A Rambling Post About… Whatever
One of the great things about traveling and taking vacations is that it gives you a broader perspective. When you are in Tokyo or Berlin or St. Thomas or Philadelphia, you quickly realize that nobody cares about what’s happening in Wisconsin. Not. At. All.
It’s not that it doesn’t matter. Of course, the issues that affect our lives are important and debating them is important. But it’s worth remembering that our little issues are relatively unimportant to the rest of the world. They have their own problems and there are some overriding issues that affect us all to which we should be paying more attention.
I must confess that I’m experiencing a bit of hyper-perspective after our vacation. I’m catching up on the news about the presidential race, Wisconsin politics, Heath Ledger is dead (did you know?), and on and on and on. I’m having a tough time giving a crap about any of it. It’s hard for me to work up any outrage, excitement, or anything else.
My state of mind may also be influenced by the thought referenced in Wendy’s post below. I’m jaded. The McCain surge has me completely disillusioned about national politics. I can’t vote for McCain. I won’t. I’d rather see 4 or 8 years of a raving liberal in office to give the GOP it’s conservative stones back. On the state level, I am quickly losing all hope that Wisconsin can ever be anything more than what it is. There just isn’t the will in the electorate to be anything other than a high tax nanny state.
Is this what the rest of the people feel? Is this the feeling that results in pitiful turnouts at elections and woeful civic participation? Maybe I should just give up or just blog about technology and guns. That wouldn’t be so bad, would it?
I don’t get why some conservatives are so anti McCain. He’s always been conservative on abortion, spending and defense.
These same conservatives voted for a second term for George W Bush. A president who took non-defense spending to LBJ levels. The same president who is just as liberal on immigration as senator McCain. The same president who tried to do Iraq on the cheap rather then actually listening to his generals which has lead to the deaths of 1000s of americans. How is George Bush a better conservative then John McCain?
Why weren’t you so willing to go through 4-8 years of John Kerry back in 2004 Owen?
These same conservatives were so willing to embrace Mitt Romney who was more liberal then John McCain when he was running for offices in Massachusetts, but now is conviently a Reagan repubilcan now that he’s running for national office.
You’ll never have a candidate you completely agree with, but I’m tired of ppl pretending that McCain is a liberal. Its simply not true. He’s conservative on the most important issue of this campaign, spending. If this country doesn’t get control of its debt and quick, we’ll all have half of our income going to the federal government via taxes to pay off the federal debt.
Your guy didn’t win the nomination. Time to grow up and unite behind who won—this time John McCain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0129 hrs
Sad to say, but I agree with every thought. Trying to talk the wife into leaving this socialist tax hell.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0546 hrs
Conservatives are against McCain mainly for one reason—he’s all about what’s best for John McCain.
Posted by Jed on January 30, 2008 at 0608 hrs
I think Levin put it best on McCain…..
Mark Levin: The Real McCain Record
Posted by Pete Fanning on January 30, 2008 at 0631 hrs
I admit that it’s really tempting to feel jaded and disillusioned right now. We are on the verge of a conservative coalition breakup of historic proportions and this will get very ugly very soon.
Owen, we need to pretend we’re Irish monks at the end of the Roman Empire. As they preserved the great works of Western Civilization during the dark ages, so too must we preserve the ideals of modern conservatism. We might not recognize the fruits of our labors in our lifetimes, but this doesn’t mean the work isn’t worth undertaking. The ideals we believe in are bigger than a single point in time.
Posted by Tony Turner on January 30, 2008 at 0727 hrs
Try to keep in mind that conservative Democrats are just as sick of the extremes of the Democratic party as conservative Republicans are sick of the extremes of the Republican Party.
If we could get rid of the extremes we could make some real progress. People in Sweden have started a thrid party that is starting to take off because there two party system is not responsive to the will of the people. Something to think about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0742 hrs
Owen - what you are feeling is how I felt this time last year when I started doing more sports blogging. Wish I had some advice for you.
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 0836 hrs
Welcome to my world Owen I am so glad I walked away from political blogging. I like you will not vote for McCain I will leave the GOP and never go back if he wins the nomination.
And you hit it on the the head the good people of Wisconsin so disillusioned me by reelecting people like Feingold and Kohl and that crook Doyle I figured why try to sweep back the ocean.
If political blogging does not make you happy anymore walk away.
I have to be honest I get traffic sports blogging I never dreamed of political blogging and that in its self tells you something, other than we political wonks most people just do not care about politics on a day to day basis.
Run for the hill Owen Run for you life
(a little Iron Maiden for you lol)Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0900 hrs
I can’t vote for McCain.
Can you articulate why you’ve made this decision?
Posted by Cindy on January 30, 2008 at 0903 hrs
Here is, perhaps, another way to look at it ... do you want to live in a “high tax nanny state” which is a part of a high tax nanny country? I don’t.
The WI GOP called me for a contribution the other day. I told the gentleman that we simply cannot afford it right now. It does go deeper than that and I need to better articulate my thoughts, but why it is that they have no vision, why is it that they’ve become Democrat Lite, why cannot they get someone to defeat Sen. Kohl, why did they (and the national GOP) pull the rug out from under the candidate who could have defeated Feingold, why do they not have a solid candidate lined up for WI-08 yet (and why is Gard the only guy?!?) in light of Kagen being labeled a vulnerable candidate, why couldn’t they get Gov. Doyle defeated (and why couldn’t they have better caught Green’s back when the whole fund transfer non-issue came up)?
Maybe the next time they call, I’ll just fire off those questions.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 30, 2008 at 0913 hrs
I think you need another vacation to sort out these thoughts. Europe? South America? Australia? (We can hunt down Heath Ledger’s grave site)
[running to travel agency…]
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 0922 hrs
Yeah, but you know you’ll have to take us all with you.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 30, 2008 at 1012 hrs
Vacations are good
I leave for the Keys in a week I can feel the Sun already Now if I can just get the people to stop trying to push me back into the water when I lay on the beach lol
“Hurry up he is dying” lol
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1013 hrs
Wow Chris - I am so glad that I am not the only one that that happens too.
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 1015 hrs
“Maybe I should just give up or just blog about technology and guns.”
Throw in a little huntin and fishin on that new blog of yours and I’m there.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1101 hrs
I told my wife last night I won’t vote for McCain, She said well you have to because we don’t want Hillary in the White House. I told her I would rather lose on principle than win with a person that will change the face of the Party of Ronald Reagan. I do not want to win to define our party as what kind of Republican John McCain is. He has sold out conservatives so many times there is no place in my heart for forgiveness. The state government of Wisconsin is littered with Republicans like McCain. They are Republicans that really shouldn’t be Republicans at all. Forty years ago they were Democrats.
McCain remember amnesty - YOU WILL NEVER GET MY VOTE!!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1134 hrs
Nicely summed up. I’m planning on not voting for the first time in my life. Amnesty alone makes me unable to pull the switch for McCain, as does the scary feeling that Republicans (and Conservatives) will get the blame when the Economy crumbles under a “Republican” president.
In the long term I’m still trying to decide if McCain would be more harmful to the nation than Hillary. With a “Republican” president, I’m worried about bi-partisan garbage getting through that might have been stalled by a determined and committed conservative block in the House or Senate.
In other words, his politics aren’t as bad as Hillary’s, but his ability to deliver might actually be higher.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1337 hrs
I’m planning on not voting for the first time in my life. Amnesty alone makes me unable to pull the switch for McCain, as does the scary feeling that Republicans (and Conservatives) will get the blame when the Economy crumbles under a “Republican” president.
That statement is breathtaking. You are going to let a democrat win because you don’t want a Republican to be blamed for the economy… an economy that has been mismanaged by a Republican administration for the last 8 years. That. Is. Amazing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1425 hrs
Yes 3rd way - the economy of the last eight years - It has been horrible. The worst economy since the depression. It makes Jimmy Carters presidency look like the most prosperous times in history.
And yes it will get worse under the libs/socialists currently running for the democratic nomination - imagine how much worse it will get under Obama or Hillary
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 1449 hrs
Of course a Hillary/Obama presidency would/could result in a conservative revolution much like 1994….
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 1450 hrs
Yes Clint the economy has been mismanaged. Look at the status of the dollar, our debt, and the rate of inflation.
The economy of the next 4 years is going to have far more to do with the policies of the last 8 years than any policies that can be implemented within the forthcoming administration.
The economy has done O.K. throughout Bush’s 8 years. This has more to do with interest rates being historically low, than with anything any politician has done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1504 hrs
The economy of the next 4 years is going to have far more to do with thepolicies of the last 8 years than any policies that can be implementedwithin the forthcoming administration.
So in other words you are already setting up the excuses for Hillary/Barrack??
Lets reverse your statement then….
The economy of the last 8 years had far more to do with the policies of the previous 8 years of Clinton Rule than any policies that had been implemented within the Bush administration.Same theory as you are spewing about the next president will you subscribe to that??
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 1558 hrs
I still do agree with the statement if you twist it around.
Most administrations don’t have much of an effect on the economy. The only thing they do that has a substantial effect on the economy is dealing with the budget, the national debt and the effect that has on the dollar and inflation. The last Democratic administration did a much better job than the last Republican one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1626 hrs
“dealing with the budget, the national debt” yep - and considering that all originates from Congress….
Of course if Bush does veto any of that he gets lambasted for not feeding the children and not caring about drug addicts and not providing a bridge to nowhere etc etc.
Do you honestly think that either Hillary or Obama will spend less?? Do you think that they will ever veto a budget claiming that the government is spending too much money???
Posted by Clint on January 30, 2008 at 1632 hrs
Look Clint. When Bush stepped into office there was a budget surplus. There is now a $9 trillion debt. I don’t know how you manage your finances at home, but if you managed them like Bush you would be bankrupt. The effects from this oppresive debt are showing up in the value of the dollar.
I agree with you that wasteful spending is a huge problem. A democrat might on the whole spend less, by vetoing bills that allow the hemoraging of cash into military contractors hands.
The bigger deal is paying down the debts by allowing tax cuts for the wealthy expire.
Budget deficits matter. Recent history shows Democrats as the party of “pay as you go” and balanced budgets, they have my vote in ‘08. If they fuck it up and don’t run a responsible government I might be convinced to vote for someone else in ‘12.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1702 hrs
When Bush stepped into office there was a budget surplus.
So, you were happy that the government was taking more money from tax payers than it needed? Really?
Recent history shows Democrats as the party of “pay as you go” and balanced budgets
I’d like to see you prove that. Recent Local Democrats (Doyle, et al) completely disprove your statement out of hand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1731 hrs
A problem is that defense contractors are not connected to a specific political party. Cutting some defense outlays (which should be done IMO) would involve angering influential congressmen and that is unlikely to happen when the congress is so closely split by party.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1734 hrs
When Bush stepped into office there was a budget surplus.
So, you were happy that the government was taking more money from tax payers than it needed? Really?
I am a hell of a lot happier with a surplus than I am with a $9 trillion debt.
Recent history shows Democrats as the party of “pay as you go” and balanced budgets
I’d like to see you prove that. Recent Local Democrats (Doyle, et al) completely disprove your statement out of hand.
I was simply referring to presidential politics. I agree that as a whole Democrats are not spendthrift.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2008 at 1755 hrs
Do you honestly think that either Hillary or Obama will spend less??
When you consider that Obama in particular would not have blown $1 trillion getting us stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, I would have to say the answer is YES!
Posted by Mike Thomas on January 30, 2008 at 1833 hrs
do the Democratic candidates even mention Iraq any more on the campaign trail?
I guess we could have blown that $1 trillion on more liberal programs like welfare and other great society program those worked so well.
Obama would have still spent the money on something he is a politician it is what they do when is the last time the US Government actually did with less?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 0031 hrs
Regarding McCain, reminds me of the race between Nelson and Feingold. Though we could get rid of Feingold after one term, and Nelson was useless and weak. Ooops.
Can’t vote for McCain the RINO.
Have a nice vacation, you can get revved up again when you’re back in the saddle.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 0429 hrs
Look Clint. When Bush stepped into office there was a budget surplus. There is now a $9 trillion debt. I don’t know how you manage your finances at home, but if you managed them like Bush you would be bankrupt. The effects from this oppresive debt are showing up in the value of the dollar.
This statement is comparing apples to oranges….the state of the surplus and the state of the debt are not the same. Bush didn’t create 9 Trillion in debt, which is what you were implying, although he certainly has not done anything to keep spending in check. I don’t have a real problem with deficit spending, it is the size and nature of the spending that is troublesome. I’m a conservative with libertarian leanings, so I voted for Bush reluctantly, as the lesser of two evils.I’ve never called myself a Republican, although I have voted that way almost always. I am a small government proponent as outside of the military, I’d have to try really hard to think of a government program that is worth a fraction of what we pay for it, and even those that do, by the nature of the beast, try and grow for growths sake rather than adjust to the need in question.
I’ve never been a Bush fan, nor do I think he is as horrible as the liberals seem to think. I didn’t even think Clinton was that bad. My take on him, was the the trip to the top, the ego boost was what he was about. He never had an agenda close to his heart, so he never really accomplished much, which is unfortunately high praise for a politician.
It is the big government/nanny state, never met an entitlement program I didn’t like types that scare me.
I agree with 3rd way, that often the effect of an administration’s policies on the economy will be felt in later administrations. We are still paying for the New Deal and Fair Deal policies of the 30’s and 40’s that started our move to a welfare/nanny state, and the cost of those programs dwarves the 9 Trillion deficit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1015 hrs
Obama would have still spent the money on something he is a politician it is what they do
He may have spent the money, but he seems like an honorable smart guy that will find away to pay for it. He is smart enough to know that you can’t spend frivolously and cut taxes at the top at the same time.
the state of the surplus and the state of the debt are not the same. Bush didn’t create 9 Trillion in debt
I know this. I apologize for not being more clear. All I am saying is that Bush has put us in a really bad situation by spending a lot more than we take in. You may not like the social programs that we have in this country, but they are popular (their implementation now makes them necessary) and they are here to stay. We have to find a way to pay for them. Bush and the Republican party like to ignore them and pretend they are someone elses problem, but they are all our problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1033 hrs
Some social programs, like social security, are not here to stay in their present form. Others will be forceably removed if a money crunch hits.
Bush has been dreadful with spending. The lastest pile of garbage, ending earmarks but not until he’s out of office, is really pathetic.
I think Obama may be honorable, but totally clueless economically. Unfortunately, neither Clinton nor McCain have ever shown any particular insight into economic matters either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2008 at 1119 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134019
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 125
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:29 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).