That’s pretty toothy, so I’m going to call you “Bob.” But whatever specific name you go by, Bob, you know who you are. You’re the sort of person who says to his conservative friends or co-workers something like, “I would totally vote for Republicans if they could just give up on these crazy social issues.” When you explain your votes for Barack Obama, you talk about how Republicans used to be much more moderate and focused on important things such as low taxes, fiscal discipline, and balanced budgets. When Colin Powell was on Meet the Press the other day, you
I´m okay with the fiscal conservatism of the Republicans. I wish they would put their focus their a bit more and use a bit less political capital on calling for Obama´s impeachment because he had the temerity to suggest he was issuing executive orders (no, the orders did not say to confiscate guns) or freaking out because he had children on the stage when he announced the executive orders. (Those pictures circulating, comparing Obama to Hitler because he had children on the stage, were not becoming and did not win any votes.)
Focus on what is important. Stop turning people off by focusing on every little tidbit that doesn´t matter in the grand scheme of things.
I´m a big Jonah fan, but where does he address the "socially" of the headline? I was expecting some comment on the misfit candidates who want us all to vote on single issues such as abortion or gay marriage. But, it´s not there. I´m with him on fiscal conservatism, though, and I agree that it has to be real.
Why are some supposedly Republican people so harsh in their criticism of fellow conservatives and their own party? Poster #1 disparages the publishing of the pictures of Hitler and Stalin with children as props, juxtaposed with a picture of Obama using children as props (which was intended to show it was nothing but propaganda). Yet no comment about Schieffer saying that defeating the NRA will be like defeating the Nazis? Is his criticism reserved for his own Party only?
The tragedy of Obama’s presidency and the feckless Republican house is that finance savvy American today has no choice but to sell America short.
What cannot go on won’t. When America’s GDP is stagnating at $15 trillion and the debt is nearing $17 trillion and accelerating, financial collapse is inevitable and near. Any financially savvy person will position himself for that collapse, which means betting against America.
That, sadly, is what the low information voters have done to the country.
I think the bigger problem is people who consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative and therefore do not vote at all, because they can´t find someone running who is both of those. I know quite a few people who just shook their head at "your two-party system." If they had chosen to vote for the fiscally at-least-kinda-conservative Republican, we´d be in better shape.
Jonah´s article could´ve and should´ve been addressed to those running the Republican Party who sold out long ago.
Jonah is right about the "Bobs" of the nation. But it is not just the so-called socially liberal/fiscal conservatives who voted for Obama who are the problem, however. The bigger problem is the socially liberal Republicans who have destroyed the GOP.
Make no mistake, when bunnies thump constantly about "evil" conservatives who adhere to socially and fiscally conservative principles, it is with the desire to divide and conquer.
I feel about the so called Socially Liberal / Fiscal Conservative the same as Rooster Cogburn feels about boastful Texas Rangers.
Maybe there is such a thing as SL-FC out there, hell I believed it the first 20 or so times I heard it. But if I ever run into a SL-FC who is actually FC, I think I´ll shake his hand and buy him a Daniel Webster cigar.
Could it be that there are alot of members of the GOP that DO want the gov´t out of their lives. Don´t lecture on Gay marriage. Its none of anyone´s business. Rape? Seriously? How do can this party get? Now we have Mark Sanford is running for the House. Is that the best we can do? That is like having Bill Clinton and Sanford lecture on Fidelity.
Poster #1: ("hose pictures circulating, comparing Obama to Hitler because he had children on the stage, were not becoming and did not win any votes."
Wow - did you forgot all the knashing of teeth (still today and when will Lucianne show that photo again?) of Bush on the aircraft carrier with the banner Mission Accomplished behind him - which to remind poster #1 was about the ship´s crew and not Pres. Bush...
People like ´´Bob´´ aren´t feeling the fiscal pinch that voting for a liberal brings (yet). All that massive spending is simply being added to the next generation´s backs instead of being paid for by the people who want it right now.
Hi, I´m Bob. I didn´t vote for Romney because he wasn´t a fiscal conservative. His vice-presidential pick, Paul Ryan, of the famous Ryan Plan, doesn´t even want to cut spending -- only freeze it (sure, that balances the budget in 28 years, big woop). I also did not support Santorum or Bachmann because, let´s face it, they are homophobes.
There were other choices. In the end, I voted for Governor Gary Johnson, another Bob.
If Conservatives really want to live in a Capitalist system, they are going to have to stop worrying so much about who gets married to whom, and who is smoking what. Otherwise they are dooming themselves to Socialism.
For those who doubt the existence, I´ll tell you I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. In general Libertarians will fit this definition as would many strict constitutional conservatives. Who among those groups would have voted for Obama? Couldn´t tell you. I´d guess some that didn´t do their homework and allowed themselves to be influenced by the media may define themselves as such but their actions would defy their proclaimed beliefs.
Mitt Romney ticked all the social and fiscal conservative boxes on his way to the nomination and he lost. I suspect the problem lies in the consistency of the message and the effectiveness of the messenger. Mitt´s ability to make the case against abortion, same-sex marriage, and government healthcare was compromised by his support of those things in the past. His ability to represent socially conservatism as a path out of poverty was undermined by his wealth.
Reagan could talk effectively about conservative solutions for poverty because he had experienced it. He could articulate a pro-life message because he believed it. Here´s Reagan on liberal uncertainty about whether a fetus is a life: " If you were walking down the street, and saw something moving inside a paper bag on the sidewalk, would you kick it?" Even pro-choice voters can feel the truth in Reagan´s observation.
The argument that attaining political power requires you to abandon political principles can leave you with neither.
Jonah´s correct -- "Bob" is no fiscal conservative, "Bob" is no conservative, period. IMO, there ain´t no such animal as a socially liberal fiscal conservative. If you are a "social liberal" it means, among other things, that you endorse unlimited funding for treating the consequences of sexual excess, including paying for everyone´s birth control, abortions, chlamydia, syphilis, papiloma, AIDS, etc., not to mention billions in welfare "for the children", i.e. the hordes of illegitimate children resulting from the socially liberal "lifestyle". You can´t help all these wonderful people finance the consequences of their fun, without turning the country into a fiscal graveyard. And that´s just one aspect of the ruinous costs of social liberalism.
´´When will it dawn on you that Obama doesn’t think we have a spending problem? I ask because when he said ´we don’t have a spending problem,´ it seemed to have no effect on you.´´ Makes one feel as if they´re living Orwell´s 1984, doesn´t it?
IMHO, many of those who would call themselves socially liberal fiscal conservatives (Bobs) are actually anti-Christians attempting to hide the fact behind a mask of being fiscally conservative. Being socially liberal is what really drives them. God isn´t fooled, but they don´t even know He exists. They are soon to learn better.
I am not a fan of this black or white "false alternative" stereotyping.
"Live and Let Live" is not socially liberal, it´s a principle. No one should be FORCED to adhear to societal standards set by the herd (just like no one should be FORCED to buy healthcare). It is the principle of people being allowed to make their OWN personal choices in life *as long as they don´t impact the freedom, finances and/or rights of others*.
Maybe the "social conservatives" forcing policy on others can actually point out to me where in the Constitution it says the Feds have the right to dictate who someone marries, what they do, who they have sex with, what they put into their bodies... Go for it. 10th Amendment stands for me on most issues except abortion (which is murder). So how is that for liberal!
I am depressed by the lack of humility of some of my fellows....
God will not put up with this crap! It´s all or nothing - it is all in the Bible which is our foundation formed by our Founding Fathers & our Constitution. We were formed as a nation of Judeo-Christian principles for Christians & non Christians with an Anglo Saxon backgound. We are not an African,Asian or Indian nation but welcome those who love America. Problem is people want to arrogantly pick & choose which part applies to their personal approval.
Wow, just when I thought the in-fighting couldn´t get any worse. So now you say being ok with gay marriage is now a principle? Good grief. You social liberal folk are really reaching. Sorry, I will continue to be a social and fiscal Conservative. In other words, a real Conservative.
#31, No, you won´t find it in the Constitution, but you will find it explained numerous times by the men who established the Constitution.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
~ John Adams ~
[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people.
~ Gouverneur Morris ~
Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other.
~ James Wilson ~
Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.
~ George Washington ~
[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Being personally ok or not okay with something is irrelevent. Personally, I am socially conservative. Politically, I am not.
Marriage, Drugs, (Healthcare) is NOT in the Consitution and therefore should be dictated by the states. The Bible is NOT our constitution. However, the priciples in the Constitution are in alignment with Christianity - purposely so.
This isn´t rocket science folks.
Principles only matter when you apply them with equitable application and, you know, tolerance,
"What’s a non-extreme date to balance the budget, Bob? 2113?"
When they´ve taken care of everything, the words we read, the songs we sing, the pictures that give pleasure to our eyes. Haha! I think Jonah picked 2113 because it´s a hundred years from now, but left it in for us Rush fans.
Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed...so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.
No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
~ Patrick Henry ~
A corrupted people and republicanism cannot co-exist.
I don´t see any mention of specific social issues & their impact on the country´s financial health in Jonah´s column. Seems to me to be a criticism of those who are only moderately fiscally conservative vs. those who understand we are the brokest nation on earth (Steyn).
#15 admonishes gay marriage is none of my business, but criticizes the behavior of Mark Sanford & Bill Clinton. Why isn´t their infidelity just another "lifestyle choice" that only narrow-minded bigots who want to continue to lose elections would mention? If fiscal conservatism is all we care about & morality is irrelevant, bring on the cheaters, wife beaters, smokers, SUV drivers as candidates, who cares, right, as long as they want to cut the deficit?
DETROIT — In a ruling that could reverberate far beyond Detroit, a federal judge held on Tuesday that this battered city could formally enter bankruptcy and asserted that Detroit’s obligation to pay pensions in full was not untouchable. The judge, Steven W. Rhodes, dealt a major blow to the widely held belief that state laws preserve public pensions, and his ruling is likely to resonate in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and many other American cities where the rising cost of pensions has been crowding out spending for public schools, police departments and other services.
You should really just read the entire piece by Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin in today´s Washington Post, which is a great account of where things stand now with HealthCare.gov. These two paragraphs, taken together, jumped out at me especially in explaining the challenges that the website now faces. Paragraph one: The enrollment records for a significant portion of the Americans who have chosen health plans through the online federal insurance marketplace contain errors — generated by the computer system — that mean they might not get the coverage they’re expecting next month.
President Obama is striking a dangerous balance. Starting today, he must simultaneously refocus Americans on the potential benefits of Obamacare without shredding his credibility further by minimizing its flaws. That dilemma had White House officials twisted in knots Monday. On one hand, they acknowledged that the cornerstone federal website is not working as smoothly as it should. But you could hardly hear the disclaimer over the din of spin, as the White House launched an aggressive "offensive" from a defensive crouch. "Healthcare.gov met our self-imposed November 30th deadline and even as we continue to make improvements to the website, we´ll also remind
Some people who have managed to complete the burdensome and glitch-filled process of signing up for Obamacare are learning they are not really enrolled at all. "Obama administration officials acknowledged today that some of the roughly 126,000 Americans who completed the torturous online enrollment process in October and November might not be officially signed up with their selected issuer, even if the website has told them they are." Technical problems transferring information from the website to insurance companies have troubled the system since the program´s rollout. Experts report that the website appears to function properly, but in the back end of
President Obama intends to enroll for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday. “I know that he will, and has said that he will, or the White House has said that he will,” Carney said, “but I don’t have any update.” White House officials did not clarify whether the president’s interest is part of a public relations demonstration aimed at touting an improved HealthCare.gov website, or if Obama intends to alter his federally provided medical coverage. As with his predecessors, Obama’s health care is provided through the Defense Department as a federal
The House’s chief investigator says the FBI is stonewalling his inquiry into whether the agency and the Internal Revenue Service targeted conservative group True the Vote for special scrutiny, and Rep. Darrell E. Issa is now threatening subpoenas to pry loose the information from FBI Director James B. Comey Jr. Mr. Issa, California Republican, and Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, are leading the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s IRS inquiry. They also said the FBI is refusing to turn over any documents related to its own investigation into the IRS, which began in the days after an auditor’s report revealed
The Obamacare insurance marketplace is even more vulnerable to security breaches since the administration “fixed” Healthcare.gov, according to a cyber security expert.Health and Human Services (HHS) released a progress report on Sunday following its self-imposed Nov. 30 deadline to repair the website, saying that the “team has knocked more than 400 bug fixes and software improvements off the punch list.” The administration said that the “site capacity is stable at its intended level,” though the site continued to crash on Monday. The eight-page report made no mention of the website’s numerous security flaws, which experts say put Americans’ personal information at risk. “It
I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist. For me it was always Oswald by himself from the Texas School Book Depository and nothing in the intervening fifty years has disabused me of this notion. For the most part, I’m an Occam’s Razor kind of guy — the most obvious explanation is likely to be true. (Snip) To put it bluntly, Occam’s Razor has moved. Things that were once possibilities now seem almost certainties to me. Principal among those is that Obama’s academic records are perpetually unavailable for a reason — and that reason is most likely that they reveal
One of President Obama´s chief political assets has been his ability to excite young people like almost no politician in history. But the days of America´s youth fawning over the president are over. A new Harvard University Institute of Politics poll released Wednesday confirms what other surveys have shown in recent months: Millennials have soured on Obama so much this year that their opinion of him largely mirrors the American public´s. Even though Obama does not ever have to face another election, he should be worried about the findings for a couple of reasons, which we will dive into momentarily.
President Obama will cast growing income inequality and a decline in economic mobility as a “fundamental threat to the American dream” during a speech Wednesday in Washington. The speech will serve as an early preview for next year’s State of the Union address, according to a White House official, who said Obama would focus much of his energy over the next three years on the issue. “The decisions we make over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where, if you work hard, you can get ahead,” the official said.
Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers).(Snip)That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him
During a presentation at the White House in which President Barack Obama touted the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, the president declared that his signature health care reform law was not going to be repealed. This assertion led his administration members, his staff, and audience members to rise from their seats and give the president a standing ovation. Obama said that ACA opponents’ alternative to the health care reform law is to champion repeal and going back to the health care delivery system status quo ante. He specifically cited Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who he said was asked directly for
A woman has revealed how difficult it is to eat healthily and stay full when living off an average food stamp budget. Melinda Moulton, from Huntington, Vermont, was one of 200 people to take part in the 3Squares Challenge, which saw her living for a week on just $36 worth of food, or around $1.71 a meal. Opting to try and eat as healthily as possible, Ms Moulton resorted to cheap foods like yogurt for breakfast, two handfuls of peanuts for lunch and lentil stew for dinner, all of which left her unsatisfied.´I don´t know how people do it,´ said
[Video] President Obama on Wednesday declared that addressing income inequality would be the focus of “all” of the White House’s efforts “for the rest of my presidency.” In a sweeping address that touched on raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure and ending tax breaks for the wealthy, Obama warned that the American economy has become “profoundly unequal,” declaring economic mobility the “challenge of our time.” “The combined trends of increasing inequality and decreasing mobility pose a fundamental threat to the American dream, our way of life, and what we stand for around the globe,” he said in an hour-long