Monday, February 18, 2013

Something To Consider...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
-VS- Tyranny

President Obama is taking a lot of heat from the presumably "conservative" element in America. While I wish I understood completely why this is so, primarily because I find myself in disagreement with at least 50% of his positions if not more, I find myself in realization that America in majority voted for exactly what the President espouses. So, in my rather individualized mind, as uncomfortable as it is, I must acknowledge that America has spoken. In their affirmation of the President's views and policies it is reasonable to expect he would continue to pursue the policies and agenda that the citizens of the United States voted in majority to embrace.

As I see it the lion's share of the problem can be found in the "conservatives" unwillingness to recognize that the realities confronting our nation today are vastly different than those confronting the Patriots of 1776. Now I realize that the hard core socon, neocon, and just plain cons of the rEpublican party will likely skewer me for the saying. But as they say it is what it is and somebody on the right (preferably many) need to pull their heads from out of their arses, stand up and make it clear they understand we live in a pluralist society. There is no changing that and to a great degree the very people on the right who are bemoaning this reality are in fact responsible for it.

Logic and rational thought does not rest solely with conservatives or libertarians, it also resides in many reasonable and rational individuals that are to the left of us. Maybe it is just me, but it seems irrational to not consider the rational and logically based thoughts of those who may disagree with us. If I've learned one thing of importance from business management it is to consider listen and honestly consider the view points of those you might disagree with. or if you fail to do so it is quite possible, and likely, you may just miss an opportunity that will benefit your company and it's employees.

Government cannot be run precisely as a private business because government in America, to govern effectively requires the public's trust. However, it is justifiable and proper to understand and believe the principles adhered to in a ethical and successful bushiness, when applied properly to governance will lead to a more prosperous and productive nation.

The following article, with all its patriotic verbiage is precisely what is ailing this nation. Please everyone don't get me wrong here, the left has as many publications (and blogs) that are just as full of fluff and BS as the right does. What needs to be acknowledged by both sides is that this is true, it is damaging to the national conscience, and allowed to proceed unchecked will result in splitting the nation apart along partisan political and ideologically driven likes. Forgive me if you will but we owe our founding fathers by far more more, even if wee seem unwilling to understand how they ultimately created this nation.

Enough of me, here is the article that prompted this post.
Townhall - The grotesque spectacle of the State of the Union address, with its lengthy receiving line of adoring sycophants, demonstrates why the President is operating under the delusion that he is more than just our President. Like him, many people seem to fundamentally misunderstand his role. He’s not our “leader,” or our “ruler,” or our national “daddy,” no matter what his adoring fan, comic Chris Rock, thinks.

Let’s clarify things for those folks with the unseemly desire to offer up their personal sovereignty to some government hack. Unlike Hollywood geniuses better known for exposing their breasts than exposing their brains, I'll never pledge to be a servant of any politician.

I'm an American citizen. As such, no mortal man may presume to lead or rule me.

And I already have a father, one who incidentally has a better track record of job creation than Barack Obama by the mere fact that he hasn’t destroyed several million of them. Nor has he left any ambassadors to die, or surrounded himself with kids in a sick circus of political exploitation designed to steal the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens.

Hell, now I’m thinking “Dad 2016.” I mean, if that’s cool with Karl Rove.

As for Barack Obama, and I say this with no disrespect, but he’s just an employee. There’s this thing military people know as the “chain of command.” When it comes to American citizens, we’re at the top of the chain. Done. That’s the entire chain of command for an American citizen, and the President’s not in it. Should he presume to suggest a course of action, with a few rare and well-defined exceptions, it is just that – a suggestion.

Now, the President is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces, but command in a military context is quite different. Command is a circumscribed function, strictly limited to military personnel engaged in their military duties and focusing not on the prerogatives of power but on the dual responsibilities of accomplishing the mission and taking care of those warriors he leads.

A commander is by no means some sort of rock star, at least if his self-regard is properly kept in check (There is a reason every commander at every level in the military has a grizzled noncommissioned officer assigned to him or her, and it isn’t for ego-boosting).

No, the President works for me, and for you. Too often, Americans seem to forget that. Sure, he has a big job. He’s an executive, with lots of people (civilian and military) working under him. He deserves the same respect as any decent superior should show a subordinate – and make no mistake, the President is a subordinate of even the most humble American citizen. {Read More}

I am not sure what I may be missing here but; in as much as the President works for you and me at some point he must make recommendations to the legislative branch, including sending bills for their consideration, as well as making executive decisions that are in the interests of the people who elected him. In this I know of no better way to govern than by erring in favor of the majority vote. President Obama was duly reelected President as well as the nation electing a dEmocrat Senate. At the same time the nation elected a rEpublican house. It seems to me our system of checks and balances is functioning as intended. Perhaps it would do the nation and all it's citizens a good turn if the ideologues on both sides of the aisle begin listening to that which they have heretofore choose to tune out.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. My issue is not that I agree more with the Obama Administration, as I surely do not on most issues.......rather it is the rank hypocrisy coming from the GOP in their attacks upon the Administration. If a position and argument is sound, it should stand on it's own intellectual merits, not on spin.

  2. Well, the GOP already had the House, and a lot more seats in the state houses around the country. They lost seats, most everywhere but the South. That's another problem the GOP has, and perhaps their hardest to beat - they're fast becoming a regional party, and most of the country is in other regions.

    And, as people retire from the North will divest even more GOP power from the North, and further the regionalization of the party.

    The GOP is now in an historically peculiar predicament. I have to admit, it's fascinating and you have to wonder how it will all turn out. I'm hoping, in the end, they choose to mature, and raise their constituencies rather just filling the trough all the time.


    1. If you look at the political map jmj you'll see more red than blue geographically.

    2. I don't understand. What are you saying? Does wheat now have vote?


    3. Does wheat now have vote?

      Yup, those amber waves of grain...

  3. Correct, Les. If you look at the map by county, it really is an inconvenient "don't go there" truth for Jersey, the Dems, liberals, left. etc.

    The reality of it is that, regionally (which requires such a geographic focus), the entire US is the region for the Republicans.... outside of a few small "blue" pockets such as that California coastal strip, New England (the largest area, , geographically),the Arrowhead of Minnesota, the Driftless Area, northwest Texas, and a narrow band on the Piedmont of Appalachia.

    The geographic dominance of the Republicans in 2012 is little different than in 2008, so it is really hard to support any sort of "rapid" change here from the evidence.

    1. When I talk about regionalization, I mean the South. The Bread Belt is very sparsely populated, and Mountain West is not establishment Republican.

      Politically, in the context of this post, region is not just defined by geography, but by who lives there. Sure, there remains a strong GOP presence in rural, suburban, and exurban areas of the erstwhile Blue States, but for the most part these Republican voters are historically exemplary of the GOP mainstream, or as we call them, Center Right. But, there are not enough people living in those areas to out-vote, so to speak, the urban areas of those states in statewide and national elections. Moreover, as the Neo-Dixiecrats of the South further drive the GOP agenda, the Republican brand is further damaged in those areas, driving those Blue State Republicans more to the center, and sure enough, the farther right of the GOP becomes all the more regionalized to the South.

      Really, let's face it, the GOP voters of the South are simply Neo-Dixiecrats. This is President Johnson's prediction come true. This is the Southern Strategy complete. The trouble is, the rest of the country does not share many of the values of the Southern voter. For example, Mississippi finally got around to officially banning slavery!

      As for geography in and of itself, it is irrelevant. It's who and how many live there that matters.

      Les, I can understand dmarks being confused about that... but you???


  4. Those "blue" pockets such as California, the Pacific Northwest, New England, the Lakes region, are the areas of densest population. Geographical red states, especially in places like Idaho, Wyoming, Dakotas, are sparsely populated and do not have the electoral votes that it takes to win a presidential election. And now even states that were red are leaning and/or changing to blue. Virginia and Florida. Predictions are that in a generation Texas will be a blue state.

    Here's something to consider as well:

    How doomed are conservatives? Pretty doomed, if you look carefully at the Pew Research Survey’s close analysis of the youth vote in the 2012 elections. The Republicans’ long-term dilemma has generally been framed in racial terms, but it’s mainly a generational one. The youngest generation of voters contains a much smaller proportion of white voters than previous generations, and those whites in that generation vote Republican by a much smaller margin than their elders. What’s more, younger voters supported President Obama during the last two election cycles for reasons that seem to go beyond the usual reasons — social issues like gay marriage and feminism, immigration policy, or Obama’s personal appeal — and suggest a deeper attachment to liberalism. The proclivities of younger voters may actually portend a full-scale sea change in American politics.

    The rest is HERE.

    1. Shaw said: "Those "blue" pockets such as California, the Pacific Northwest, New England, the Lakes region, are the areas of densest population."

      Yes. I noticed you mention population. You are not making the mistake of someone else and mentioning geographic region

    2. I might add Shaw that the young vote has typically gone liberal during their early years. Many move to center or just a bit right as they age and mature. And, historically the pendulum always swings far to the right or left and then lo and behold it begins the swing back to the other side. We are seeing that today.

      Conservatism is not dead, nor will it die. However, it sure as heck will look different than it has these past 5 or 6 year. Or maybe I should say the past 12years.

    3. With espect to the article I find little to argue with. I do however believe the country is approaching the point it may be ready for a third party. One that could draw from the reasonable just right of center republicsns and from the reasonable just left of center democrats. As well as locking in the centrists.

      Of course leadership is critical, I must say I don't see many political figures that fit the criteria. Yet. But we should never give up hope. It sure would beat gridlock or a runaway progressive freight train. IMNHO.

    4. Ron Paul did pretty damned good with the young voters who were able to see through Pelosi's BS on stuff such as, "We have a plan for Medicare, it's called Medicare", etc.. At the very least he did well with those who could count.

    5. You are correct Will, unfortunately there were too many old guard rEpublicans and neocons (party establishment) that talked and walked the statist party line.

    6. Pelosi has BS, alright. Remembering her insistence that bills be scrutinized after they are voted on. As bad as Rep. David Conyers saying he was too lazy to find out what he is voting on, and he votes anyway.

    7. I also suspect that neither of those individuals actually read Bowles-Simpson prior to rejecting that, either.

  5. An interesting exercise is to contemplate just how similar Obama's policies are to Bush's.

    1. Quite in many respects. He has continued much that Bush had in place.

  6. My issue is not that I agree more with the Obama Administration, as I surely do not on most issues.......rather it is the rank hypocrisy coming from the GOP in their attacks upon the Administration. If a position and argument is sound, it should stand on it's own intellectual merits, not on spin.

    Rational Nation USAMon Feb 18, 09:59:00 PM EST

    Agree completely C.I.

    Your past post show you to be the hypocrite, for this answer now. Funny how you cite different opinions should be available, yet, you censor every opinion I have that disagrees with yours. Have fun shouting more of your lies

    1. I don't censor opinions that disagrees with mine, nor do I censor data that may argue against my positions. I DO censor personal attacks. So, if you are the anonymous that love to make personal atacks you WILL be censored rather than my replying to garbage. If you disagree and have something of substance yu WILL be posted.

      There are plenty of examples that PROVE I have commentators that disagree and they GET posted. So your allegation is obviously false and all that visited here regularly know it.

      So if you are the anon that is getting censored the choice remains yours as to whether you get posted or not.

    2. Thank you for tour most recent submission Anon. Unfortunately it once again did not pass muster as it was again nothing more than a personal attack with nothing at all of substance to offer. Surely you have something better to do with your time than writing attack adds.

      Toddles Anon...

  7. We spend so little time discussing our vision of progress. What do we want for the country.

    Left and right can contribute worthwhile ideas.
    Suggesting we look at a map arbitrarily divided into red/blue for verification of the right's positions and further suggesting that geographic mass is equivalent to "dominance" is silly.

    We learn to talk to each other or the necessary progress is going to be slow and painful.
    Claiming gerrymandering by county as your prevailing argument has a short shelf life.

    1. Yep, a very excellent point. Indeed learning to talk with each other is the prerequisite for accomplishing anything of lasting value. As expected that requires both sides participate in a bipartisan effort to get something done.

      We all know gerrymandering is practiced by both parties.

    2. "Claiming gerrymandering by county"

      I didn't see anyone claim this. Has anyone ever tried?

    3. Well dmarks, the Democratic vote for the House was over 50%.
      Redistricting was responsible for the Republican House victory.

      As RN says, it's a universal practice but it's a mistake to
      use the House victory to overplay your support.

  8. Drunk drivers and Nascar drivers both have ideas about driving. Same as the left and right. Gutless, dickless nihilists find sick solace in equating opposites. Why is that? I know why. Do they?

    Do you?

    1. I'm sure you're going to tell us what you think you know, Chuck.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.


Related Posts with Thumbnails