Over the course of the past few days, we, as taxpayers and Americans, have come to find out that a portion of the government bailout money that was given to AIG has been given out to some of their executives, to the tune of $165mm (give or take a few million). 73 of their executives stood to gain a bonus of at least $ 1mm.
Please don't get me wrong - I am not against bonuses. I believe that they should be paid to people when a business is profitable, when people are doing a good job, when it is deserved.
However, I do believer it was unwise for AIG to pay these bonuses to their executives. Was it illegal? No. Were they contractually obligated to pay them? From what I understand, yes they were. Could those executives have chosen to turn down the bonuses? Yes. Many things could have happened better. But, what other companies have also paid this same kind of bonus from the government bailout funds that they received? Apparently, they paid enough to Democrats over the years to keep it quiet. How many of Obama's advisors received bonuses in the past from firms that are now failing? Many of them.
My problem, though, is not necessarily with AIG. My problem is with the government officials that allowed for this to happen in the first place. The bailout, first and foremost, was wrong and should never have happened. It is not the government's role to underwrite industry. By handing out money (that they did not have), they opened themselves up for this kind of mismanagement. And let us not forget, they inserted the clause into the bill that allowed for these bonuses to be paid in the first place. Had Congress been allowed to read the bill, maybe more would have voted against it had they known this clause was inserted.
Consider some of the principle characters in Congress (and Washington) that helped lead the charge on this bailout: Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter, and the Obama administration. It is my contention that they had this amendment inserted into the bailout bill in order to create this anger we are seeing right now. They now have the opprotunity to harness the anger of the American people and use it as an excuse to have more government intervention into places where it should not be. The faux outrage shown by Congress (mostly Democrats, with a few Republicans joining in) is nauseating. They knew this was going to happen when they passed the bill. They knew well before the bonuses were paid that these bonuses would become public, yet they allowed it to happen. They wanted a political football to kick around to try and make themselves look good.
My problem is that there are too many people out there who are too dense to see this. They are too lazy to think about it and put the puzzle pieces together. They cannot see it as a government ploy to give the government more power. They see it as being the fault of AIG with no government responsibility whatsoever. People are so reliant on government now that they think government is the cure to everything.
Now, Congress wants to tax the bonuses to the tune of 90%. I am not sure that this is even legal (and Congress knows that), but they are going to try. They want the outrage to be focused on AIG, not on them. After all, government is the one that is causing things to fall apart. They need a scapegoat. Magicians would call it slight-of-hand. In football, it is referred to as a misdirection. In the Democrat Party, it is called blaming someone else.
Barney 'Banking Queen' Frank said in committee the other day that since it is his money, the government's money, the taxpayer's money, that we ought to go in and take it back. He wants the names of those who received bonus money to be released, regardless of the safety of those involved. Many on the loony left are threatening violence against these people. He does not care about safety. He only wants people to think he is being heroic in getting this money back. Many are too caught up in the anger of the moment to realize that this fruitcake helped cause the whole crisis in the first place.
Ultimately, the money was given to AIG (and other companies) to help them continue to do business and remain afloat so as to avoid bankruptcy. However, the government wants to tell them how to run their business (as if the government knew what it was doing). This is the problem you have when you allow government to get involved. They are not content watching from the sidelines. They want to run the show. Since they are handing out the money, they want to tell you how to spend it. This leads to socialism, which is the ultimate goal of these people.
This is the reason some governors do not want to accept stimulus money. It comes with too many strings attached. The governors know that by accepting the money, they will then accept the federal government's power to come in and tell them how to spend it. Who would know better how to spend moeny for the benefit of the state? Would it be the states? Or would it be the federal government? The answer is obvious.
It is time that we, as Americans and as taxpayers, say that enough is enough. Bailouts do not work. While it is not good that companies go bankrupt or go out of business, it has to be allowed to happen. Government intervention will not fix things. The strange thing about a free market is that it has the ability to heal itself. That is what happened in the 80's. That is what happened in the years after 9/11. It can happen again. In an age of instant gratification, we are not willing to be patient and allow for the free market to fix itself. We want it now, and people are unfortunately willing to give the government more power to try to fix things. Once the government has that power, they are not going to give it back. It is up to us to get it back from the government.
So I say to you: Get out and nominate conservative candidates that know the power belongs to the Americans, not to the government. Vote those clowns out of office that think government is the answer. Do your part. I will surely do mine, starting with being active in campaigns to unseat my Congressman and my Senator. Remember, the Constitution starts out "We the people...". It does not say "We the government.."
Friday, March 20, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Republicans and NASCAR: Are they heading down the same path?
As I was reflecting on the current political climate that we find ourselves immersed in today, I started to ponder the future of the once-great (and hopefully soon-to-be-great again) Republican Party. It has been much to my chagrin that we have allowed others to define the party of Lincoln and Reagan. Some of these defining our party are (but not limited to) the moderates and liberals in our own party, the Democrat Party, and the media. I could not help but be drawn to several similarities between the Republican Party and one of my favorite sports: NASCAR.
The first thing that may come to your mind when seeing this is that they (Republicans and NASCAR fans alike) are all a bunch of southern, redneck, racist, uneducated, Bible-thumping fools. However, that is not the case. While there may be a couple in the ranks that have some of these traits, we do not espouse them. If you look into supporters of any cause, I am sure you can find some questionable characters.
However, as I thought about this more, I saw some striking similarities.
1. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican voter are greatly misunderstood. The NASCAR fan takes his sport seriously. He enjoys it. It is practically a way of life. To him, there is nothing wrong with a car using a lot of gas and going in circles to see who can get around the track the most times before the checkered flag falls. It is a race of man and machine vs. other men and their machines. It is the thrill of the race, not the yearning for crashes that motivate these core fans. The fact that others may disdain their sport is of no concern to them. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican takes his politics seriously. It is who we are. It is how we live. It is our personal beliefs that shape our ideology. It is not our party that shapes the way we believe. We are not motivated by power. Rather, our motivation is based on principles of right and wrong. The fact that others disagree with us does not bother us.
2. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are passionate about what they believe. NASCAR fans are passionate about their favorite drivers, about car manufacturers, about the type of tracks they enjoy the most, about the rules and rule changes. They have a passion for their sport and they treat it with respect. Likewise, the core, conservative Republicans have a passion for their beliefs, whether it is lower taxes, no abortions, no gay marriage, less government in our daily lives. We do not compromise on these things in order to be liked.
3. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are fiercely pro-American and extremely patriotic. I have only had the chance to attend one Nascar race in my life (Richmond, September 2006). What I saw at that time were not only Gordon fans or Tony Stewart fans or Dale Earnhardt Jr. fans. I saw fans of America. I saw people who were not only flying the flags of their favorite drivers, but they were flying American flags. When it came time for the national anthem, everyone stood up, almost everyone removed his hat, many sang along. These are folks who care about this country and honor those who fight for it. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican cherishes this country and the freedoms we enjoy because we live here. It is not our desire to see the government take over our lives. Rather, we enjoy the freedom that our founding fathers passed on to us. People in this country should have the freedom to becomes everything they want to be. We salute the flag, we salute those who fought for our country, we honor those who gave their lives so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that we have.
4. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican believe our problems lie in this fact: We have moved away from our roots and those things that put us where we are today. I have been frustrated with NASCAR over the past several years as they have been moving towards making NASCAR into a glorified IROC series. Everyone races basically the same car. There is no room for ingenuity. Everything has to be within certain specifications, so there is almost no room for someone to gain an advantage through the use of creative engineering. While I see the need for some basic guidelines, it is now out of hand. The other thing that NASCAR has done that has hurt (in my opinion) is their effort to reach out to people who do not like NASCAR and use gimmicks to bring them on board as fans. While there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the non-fan, don’t compromise your core principles in order to pull in these non-fans. You risk losing the core fan by doing so. NASCAR needs to remember where it came from. Likewise, the Republican Party has allowed non-members to come in and re-shape it. The leaders over the past several years have compromised on core beliefs (mainly government spending and growing the size of government) in order to reach out and bring more people into the fold. Look where it has taken the parts: into the toilet. The party no longer has control in Congress or in the White House. We ran a candidate for President in 2008 who was the ultimate compromiser, and it did not help out at all. We got away from our roots. We forgot what made the Republican Party a great party.
As a NASCAR fan and a Republican, I believe that we need to stop allowing others to define us. I do not define those who I do not agree with. They are able to define themselves. They don’t need my help. We have to go out and define ourselves and let others know what we believe. We need to let others know that we do not appreciate their efforts to re-define us. We also need to let them know how many of us there are out here that do not appreciate what they are trying to do to us. Having these beliefs is one thing. Standing up for them is another. It is time that we go from simply having these beliefs to standing up and fighting for them.
The first thing that may come to your mind when seeing this is that they (Republicans and NASCAR fans alike) are all a bunch of southern, redneck, racist, uneducated, Bible-thumping fools. However, that is not the case. While there may be a couple in the ranks that have some of these traits, we do not espouse them. If you look into supporters of any cause, I am sure you can find some questionable characters.
However, as I thought about this more, I saw some striking similarities.
1. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican voter are greatly misunderstood. The NASCAR fan takes his sport seriously. He enjoys it. It is practically a way of life. To him, there is nothing wrong with a car using a lot of gas and going in circles to see who can get around the track the most times before the checkered flag falls. It is a race of man and machine vs. other men and their machines. It is the thrill of the race, not the yearning for crashes that motivate these core fans. The fact that others may disdain their sport is of no concern to them. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican takes his politics seriously. It is who we are. It is how we live. It is our personal beliefs that shape our ideology. It is not our party that shapes the way we believe. We are not motivated by power. Rather, our motivation is based on principles of right and wrong. The fact that others disagree with us does not bother us.
2. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are passionate about what they believe. NASCAR fans are passionate about their favorite drivers, about car manufacturers, about the type of tracks they enjoy the most, about the rules and rule changes. They have a passion for their sport and they treat it with respect. Likewise, the core, conservative Republicans have a passion for their beliefs, whether it is lower taxes, no abortions, no gay marriage, less government in our daily lives. We do not compromise on these things in order to be liked.
3. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican are fiercely pro-American and extremely patriotic. I have only had the chance to attend one Nascar race in my life (Richmond, September 2006). What I saw at that time were not only Gordon fans or Tony Stewart fans or Dale Earnhardt Jr. fans. I saw fans of America. I saw people who were not only flying the flags of their favorite drivers, but they were flying American flags. When it came time for the national anthem, everyone stood up, almost everyone removed his hat, many sang along. These are folks who care about this country and honor those who fight for it. Likewise, the core, conservative Republican cherishes this country and the freedoms we enjoy because we live here. It is not our desire to see the government take over our lives. Rather, we enjoy the freedom that our founding fathers passed on to us. People in this country should have the freedom to becomes everything they want to be. We salute the flag, we salute those who fought for our country, we honor those who gave their lives so that we may continue to enjoy the freedoms that we have.
4. The NASCAR fan and the core, conservative Republican believe our problems lie in this fact: We have moved away from our roots and those things that put us where we are today. I have been frustrated with NASCAR over the past several years as they have been moving towards making NASCAR into a glorified IROC series. Everyone races basically the same car. There is no room for ingenuity. Everything has to be within certain specifications, so there is almost no room for someone to gain an advantage through the use of creative engineering. While I see the need for some basic guidelines, it is now out of hand. The other thing that NASCAR has done that has hurt (in my opinion) is their effort to reach out to people who do not like NASCAR and use gimmicks to bring them on board as fans. While there is nothing wrong with reaching out to the non-fan, don’t compromise your core principles in order to pull in these non-fans. You risk losing the core fan by doing so. NASCAR needs to remember where it came from. Likewise, the Republican Party has allowed non-members to come in and re-shape it. The leaders over the past several years have compromised on core beliefs (mainly government spending and growing the size of government) in order to reach out and bring more people into the fold. Look where it has taken the parts: into the toilet. The party no longer has control in Congress or in the White House. We ran a candidate for President in 2008 who was the ultimate compromiser, and it did not help out at all. We got away from our roots. We forgot what made the Republican Party a great party.
As a NASCAR fan and a Republican, I believe that we need to stop allowing others to define us. I do not define those who I do not agree with. They are able to define themselves. They don’t need my help. We have to go out and define ourselves and let others know what we believe. We need to let others know that we do not appreciate their efforts to re-define us. We also need to let them know how many of us there are out here that do not appreciate what they are trying to do to us. Having these beliefs is one thing. Standing up for them is another. It is time that we go from simply having these beliefs to standing up and fighting for them.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
It is time for conservatives to stand up for what we believe
Why do we, as Republicans and conservatives, allow the media and the liberal establishment to define us? They tell us who should lead us, what we should believe, who we should include, and the list goes on-and-on-and-on.
The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.
The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.
Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.
Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.
The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.
It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.
An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).
Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.
The latest chapter comes from the speech that Rush Limbaugh delivered at CPAC on Saturday evening. After reading the majority of his speech, I must say that I agree with him. We have allowed moderates to come into leadership roles within the Republican Party and tear us down. They have led us astray. They have tried to make the party into Democrat-lite.
The Republican Party, at its core, is conservative. The people who are the base of the party are conservative people. Moderates within the party have a hard time swallowing this bitter pill. They think we ought to reach out to more moderates and liberals and broaden the base of the party.
Well, that is what has put us in the position that we are in today. We ran a moderate for President in 2008, because we thought that is what was needed to win the election. It didn’t work. You cannot out-liberal a liberal. The liberals want people like McCain, Specter, Snowe, et al. running the party because that will guarantee that they stay in power for many years to come.
Conservatism came to prominence in the 80’s with Ronald Reagan, then in the 90’s with Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. When conservatism is on the ticket, it wins. This is why liberals want the moderate wing of the Republican Party to win. They are scared of the masses that are conservative, and they know that if we have a conservative nominee, that he/she has a good chance of winning.
The mainstream media and the DNC are all over the Rush Limbaugh speech and his criticism of Michael Steele. They are trying to paint Rush Limbaugh as the problem with America. He is dividing us. He is mean-spirited. He is harming the bipartisanship that the President is trying to inflict us with. They want to make him the evil person in all this country, to help distract from the way that they are destroying this country. It is Rush Limbaugh that wants us to have the freedoms that the Founding Fathers intended us to have. With that freedom comes the ability to become whatever we want to be. The Democrats want us to rely on government for everything. They want us to be dependent on them, which will entrench them in power for years to come.
It is time to stand up against these liars, these divisive nutjobs that run the Democrat Party. They are the ones constantly playing the race card. They are the ones constantly trying to divide us (whether its based on class, gender, race, or anything else). They are the ones that want us to be totally reliant on the government. They are the ones who are held captive by the left-wing, anti-capitalism, anti-America fringe base that would rather see us live under the flag of the U.N than under the flag of the U.S.A.
An old adage (that some say comes from Alexis de Tocqueville) says that “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” Those of us who are conservative understand that this goodness does not come from the government and politicians in Washington. Rather, it comes from the goodness of its people. It is not our concern what other countries think of us. If they disdain our greatness as a superpower, that is their problem (but they sure know who to come to when they are in need).
Anyway, it is time for us to fight back. It is time to fight for conservative causes, for conservative candidates, for conservatism in general. We have seen throughout our history as a country that conservatism can beat liberalism. We also know that there are a lot of conservatives that are fed up with the way we are defined by the liberal media establishment, and liberals in general. It is time to fight for what we believe in. I support Rush Limbaugh. I support conservative Republicans. But most of all, I support what is best for America. Liberalism is not good for us. It will lead to our defeat. We need to avoid it at all costs.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The effort to re-write recent history
It is my contention that the education system that is in place in today’s public schools no longer teaches people how to think. Rather, they teach people what to think. The schools want to teach their own revised version of history instead of allowing people to find out for themselves the events that actually did happen.
Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.
Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.
Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.
When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.
However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.
All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.
Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.
Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.
This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.
Case in point is a letter-to-the-editor in today’s edition of the Patriot News. The paper contains a letter from some uninformed idiot concerning his view of how history has unfolded over the last 16 years. First, he claims that the Republicans squandered the Clinton budget surpluses of the late 90’s. If this dolt knew anything about history, he would know that it was not until 1994 and the Contract with America that these surpluses started to become a reality. Clinton did not want the budget that the Republicans passed. However, he did not have a choice. He signed it, the economy flourished, the Republican-controlled Congress actually controlled spending, and there were surpluses. Yet, Clinton takes the credit for something he did not really want and was basically forced to sign.
Next, this guy blames the federal budget deficit on Republicans, as if no Democrats helped out. After several years of being in control of Congress, many Republicans let the power go to their heads and started to govern like Democrats. They earmarked budget bills beyond comprehension. They did not look to control government spending. They sought out every chance to befriend Democrat ideas instead of standing up for conservative principles. Gov. Bobby Jindal was right when he said that the Republicans lost their way. They forgot the core principles that got them elected in the first place.
Then there was 9/11. While it may not be politically correct to point this out, that did change this country. It put an emphasis on defense and intelligence, which are 2 budget areas that had been decreased significantly over the years leading up to 2001. That was a time of pain for the airline industry. In fact, it hurt many areas of our immense industrial complex for quite some time.
When Congress passed a tax cut measure and President Bush signed it, a time of economic prosperity then followed. For the next several years, the economy flourished. In fact, even with lower tax rates, the revenues flowing into the federal treasury actually increased. But how can this be? It is due to the fact that people were able to keep more of their money and spend it as they saw fit. This spending allowed employers to hire more people given the higher consumer demand. Companies prospered and were able to pay their employees more. It was Reagan’s trickle-down economics at its finest.
However, the Republican leaders in Congress saw this influx of money to the treasury and couldn’t control themselves. They just had to go out and spend it. And the Democrats want to blame all of the deficit issues on the Republicans. Well, they did nothing to stop the spending. In fact, they helped out even more. They did not want to cut any federal program. They wanted to continue the spending orgy.
All of these excesses, combined with scandals but some top-tier Republicans, led to them being removed from power. Keep in mind, they were ousted mainly by Republicans, whether it was in a primary loss or Republicans not voting for them in general elections. We knew that the Democrats did the same things. They were just able to hide their corruption, with the willing help of many in the media.
Now, the few conservative Republicans in Congress are now speaking up and saying that we need to stop this spending spree. These conservatives were always there, they were just shut out of the process. It is amazing, though, that everyone says conservatives should lighten up and move to the middle in order to remain relevant. However, it is those moderates that are no longer serving in Congress. The conservatives are still there. So, to the chagrin of many, maybe it is the conservatives that are indeed the core of the Republican Party.
Democrats are now in power in Congress. They blame the Republicans for the budget deficit (and to a large degree, this is justified criticism). However, they should know that deficit spending is not a good thing. It does not work. If it was wrong for Republicans to ring up deficits year after year, how can they then justify ringing up much larger deficits in order to get us back on the right track? It makes no sense. Besides, government will not look to decrease spending in the future. Once they start the spending, they are not able or willing to decrease spending in the future.
This brings us full circle. How do people buy into this idea of larger deficits in the short-term (and they will continue into the future with the unrestrained spending we now face) being good for the economy? Are people this blind to what is going on? It is because they are being told what to think, not taught how to think.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Defeating Arlen Specter, Part II
Arlen Specter is now on a save-my-face tour, defending his vote for the President's stimulus bill. I am astounded at his patent disregard for the people that voted for him. As conservatives, we knew we could not consistently rely on a good vote from him, but he did come through occasionally.
Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.
On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)
While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.
Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.
If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.
Many in the Republican Party are ready to throw this turncoat overboard. No longer does he stand for the things that made the Republican Party great. He wants bigger government, greater government intervention in all aspects of our life, the right to an abortion, and to be the new maverick of the U.S. Senate. He wants to be the center of attention.
On Monday, Specter will be at the White House, meeting with the President and members of the Cabinet. According to Specter, "...it's very good for Pennsylvania that I have a seat at the table. No doubt, I consider each issue on its own merits. I don't trade votes. And if you're willing to think about things, if you have no commitment to ideology, you're in demand. People want to talk to you....I have a seat at the table. It's a hot seat." (note: emphasis added by me)
While I have nothing against meeting with the President or members of the other party, to do so in order to identify more closely with them and to compromise your own personal beliefs in order to win their affection is wrong. And while I might agree that it is good to take each issue on its own merits and not trade votes, the fact that he has no commitment to ideology is difficult to comprehend. Basically, what he is saying to me is that he does not really believe in anything. He will do whatever is politically expedient for his own benefit. Forget making decisions based on what is right and wrong, it is all a matter of what it will take to be re-elected.
Arlen Specter is not placing his votes in the Senate with the best-interests of the people of Pennsylvania in mind. He is voting based on political expediency. That is not what we need. We need someone who cares about the people of Pennsylvania, that will vote the way the people of Pennsylvania want him to vote.
If Specter is defeated in the primary, Republicans and conservatives may lose the Senate seat to a Democrat. After all, Republicans are outnumbered by Democrats to the tune of about 1.2 million people in PA. However, we will not really have lost anything since we have had a wannabe Democrat in the Senate for over 20 years. I will actively continue to help any Republican defeat this man.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Defeat Arlen Specter in 2010
Arlen Specter is the senior Senator from the state of Pennsylvania. He came to have that seat due to the untimely death of Sen. John Heinz in an airplane crash back in the 80's. Before that, we was a Congressman from the Philadelphia area.
Sen. Specter labels himself as a Republican. However, in practice, he is far from it. If you look up RINO in the dictionary, you will probably find his photo. He is pro-abortion. He was an opponent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anything that is conservative is everything that he is against.
The final straw for me was his backing of the President's stimulus package last week. He was one of the 3 Republicrat senators who helped to craft a 'compromise' bill. It did not matter to him how many of his constituents were against the bill (and we contacted him to let him know this). It did not matter to him that this is a bad bill and a bad idea. He was looking out for himself and what he thought he needed to do to be re-elected come November 2010.
Several months ago, it was rumored that Chris Matthews, the clown that hosts MSNBC's Hardball, would run against him for his Senate seat. However, Matthews chose not to do this. I think he knew he did not stand a chance, given Specter's liberal credentials.
In 2004, Specter was running for re-election. At that time, President Bush and Sen. Santorum (PA's junior Senator at the time) both stuck out their necks and supported him for re-election to the Senate, and he won. But at what cost? President Bush was not even sworn in for his second term when Senator Specter started taking shots at him. When Sen. Santorum ran for re-election in 2006, Specter did not support him with the same veracity that Santorum showed to Specter.
He continues to sell out the Republican Party (specifically, conservatives), as well as the people of Pennsylvania. Well, enough is enough. It is time for the Senator to be defeated by a conservative who has the best interests of the people of PA as his/her foremost priority. I do not care about bi-partisanship. I care about doing what is right. Should it happens that doing what is right is not politically correct or expedient, I do not care. I want someone who chooses to do what is right over what is expedient.
It is my hope and prayer that Pennsylvania has a good conservative candidate to run against Arlen Specter. In the coming months, we shall see who comes to the forefront of this race. I know that my energy will be spent trying to defeat our current Senator.
Sen. Specter labels himself as a Republican. However, in practice, he is far from it. If you look up RINO in the dictionary, you will probably find his photo. He is pro-abortion. He was an opponent of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anything that is conservative is everything that he is against.
The final straw for me was his backing of the President's stimulus package last week. He was one of the 3 Republicrat senators who helped to craft a 'compromise' bill. It did not matter to him how many of his constituents were against the bill (and we contacted him to let him know this). It did not matter to him that this is a bad bill and a bad idea. He was looking out for himself and what he thought he needed to do to be re-elected come November 2010.
Several months ago, it was rumored that Chris Matthews, the clown that hosts MSNBC's Hardball, would run against him for his Senate seat. However, Matthews chose not to do this. I think he knew he did not stand a chance, given Specter's liberal credentials.
In 2004, Specter was running for re-election. At that time, President Bush and Sen. Santorum (PA's junior Senator at the time) both stuck out their necks and supported him for re-election to the Senate, and he won. But at what cost? President Bush was not even sworn in for his second term when Senator Specter started taking shots at him. When Sen. Santorum ran for re-election in 2006, Specter did not support him with the same veracity that Santorum showed to Specter.
He continues to sell out the Republican Party (specifically, conservatives), as well as the people of Pennsylvania. Well, enough is enough. It is time for the Senator to be defeated by a conservative who has the best interests of the people of PA as his/her foremost priority. I do not care about bi-partisanship. I care about doing what is right. Should it happens that doing what is right is not politically correct or expedient, I do not care. I want someone who chooses to do what is right over what is expedient.
It is my hope and prayer that Pennsylvania has a good conservative candidate to run against Arlen Specter. In the coming months, we shall see who comes to the forefront of this race. I know that my energy will be spent trying to defeat our current Senator.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
More thoughts on the so-called economic stimulus package
Well, it looks like a few RINOs have caved in and made a deal with the Democrats in the Senate. They have reduced the $827 billion stimulus plan to $780 billion, a whopping $47 billion decrease for those of you who are not very good at simple subtraction.
This so-called compromise was reached last night. If this is not annoying enough, Senate Majority Leader (and the most partisan, hateful, spiteful, mean, bitter, ornery man in the Senate) Harry Reid wanted to bring it up for a vote last night, before anyone had a chance to look through it and scrutinize the spending. He says it is too important to wait. I am going to paraphrase the quote I heard on the news today, "We can tell who the people are that want to get work done around here."
Excuse me!?!?!? Is it wrong to want to read and review a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers (yes, it will cost us - it is not free) at least $ 780,000,000,000 (it will probably cost much more)? I don't think so. It would be irresponsible not to look at it.
He does not want people to read it for fear that we will find out what spending they want to attach to it. They want to fund all of their pet projects and basically buy votes in order to maintain their power base. This is sad and pathetic. It is immoral. In fact, it is almost criminal.
Many people are starting to see that government spending will not get us out of economic trouble. It will only dig us deeper. The public is generally against more government spending (as can be seen in recent polls), especially in the form of this so-called stimulus. So why are these poll-driven, self-serving, so-called public servants seeking to pass this bill anyway? It is very early in this congressional term, and they hope people forget it before the elections. They want it to be said of them that they did something about it. In their eyes, it is better to do something, even though it will be a colossal failure, than it would be to do nothing at all.
The same people that complained about excessive budget deficits during the Bush years are no where to be found now. Why? Because the deficit never really mattered to them in the first place. They only care about power and maintaining that power.
They do not want more tax cuts because they know tax cuts work. They worked in the 80's under Reagan and they worked in the early parts of this decade under Bush. Tax rates were decreased and revenue to the treasury increased. Tax cuts actually brought more money into the treasury because people had more money to spend, businesses had more money to spend, so more people were employed. People made more money. The government was not standing in the way of prosperity (at least, not as much as they are now).
When you have a chance, read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The Democrats are equivalent to the pigs. They ran the farmers out of town because the farmers were abusing the animals. The pigs took control of the farm and became the leaders. The people who support the Democrats are like the horse. They see the rules changing (there is never a massive change at any one time, only little changes). Over time, these changes became diametrically opposed to the original intent of the rules. However, over time, the pigs became just like the farmers that they ran out of town. It is sad to say that Orwell's thesis is coming true in today's society.
The Democrats do not want the electorate to have more power. Rather, they want us to dependent on government to get us out of this. They want us to be reliant on government in all aspects of our life, as that will keep them in power. This is not what the founding fathers intended. And we should not allow it.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know that you are against. Demand that they vote against this. Let them know we do not want socialism in this country. It has not worked anywhere else, and we want no part of it. Do not accept an answer from them that they are going to vote for this. They work for you.
This so-called compromise was reached last night. If this is not annoying enough, Senate Majority Leader (and the most partisan, hateful, spiteful, mean, bitter, ornery man in the Senate) Harry Reid wanted to bring it up for a vote last night, before anyone had a chance to look through it and scrutinize the spending. He says it is too important to wait. I am going to paraphrase the quote I heard on the news today, "We can tell who the people are that want to get work done around here."
Excuse me!?!?!? Is it wrong to want to read and review a bill that is going to cost the taxpayers (yes, it will cost us - it is not free) at least $ 780,000,000,000 (it will probably cost much more)? I don't think so. It would be irresponsible not to look at it.
He does not want people to read it for fear that we will find out what spending they want to attach to it. They want to fund all of their pet projects and basically buy votes in order to maintain their power base. This is sad and pathetic. It is immoral. In fact, it is almost criminal.
Many people are starting to see that government spending will not get us out of economic trouble. It will only dig us deeper. The public is generally against more government spending (as can be seen in recent polls), especially in the form of this so-called stimulus. So why are these poll-driven, self-serving, so-called public servants seeking to pass this bill anyway? It is very early in this congressional term, and they hope people forget it before the elections. They want it to be said of them that they did something about it. In their eyes, it is better to do something, even though it will be a colossal failure, than it would be to do nothing at all.
The same people that complained about excessive budget deficits during the Bush years are no where to be found now. Why? Because the deficit never really mattered to them in the first place. They only care about power and maintaining that power.
They do not want more tax cuts because they know tax cuts work. They worked in the 80's under Reagan and they worked in the early parts of this decade under Bush. Tax rates were decreased and revenue to the treasury increased. Tax cuts actually brought more money into the treasury because people had more money to spend, businesses had more money to spend, so more people were employed. People made more money. The government was not standing in the way of prosperity (at least, not as much as they are now).
When you have a chance, read the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. The Democrats are equivalent to the pigs. They ran the farmers out of town because the farmers were abusing the animals. The pigs took control of the farm and became the leaders. The people who support the Democrats are like the horse. They see the rules changing (there is never a massive change at any one time, only little changes). Over time, these changes became diametrically opposed to the original intent of the rules. However, over time, the pigs became just like the farmers that they ran out of town. It is sad to say that Orwell's thesis is coming true in today's society.
The Democrats do not want the electorate to have more power. Rather, they want us to dependent on government to get us out of this. They want us to be reliant on government in all aspects of our life, as that will keep them in power. This is not what the founding fathers intended. And we should not allow it.
Call your representatives and senators and let them know that you are against. Demand that they vote against this. Let them know we do not want socialism in this country. It has not worked anywhere else, and we want no part of it. Do not accept an answer from them that they are going to vote for this. They work for you.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Economic Ignorance of our President
President Obama was speaking to the sycophantic Democrats that we call our Congressman and Senators (and the media) last night. News clips show him being full of angst at the slow path his economic recovery plan is taking through the U.S. Senate. He wants this bill to be passed swiftly and put into operation as soon as possible.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
He showed faux outrage at the deficit, blaming it all in his predecessor. President Bush may not have been as fiscally responsible as I would have preferred him to be, but the budget deficit and the resulting national debt can be put squarely at the feet of Congress. It is this branch of the legislature that spends the government's money. It is not the President that pays the bills. Try to find a government program to cut or throw out completely. It is impossible. The Democrats will not allow it. This is the reason we run up deficits. So why were these Democrats cheering at the President's statements about inheriting a huge debt? These same people were responsible for that debt. Also, how can we do this thing debt free? If we are trillions in debt, how can we throw another trillion in the mix and not come out with more debt?
He criticizes his critics for calling this a spending bill. He says that a stimulus is spending. The problem is that a growth stimulus should allow for growth. This bill is only about government spending. It only creates government jobs, not free market jobs. It grows government. Therefore, it is a spending bill. It is not stimulating anything but Congressmen who see the pork barrel rolling towards their district.
He blames the prior administration for the economic woes. The last time I checked, we had 5 years of unprecedented prosperity under President Bush. His tax cuts lifted this economy after the 9/11 attacks. It was not government spending on social programs that lifted us economically. Rather, it was allowing people to keep their hard earned money and spending it they way they wanted to spend it. It did not come from more government programs and government spending (except for an increase in national defense spending).
Economic problems came along because banks were lending money to people who had no business getting money, they were extending credit to people who did not deserve it. Why did they do this? Because of Congress. The banks were basically forced to do this. This is what caused problems. It was government intervention into industry that caused the problem.
Why does this need to be approved now? Why does the President not want people to question this bill? It is because he does not want people to see what is in the bill. Then they will really be against it. If they can get it through quickly, then they can keep a lot of the earmarks out the news. Isn't it funny how debate and disagreement with the President were a good thing when Bush was in office, but it is now sacrilegious now that Obama is President?
One more thing: Where is the bipartisanship? I thought this President was going to take unprecedented steps to reach out. It did not sound that way last week. He sounded like a man who thought it was his God-given right to have everyone agree with him. He is the only one who can be right. he could get this passed without any Republicans voting for it. His problem is that people in his own party will not even vote for this. That's pretty bad.
So I say to the President: Grow Up and Act Presidential! Your predecessor never acted like this in 8 years, and it only took you 2 weeks. You are nothing but a Chicago thug, a politician who cannot get his way on the merits of his argument so he needs to try to bully others into agreeing with you. You say you were going to listen to opposing views (granted, you never said you would compromise, but you would at least listen). Now, you are taking absolutely no time to do that now. It must be your way and it must be now.
Our most colossal failures generally come when we act quickly and do not think about what we are doing. Our economic downfall as a country will not be failing to pass a stimulus package. Rather, it will come by being reckless and passing something so big we cannot get out from under it. Maybe the best course of action is for the government to do nothing and allow this current economic 'crisis' to fix itself. It has worked in the past. It will work now.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Who is using the politics of fear now?
President Obama has an op-ed piece in today's Washington Post. He is looking to garner support for his economic stimulus bill. He looks for support by attempting to frighten the reader into supporting his economic plan. He says that every day that we fail to pass a stimulus plan, more people will lose their jobs, lose their savings, lose their homes, etc. (sounds like a country music song).
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
Anyway, he states that "...this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." He also rejected the thought that additional tax cuts are needed, saying that he rejects "those theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."
The first thing that troubles me is that he has no faith in the people of this country. Ronald Reagan had faith in the people of America when he came into office, and the economic times then were worse than they are now. Guess what? We dug out of a recession. It did not take new government programs and close to a trillion dollars in government spending to do so. It took a tax rate cut. It took de-regulation. It took the government removing the obstacles that stood in front of Americans. When the obstacles were not there, Americans could prosper. It is the freedom we had as people that made this country great. It is not the country that made its people great.
Second, he is overestimating his mandate as President. Yes, he did receive a majority of the votes cast on November 4th. Nothing I say or do will change that. People voted for this mystical idea of change that President Obama talked about. They thought he would make things different, make them better. However, what we are seeing now is not the change that people were searching for. People do not see the economy getting better simply because we have a new President. Just because people voted for change does not mean they want Obama's kind of change. This is what happens when people do not stop to kick the tires on something before they buy into it. It may look good on the outside, but it is not what they wanted on the inside.
Third, why does he think reliance on the government and/or government control of everything is a good thing? If he would have studied history, he would see that this has not worked throughout history. It is not working now. Also, people are seeing that government control is not necessarily a good thing. It gives away freedoms that we cherish. After all, the liberals did complain a lot over the Terrorist Surveillance Program while Bush was President. Obama's policies will interfere in everyone's lives, not just the lives of terrorists, so there is much more danger with his policies.
Fourth, he does not know how to deal with the fact that his views are unpopular. This has not happened to him before. Everyone is supposed to accept his views, his policies, his opinions without question. When all else fails, blame Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and talk radio. it can't be his fault.
Fifth, his stimulus plan is nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. It will do nothing to stimulate job growth. People are seeing this now. Too bad they did not see if before November 4th.
Here is the problem: We, as a country, got what we wanted in the form of a new President who wanted change. However, these same people who voted for him did not realize the ramifications of his policies at the time they voted for him. They are starting to see it now. Now that we got what we wanted, we could very well lose what we had.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
My Super Bowl Prediction
In the interest of full disclosure, I must first say that I am a lifelong fan of the Dallas Cowboys. They have been to 8 Super Bowls in their history, of which they have won 5 of them. This year, we find the Pittsburgh Steelers (5-1 record in the Super Bowl) and the Arizona Cardinals (proverbial doormat which has never been to the Super Bowl).
I am pulling for the Cardinals, and I do believe that they have a chance to win. They have a potent offense and a serviceable defense. The game will be won not with the Cardinals offense or the Pittsburgh defense. It will be won with either the Pittsburgh offense or Cardinals defense.
Keep in mind, the Giants were not supposed to even play a close game last year, much less win. Also, I do not want to see another team get to 6 Super Bowl wins before the Cowboys.
Cardinals 24
Steelers 17
I am pulling for the Cardinals, and I do believe that they have a chance to win. They have a potent offense and a serviceable defense. The game will be won not with the Cardinals offense or the Pittsburgh defense. It will be won with either the Pittsburgh offense or Cardinals defense.
Keep in mind, the Giants were not supposed to even play a close game last year, much less win. Also, I do not want to see another team get to 6 Super Bowl wins before the Cowboys.
Cardinals 24
Steelers 17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)