to push him over the finish line in key battle-ground states.  Why?  Again I ask why did so many young people vote for the democrat? Because they took the bribe–and forgot to read the fine print.

No doubt most people missed the key details–that annoying voice that spoke really fast at the end of every Obama campaign ad.  In it’s entirety it went something like this:

“Young people of America, if you care about your education, your health, your aging parents, or your kitty at home you have no other choice than to vote for President Obama this November.  

He will stand up for your right to have limitless unprotected intercourse with the other gender, your gender, or no gender at all.  Plus he guarantees you free healthcare and will personally ensure that you will have double the funding from educational grants and limitless student loans.

The choice is clear!  Vote for Obama for a funner, happier, and carefree lifestyle today!”

(Following in a fast, almost undecipherable voice:)  This candidate makes no guarantees regarding the possibility of contracting incurable sexually transmitted diseases, a lifetime of regrets from your abortion(s), or likely limits to your future success.  There is no such thing as a free lunch, free healthcare, or free college tuition; this is  a loan that must be repaid in your future including low probability of finding a job out of college, no federal retirement, high inflation, and an unlikelihood of having a stable, happy family life.  Vote Obama for  a great now!  No guarantees for your future!

Back to my point.  Young people are too narrow-sighted to consider their future.  Historically their natural desire for instant gratification would have been tempered by concern for their moral upbringing, consideration for their parents or grandparents, and a true appreciation for American values and freedom.  All this is gone now–replaced by the seduction of lies, pandering, and bribery.  Youth vote for a care-free present with no consideration for the day when the loan comes due–a debt we will all pay with interest.

O’Dowd

Posted in Moral Issues, Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,
19 Nov 2012
1 Comment

Should the Republican Party platform be modified to cater to women’s reproductive rights?

I have written several scathing posts about my own Republican Party and now, to be fair and balanced, I will consider our donkey friends, the Democrats.  (I mean no disrespect by the label, just trying to gain readership from those who enjoy creative literary execution.)  Gallup reports that women are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans (Gallup Article).  It also known that 55% of women voters turned out for President Obama in the last election, a critical component of his victory (Huffington Post Article).  The same Huffington Post article cites quotes from illustrious and revered advocates for the somewhat misunderstood female species, stating that they voted for the Democrat because of the following:

“Romney seemed to struggle to connect with women as a result of the GOP’s escalating efforts to limit women’s reproductive rights and a series of controversial comments from Republicans about rape, birth control and abortion.”

Intriguing. Apparently following politics for several hours a day is insufficient to pick up on the nuances of the backward chauvinist pig that we selected as our candidate for president.  (Please note the sarcasm.  Get used to it.)  I must have been asleep when NPR ran their story on how Romney refused to hire women when he was Governor and made comments about them belonging barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  Oh wait, I wasn’t asleep; he never said anything that was the slightest bit offensive to the 99.9% of reasonable women that live in this country.  Binders full of women?  Awkward perhaps but he was trying to describe how conscientious he had been to ensure that women were fairly represented in his cabinet.  Anyone who made anything else of it needs to be institutionalized until they can get over their mania.  Romney was reasonable, balanced, and fair in his articulation and I believe in his heart he is a decent and equitable guy.  The gender gap in this last election wasn’t his fault nor can it be blamed entirely on two other Republican candidates who said some pretty ignorant things that clearly weren’t representative of the party.

So why the gap?  Why does Gallup report that 41% of women are Democrats while only 25% are Republicans?  The answer is easy: clever marketing and pandering. Plain and simple.  Sure, a fair number of women will never be Republican nor vote for the party because their views on moral issues, limited government, and the sanctity of life are clearly incompatible with our party.  In a similar vein, 100% of alcoholics opposed prohibition—everybody will not agree on everything.  You might wonder then, is the nebulous issue “reproductive rights” responsible for the gap in female membership in the Republican Party?  I suspect that it is a large factor and one that is completely unavoidable.

I realize that this blog has been harping for pragmatism and reason in politics—and it will continue to do so.  I will not avoid tackling the hard issues, however, so get ready for a duzy of a rant:  Republicans are losing some women voters because they choose to live promiscuous lives, mothering children they don’t want and refusing to accept responsibility for their actions.  Sure, the guy deserves equal blame and should share an equal burden but consider how unfair it is that both the man and woman, in most cases (rape excluded) make the choice to parent a child but the woman has the only say in whether the baby lives.  Fair? No.  Were the reproductive rights of the woman violated when she conceived the baby?  No.  Were the man’s rights violated in the act?  No.  How about when the time came for the abortion and the woman exercised her “right to choose” dispatching the baby decisively 18 weeks after its life began?  It had a little heart working, it had mother’s chin and father’s brow but without even consulting the dad she walked into a clinic and had the insidious tumor removed from her stomach before it could become the policeman or doctor or lawyer—or construction worker at minimum wage.  Before it could achieve and love and fail and suffer and cry and laugh—and live.  In this example were the woman’s reproductive rights trampled?  No, she in her selfish narcissism, decided that the world should be deprived of the child—not to mention her partner who had no say in the matter. It was his rights that were ignored.  But nobody speaks for him.

Yes, Republicans are saddened about the loss of innocent lives due to the crime of abortion.  Yes, I said crime.  As of the latest figures (http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts) in 2005, 1.2 million babies were killed in the U.S. and since 1973 when abortion was legalized; over 50 million children have been aborted.  That’s about the same as the total number of deaths attributed to World War II.  That Great War that spread death and destruction around the globe killed the same amount of lives that have been electively destroyed over the last 39 years—an absolute travesty; and one that we will pay for someday when a moral, just, and righteous leadership controls this country.

So do women choose to be a Democrat due to reproductive rights?  Some do, sure, but I contend that it is a very narrow and short-sighted decision; even if the Daily Beast is right that 40% of women have had abortions.  (Daily Beast Article, I question this science however, as it assumes that every abortion is from a different woman.  We know that many promiscuous ladies often have multiple abortions, some as many as eight in their lifetime.)  So you ask, does the Republican Party need to develop a platform that caters to this “right to choose” myth?  No.  Should our party run to decriminalize murder? Not a chance.  We are the party that stands for equity, life, and freedom.  Stand for reproductive inequity and infanticide?  Never.  Not if we win nary another election.

O’Dowd

Posted in Moral Issues, Parties, Politics, Pragmatism and tagged , , , , , , ,
17 Nov 2012

Scandal or Politics?

image

Posted in Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation

← Older Entries