Reader Responds
I often wonder if anyone is reading my rants, so here's proof that someone out there found us, although I may be sending a fuzzy signal...
You call for a national debate on taxation, which I think would result in the people saying, “Tax me, but you need to show me more value for my money.” You call for using our power wisely. You call for bringing our troops home. I presume the next step would be to come up with a plan to use them next time in a way that’s more acceptable to world opinion AND advances our interests. It all sounds good to me. Maybe I’m more conservative and less moderate than I claim to be.Thanks Jim....I appreciate your comments! The election victories that we Republcians have orchestrated for the better part of my generation has invited a bastardization of the conservative movement. And that is what blisters my butt these days.
And then there’s your reaction to the government’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina. I think a lot of people had an identical response. Further, I think it caused them to reexamine their acceptance of the conservative mantra “you can’t expect the government to solve your problems.” I think a lot of people are coming back to the idea that you should expect just that. It doesn’t make them liberals.
Expecting the government to solve problems you can’t solve on your own, but in a fiscally prudent manner, seems moderate to me.
I enjoy your writing. It’s so much more intelligent, so much more reasonable, than the crap I hear from a typical conservative (or liberal) hack.
And why the heck does everyone seem to bristle these days when someone calls them moderate? Not too long ago, it was a badge of honor.
Finally, I agree with your political analysis. The Dems are going to do to the Repubs what Gingrich did to the Dems – make big hay out of ruling party corruption and take over. It’s amazing that people were so dumb as to believe that Bush is a populist conservative.
How was the weather in Eastern Europe?
I get slammed from my Republican friends for not being "more supportive," but I am a child of the conservative crusade. I worked for Rep. Jack Kemp and on his presidential campaign in 1988, not George H.W . Bush's, which at the time, was considered treason, for not supporting Reagan's running mate. But hey, time has proven that it was Kemp, and not Bush, who was the legitimate heir of the conservative movement.
What I find ironic, that as conservative philosophies have found their way into governing principles, albeit in limited fashion, and under this Bush Presidency, nearly none, those conservative victories have been deemed "moderate." So much so that even John McCain is now called a moderate. Remarkable, given McCain's lifetime ACU rating.
I am one who endorses Jesse Helms' take on moderates; only two things found in the middle of the road, yellow lines and dead skunks.
Real conservatives are being called moderates by members of my own Party, because we have become like the Democrats once were; more concerned about winning the next election with loyalty oaths, than offering conservative ideas to remake government.
By the way, the weather in Kiev was gorgeous, as are those Slavic women.


5 Comments:
Hmm...I know I'm not a yellow line...ouch!
I don't buy your definition of moderate. As a matter of fact, my definition is someone who believes she can shop at more than one store. And when she gets there, gets to decide what to buy, not have it shoved down her throat by the salesperson.
The world of ideas is vast. It doesn't cleanly divide down the middle with everyone on one side marching in lockstep and everyone on the other side marching in a different lockstep. I refuse to limit myself to only two choices and insist that the whole of world of ideas is open to me for my own personal "sifting and winnowing."
It is insulting to suggest that anyone who refuses to align herself with one or another extreme is either a yellow line or a dead skunk.
So, let me guess, you are "pro-choice," but would never have an abortion yourself?
You are pro-military, so long as it is not your son shipping-off to a foreign land?
You support TABOR, but voted for a new school in your last referendum?
You can "shop" candidates all you like, but your values should remain constant.
Those who flip-flop on their values are either Yellow Lines or Dead Skunks...
Actually, we are spending too much time talking about abortion. We need to talk about abortion prevention. To me this means giving young women and young men a reason to wait. It means honest sex education, including the emotional and legal aspects of engaging in young sex or sex outside of marriage. Birth control information does need to be available--because otherwise pregnancy becomes a "punishment" for breaking the rules instead of the blessing God intends it to be.
However, to answer your question, I believe every abortion is a tragedy. I wish I could be anti-choice, but every time I get near there, I have to pull back because I believe it violates a woman's right to determine the use of her body and I believe this is a violation of the 14th amendment. No one else, not a man, not a child, can be forced to donate use of their body to another, even if the other would die. I cannot be forced to even give blood to my born child, even if I am the only match and the child will die without it. I cannot be cut into without my consent even to donate a kidney to my born child, yet courts have forced women to undergo c-sections against their consent for the "good" of the child. Therefore, while I believe abortion is nearly always the immoral choice (excepting only for life and physical health of the mother--when it comes to moral I would not excempt rape or incest), but I believe it must be a legal choice, no matter how repugnant. Having said that, I believe partial-birth abortion is barbaric and I still haven't seen a convincing reason why a child could be seconds away from being a born child and killed just to avoid it being a born child. I don't like 24-hour-waiting periods, but I don't see them as unsurmountable barriers for those determined to get an abortion. I don't have a problem with parental consent laws, but do believe we need judicial override.
As far as war. I was born while my father was serving during the Korean conflict; my son was born while his father was serving in Vietnam (he enlisted with my support while we were engaged). When my 17-year-old son wanted to join the Marine Corps reserves, I signed. When he was ordered to active duty and sent to the Gulf during the first Gulf war, I supported him--though you haven't lived until you have discussed with your 20-year-old whether he needs a will before going to war. I hope and pray my grandsons will not have to go to war. However, since they are growing up in privelege, I don't see them enlisting.
I believe that every politician has one job and one job only. To get re-elected. Principles are nice, but they don't seem to last long in the face of that reality. Both Democrats and Republicans spend too much--the difference is what are they spending and how are they raising the money?
Why let them off the hook with TABOR? In fact, in Colorado, the Republicans lost seats after TABOR because with the tax issue "taken care of" there was no need to vote them into office anymore. And of course the argument that you raise taxes if you can get citizens support in a referendum is based on a hope that any referendum will be voted down--no matter what the circumstances.
Oh, in answer to your question, I have voted both for and against school referenda, looking at each question on its merits. In the last Madison election, I voted against all four questions, because I believe the school board was arrogant and lazy and did not even come close to making its case. I think the Middleton referendum was obscene, though I didn't vote because I don't live there. I voted in favor of the last Madison referendum.
I am favor of civil unions for gays with all the legal benefits, responsibilities and drawbacks this entails. In fact, I'm in favor of civil unions for everybody. I don't know why churches are so willing to tie their definition of marriage to the state's definition. Churches should bless the marriages that meet their core beliefs and should feel free to reject any that don't--for whatever reason. The state, on the other hand, should get religion out of its definition of marriage and see it for what it is legally--a contract between adults that specifies certain responsibilities of each--to each other and to any children that may come into the home.
So you tell me. Am I a yellow line or a dead skunk? Whether you agree with me or not, these are my values.
Correction: I voted in favor of the Madison referendum that preceded the last one.
Post a Comment
<< Home