Why I am concerned...
I just left an OU College Republican meeting, and I am concerned. Rep. Ernest Istook is running from Governor, Lt. Governor Mary Fallin is running for that Congress seat, and State Senator Scott Pruitt is running for Lt. Governor. (Who will be running for his seat will be interesting, because Republicans are trying to take the Senate in Oklahoma.) I've heard Rep. Istook and Lt. Gov. Fallin speak, read polls about Bush's declining approval ratings, watched Miers failure to get nominated, and general unrest about the war in Iraq. All of this spells bad news for the Republicans.
But, perhaps I'm suffering from liberal school syndrome.
Istook - I'm very nervous about how Rep. Istook is using lottery rhetoric. Oklahomans voted, and voted relatively soundly, for a state lottery. I personnaly thought it was a stupid idea, but if I was running for office, now is not the time to be taking an anti-lottery stance. You don't even have to say you don't want a lottery, you can simply take a negative attitude about it, and I think people are going to think, "Hey, this dude got us a lottery. Why should I take him out of office for this other dude that is talkin' down to our choice?"
Fallin - This is the meeting I just walked out of tonight. I'm torn between believing she has the exact personality that Oklahomans love, or if most people are going to see her like I did: grossly uninformed about the state of the nation. Granted, I know that she just entered the race, but I'm stunned at the oversimplicity. She talked about overspending, and then talked about bottles of Saline that were purchased at $8 a bottle rather than $1. Bottles of Saline are not going to solve our spending problems. Especially when she's simultaneously talking about cutting taxes.
And I cringe now that the most marking statement she made about foreing policy is that we need to fight terrorists over there, not here. Then she went on to state that the situation in France is a perfect example of why to need to fight harder. France is a perfect example of why we shouldn't treat our immigrants like shit. There is an element of Islamic radicalism, but this isn't motivated by, "Hey, these people won't fight back; let's kill them." I am just terrified that the people that we are nominating to national office, based on there state and local government experience, are not prepared or properly informed about the international situation ( *coughs* Bush *coughs* .... Okay, okay, I'm not saying Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, I am merely stating that I don't think he was elected based on his foreign policy and I think we are suffering on some level for it.)
So, what about Iraq? ::sighs:: Bush, I love you, sir, but seriously.... There is a seriously lack of communication about what's going on in Iraq. I've not given up on the issue. I really think there is a defensible position that this administration can take. I am concerned why Republicans are not taking this position. You wouldn't lose anything by saying, "Everyone believed there were WMDs, there was merely disagreement about the quantity and whether to attack based on that quantity. We were proved wrong only when we invaded; there was no other way to know. Saddam Hussein was doing everything in his power to prevent inspectors from proving he held up his end of the agreement. By his actions alone, we have reason to believe he is hiding something, or hiding nothing long enough until the opportunity to hide something comes along. Saddam Hussein has a history with the U.S. and with using chemical weapons on his own people. Beyond that, what happens when this weak leader dies or is removed from power and a newer, younger, strong tyrant takes over? No, there were not significant connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but Iraq has been connected with other forms of terrorism. Besides all of that, we have taken a supressed people and given them freedom. We have a wonderful opportunity to encourage a more democratic form of government in the middle east. We have not held our end of the bargin with Iraqis in the past, and now is certainly not the time to let them down." This is not happening. Why is this administration afraid of saying this?
I'm a Republican. My list of similar stances is narrowing, but I am still a Republican. I will vote Republican. I will probably help Istook and Fallin campaign, and do so with the upmost respect for their positions. However, I think Republicans need to be very cautious in taking comfort in thier position of power and not seriously address the grievous concerns. We claim to be for small government: What's with all the spending? Where's the explaination about Iraq? I don't think the CIA leak scandal would be half as big a deal if we would be forecoming about Iraq. People feel talked down to and deceived. And it is gunna hurt a frikkin' lot in 2006 if we don't deal with this now.
But, like I said, maybe I'm just suffering from the liberalness of my surroundings.
But, perhaps I'm suffering from liberal school syndrome.
Istook - I'm very nervous about how Rep. Istook is using lottery rhetoric. Oklahomans voted, and voted relatively soundly, for a state lottery. I personnaly thought it was a stupid idea, but if I was running for office, now is not the time to be taking an anti-lottery stance. You don't even have to say you don't want a lottery, you can simply take a negative attitude about it, and I think people are going to think, "Hey, this dude got us a lottery. Why should I take him out of office for this other dude that is talkin' down to our choice?"
Fallin - This is the meeting I just walked out of tonight. I'm torn between believing she has the exact personality that Oklahomans love, or if most people are going to see her like I did: grossly uninformed about the state of the nation. Granted, I know that she just entered the race, but I'm stunned at the oversimplicity. She talked about overspending, and then talked about bottles of Saline that were purchased at $8 a bottle rather than $1. Bottles of Saline are not going to solve our spending problems. Especially when she's simultaneously talking about cutting taxes.
And I cringe now that the most marking statement she made about foreing policy is that we need to fight terrorists over there, not here. Then she went on to state that the situation in France is a perfect example of why to need to fight harder. France is a perfect example of why we shouldn't treat our immigrants like shit. There is an element of Islamic radicalism, but this isn't motivated by, "Hey, these people won't fight back; let's kill them." I am just terrified that the people that we are nominating to national office, based on there state and local government experience, are not prepared or properly informed about the international situation ( *coughs* Bush *coughs* .... Okay, okay, I'm not saying Bush was wrong to invade Iraq, I am merely stating that I don't think he was elected based on his foreign policy and I think we are suffering on some level for it.)
So, what about Iraq? ::sighs:: Bush, I love you, sir, but seriously.... There is a seriously lack of communication about what's going on in Iraq. I've not given up on the issue. I really think there is a defensible position that this administration can take. I am concerned why Republicans are not taking this position. You wouldn't lose anything by saying, "Everyone believed there were WMDs, there was merely disagreement about the quantity and whether to attack based on that quantity. We were proved wrong only when we invaded; there was no other way to know. Saddam Hussein was doing everything in his power to prevent inspectors from proving he held up his end of the agreement. By his actions alone, we have reason to believe he is hiding something, or hiding nothing long enough until the opportunity to hide something comes along. Saddam Hussein has a history with the U.S. and with using chemical weapons on his own people. Beyond that, what happens when this weak leader dies or is removed from power and a newer, younger, strong tyrant takes over? No, there were not significant connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but Iraq has been connected with other forms of terrorism. Besides all of that, we have taken a supressed people and given them freedom. We have a wonderful opportunity to encourage a more democratic form of government in the middle east. We have not held our end of the bargin with Iraqis in the past, and now is certainly not the time to let them down." This is not happening. Why is this administration afraid of saying this?
I'm a Republican. My list of similar stances is narrowing, but I am still a Republican. I will vote Republican. I will probably help Istook and Fallin campaign, and do so with the upmost respect for their positions. However, I think Republicans need to be very cautious in taking comfort in thier position of power and not seriously address the grievous concerns. We claim to be for small government: What's with all the spending? Where's the explaination about Iraq? I don't think the CIA leak scandal would be half as big a deal if we would be forecoming about Iraq. People feel talked down to and deceived. And it is gunna hurt a frikkin' lot in 2006 if we don't deal with this now.
But, like I said, maybe I'm just suffering from the liberalness of my surroundings.
posted by Jesi E. at 11/09/2005 04:48:00 PM
1 Comments:
It's not liberal school syndrome. It's realistic person syndrome. The existing political parties in this country, at least at the top are simply different poles/extremes of the same socialist scheme...democratic socialism vs democratic fascism.
These men in power today have been of the cloth cut in the 1850s. The faces have changed but their interests and origins are the same. These men created the system that know today and strive to perpetuate it. There are good men in Congress and government but they are few and their voices are drowned by a sea of corruption and by the wealthy manipulators behind the scene.
Most of the well intentioned men and women who rise from the local and state level are not sufficiently prepared for what they find in Washington. Once they feel the rush that accompanies action and appearance in the seat power and once they are capable of spending unlimited quantities of money you will find that they will use both unguided by principle, because they had no core principles...just tendancy.
To understand the situation in Iraq one must understand the actual history of this nation, and not the established rhetoric. Wealthy financiers from Europe and New York have owned the political strings in Washington since the mid 1800s; if you doubt this look at how policy has progressed.
The civil war was a direct result of this intersts strangling the Souths economies with tarriffs and duties designed specifically to helping manufacturing and banking in New York. The string pullers did nothing to avoid the war once it was on the doorstep because war benefits the New York banking cartel above anything else.
The entry of the US into both World Wars was very simply to save the massive war-time loans between the New York banking cartel and France/Britain. The House of Morgan (J.P Morgan, J.P Jr.) was the prime instigator of both of these wars, had extended the largest loans to western europe, and was the primary lender of American fiat money to these countries during the war and after the war, and held a vast number of war-time contracts. The New York banking cartel and its incorporated units held more than half of all war-time contracts. These are more than mere coincidence.
Woodrow Wilson won the presidency entirely because the cartel convinced and funded Teddy Roosevelt to enter as the Bull Moose candidate, taking votes away from Taft. Both Wilson and T.R.'s campaigns were mostly funded by the cartel, and staffed by cartel leaders. It's no wonder that during his term Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act which protects the New York power structure indefinately.
How were Wilson and Cartel leaders connected? The Council on Foreign Relations; the American branch of the premier branch organization for world socialism. It's primary goal is to weaken America through international disarmament treaties, and transfer of wealth so that eventually it cannot stand in the way of world government. The cartel leaders, as well as leading businessmen across the country (mostly in gov protected industries), and the owners and high-level staff of nearly the entire print and television media are CFR members. (NY Times, Time Warner ect)Every President and nearly every Congressman of any real power has been associated with or a member of this organization.
Men do not join socialist organizations simply for the punch and cookies. Look at the foreign policy history of this country since World War I and you will see that nearly every act has been to benefit Europe and the Third World at the expense of the United States, inspite of a populace who is large unfriendly to this idea.
In your post, you have stated your...unease with the state of national political affairs. Its not liberal college syndrome, it is realistic person syndrome. You should be uneasy with the political system because the political system that exists is an enemy of America. The average person simply doesn't understand it because its gradual and hidden in technical jargon.
The political system can only be changed by politics, because it was created by politics. But the major parties are beholden to the system. Only statesmen and taxpayers operating independant of these parties will ever accomplish real change.
Post a Comment
<< Home