Why We Need a New Political Party

The abyss created by America’s recent culture wars only grows deeper as it divides the far-right Republicans and those who are conservative, but socially liberal. My own father, for example, is a lifelong Republican, yet he doesn’t support the socially conservative agenda being pushed by his party’s vice presidential and presidential candidates. The disparity between the two groups of conservatives has only grown wider with this election, and now, cautious fiscal conservatives are no longer represented by the party that has instead adopted a slash-and-burn approach to economic policy (i.e. McCain’s proposed spending freeze). In much the same way, fiscal conservatives/social liberals no longer have a political party that truly represents them. They are now forced to choose between two candidates who they don’t feel strongly about one way or another. I would recommend that independents and fiscal conservatives/social liberals form their own political party. Hopefully, the extremist philosophy of social conservatism would fade away election after election, leaving the U.S. without the ideological dead weight that inhibits societal progress.

McCain proposes yet another continuation of the Bush administration. His target? The Supreme Court.

   John McCain uses the word “elitist” like the Spanish Inquisition used the word “heretic”- assuming that each mention of the Word will make everyday people quake in fear with each tri-syllabic utterance. He’s been proved right.

    Barack Obama, former Chicago community organizer and son of a single mom is now the “elitist” whilst Hillary Clinton, the woman who admittedly hasn’t pumped her own gas in years, becomes the blue-collar queen.

    The word “elitist” is being used by John McCain to describe the judges that Obama or Clinton would favor for a Supreme Court nomination. He warns us of “judicial activists”- the horror!- that “don’t seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives.”

    While a Cheney aide was subpoenaed to testify to the questionable interrogation practices of the Bush administration, it hardly seems like the time to, as McCain would guarantee, have an entirely conservative Court.

 McCain has, during his political career, pushed for a lifting of the law that bars the death penalty from being used for criminals under 18 years of age. He vows that, as President, he would also push to overturn Roe v. Wade, and would likely be successful with an all-conservative Court at his command.

    Americans must take much into consideration when deciding who they want to elect as President. A little-discussed but imperative question is that of the nomination of Supreme Court Justices. John McCain, seeking to shore up conservative support, vows to model his Supreme Court appointees after George W. Bush‘s.

    We can be certain that the advent of an all-conservative court would drastically affect our way of life. We can be certain that harsher interrogation techniques would be more easily approved. We can be certain that there will be a battle over Roe v. Wade- and that the effects of that battle will affect women across America.

    It is not responsible for democrats, who may be frustrated by the eventual choice of nominee, to suddenly transfer their votes to John McCain. To do so would equal waging war on liberal ideas from inside the party.

Dear Santa: I’d like one stuffed elephant and one Hillary Clinton nomination. From: Karl Rove

Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, and Karl Rove heart Hillary Clinton. Why do they heart Hillary? Because they know that she’s the easiest opposition candidate to beat. The fact that they incessantly praise her “fighter” attitude and cockroach-like resilience is an obvious attempt to get her nominated. Karl Rove is just waiting in the wings, rubbing his hands gleefully as she continues to look tougher than Obama and Obama plays the nice guy. Why? Because for everything Obama’s got going against him, Hillary’s got worse things against her.  And the GOP knows it.

Exhibit A: Lots of people hate the Clintons. Lots. They’ve managed to amass a veritable army of anti-Clintonites through the years, and the GOP is just waiting to exploit it. Republican and former Congressman Joe Scarborough says “I just love Hillary” and means “I just want John McCain to have a decent shot at winning this thing.”

Exhibit B: A list of the donors for HRC’s presidential campaign includes several questionable persons who were involved in the 1990’s Democratic Party fundraising scandal that tarnished her husband’s record. Marvin Rosen, the former Democratic National Committee finance chairman whose efforts to reward six-figure party donors with attendance at White House coffees and overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom became the focal point of Senate hearings into fundraising abuses… William Stuart Price, the Oklahoma oilman also on the list, shocked a courtroom in 1995 when he detailed how his former gas company had tried to “gain influence” with the Clinton administration by providing $160,000 in money and membership in a ritzy Washington golf club to the son of a Cabinet secretary. Price’s testimony became the focal point of a criminal investigation of Ron Brown, then commerce secretary and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. The inquiry ended with the conviction of Price’s former bosses, Nora and Gene Lum, for making illegal donations.

Exhibit C: Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, according to exit polls. Sudden need for the blue? Hardly. Since McCain became the obvious nominee, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. Egged on by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama. My own Republican ex-boyfriend was tempted to vote for her in Wisconsin for precisely those reasons.

In conclusion, don’t let the Republicans’ “respect” for Hillary fool you. If Karl Rove’s praising a Democrat, there’s something in it for him- and the GOP.

Calling out McCain

While the Democrats finish their ever-winding path to the Convention, I will take the opportunity to call out John McCain on his budget plan et al that he plans to enact as President.

John, I know you’re getting a free ride now, but don’t think that I don’t see what kind of crazy talk you’re propogating.

For those of you who don’t know, John McCain plans to borrow almost 2 trillion dollars, cut spending on frivolous things like medical research, and give 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts over eight years to the rich and to big corporations in an attempt to achieve a “trickle down” effect. While our rich and poor are more polarized than ever and as the middle class rapidly disintegrates, I don’t think giving the rich even more money and creating an even greater disparity between rich and poor will help. We need to fight for the middle class, and that is one fight in which John McCain can’t call himself a hero.

While the Democrats argue over whether or not Obama’s an America-hater (who, because he hates America so much, wants to be the President), or whether or not Hillary’s cold, hard ambition will force the hands of the Superdelegates, John McCain is advocating another four years of the Bush tax cuts. “President” Bush is the only president in America’s history to offer a tax cut during a war. Along with the trillions of dollars that McCain plans to spend, he plans on continuing to spend $12-$15 billion a month in the Iraq war. Where is the fiscal responsibility that we need in a President? My bet’s on the Democrats, but you’d never know for all the bickering they’re doing at the moment.

Little known by many is the fact that if we were to be attacked on our own soil, our troops are spread so thin already that we wouldn’t be able to effectively deal with it. The war in Afghanistan has been virtually ignored while we went gallivanting off to Baghdad and they don’t have enough troops to do the work that needs to be done there- the work that should have been done long ago. We still haven’t found Osama Bin Laden. We’re not safer than we were seven or eight years ago. What are we winning, then?

We’re not winning. Many a Republican has told me that there’s no way that we can possibly back out now, and that it’s just not going to happen.

Firstly, what kind of mindset is that? “Nothing will ever change” doesn’t ever facilitate positive change. Ever.

Secondly, the Democrats aren’t advocating a careless, immediate withdrawal of troops. They’re advocating a well-planned, strategic antiblunder that would bring the troops home over time. The Republicans love to caricature the Democrats as wimps who want to surrender just because most of the population is against the war. The thing is, it’s not a question of “winning” or “surrendering,” but a question of responsibility. Should we be responsible for the rebuilding of Iraq when their government is rolling in money and they seem completely unwilling to help themselves? No. Should we be fiscally responsible and not spend $12-$15 billion a month on a war that we won’t win? Yes. Should we allow the conservative tactic of dividing and polarizing us as a nation to make us bullheadedly continue this disgrace of a war? No.

John McCain and his pointless repetition of “we can’t just leave” complete the goal of dividing and polarizing us, because in reality, nobody is saying that we should “just leave.” I think, however, that we should “just be responsible” and get our collective intelligence back by ending the war. We are being hurt by this war in ways that he refuses to acknowledge. You’d think a war hero would understand the world a little better, just as you’d want a President who understands the economy. McCain is neither.

Published in: on April 25, 2008 at 5:54 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , ,